Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Korea - The Forgotten War
BadNews    3/1/2007 10:48:19 AM
Recent erroneous postings in the Infantry section and the post about the Suez incident really got me thinking about a few things. The Korean war, often called 'The Forgotten War' was an amazing example of cooperation between allies. The sudden, overwhelming attack by the North which saw autrocities often forgotten like the North Koreans marching civilians over mine fields in order not to slow their advance, mass murder you name it, but yet a dedicated coalition that overcame adversity in it's truest sense. The Korean War was almost of WWIII proportions, and thrust the west against a CHicom army of overwhelming strength at a time when most nations were weary of war and in fact still were largely stocked with WW II hardware. Just look at the numbers. TROOP STRENGTHS Peak strength for the UNC was 932,964 on July 27, 1953 -- the day the Armistice Agreement was signed: Republic of Korea 590,911 Columbia 1,068 United States 302,483 Belgium 900 United Kingdom 14,198 South Africa 826 Canada 6,146 The Netherlands 819 Turkey 5,453 Luxembourg 44 Australia 2,282 Philippines 1,496 New Zealand 1,385 Thailand 1,204 Ethiopia 1,271 Greece 1,263 France 1,119 Even Sweden, had a few hundred that set up a field hospital that remained there until 1957 In light of recent events there now, how do you think the world would react if say a nuke was launched at South Korea
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
BadNews    Who provided forces by type   3/1/2007 10:56:25 AM

I. THE WAR

Duration of the Conflict: June 25th 1950— July 27th 1953 at 22OO hours. Participants : United Nations Military Forces versus North Korea and the People's Republic of China with political and material support of the Soviet Union.
Cause : Unprovoked attack by North-Korean military forces on the Republic Of  Korea (South Korea)

United Nations Forces: Army(A), Navy(N) and/or Air force(AF)

  • Australia (A,N,AF)
  • Belgium (A)
  • Canada (A,N,AF)
  • Colombia (A,N)
  • Ethiopia (A)
  • France (A,N)
  • Greece (A)
  • Luxembourg (A)
  • Netherlands(A,N)
  • New Zealand (A,N)
  • Philippines (A)
  • Thailand (A,N)
  • Turkey (A)
  • United States of America (A,N,AF)
  • United Kingdom (A,N,AF)
  • Union of South Africa (AF)

Medical Support: Denmark, India, Italy, Norway, Sweden, UK, USA.

 
Quote    Reply

scuttlebut steve    some questions about korea pt II   3/1/2007 4:32:32 PM
If china doesnt back north korea in an attack on the south, south korea ought to be able to kick the north's backwards butts with their much larger population, access to much more advanced weapons, and relatively gigantic economy.  As far as nukes go, some questions:  How many more does the north have?  How many more can they make?  Does the north have any delivery systems that are very difficult or impossible to defend against?  would china help them at all if the north attacks the south again?
 
Quote    Reply

Bigfella2    Forgotten Indeed   3/3/2007 3:09:25 AM
There is something else about Korea which is generally forgotten - it was as unpopular as Vietnam. Support for the war dropped dramatically following the Chinese intervention - when US casualties skyrocketed - and remained low as the war became locked in stalemate thereafter. Interestingly, some clever folk have plotted the popularity of both wars against their casualties. In both cases the rate of decline in support matched the rate of rise in casualties.
 
It is also forgotten that Eisenhower campaigned on his ability to bring peace. He promised to 'go to Korea' if necessary to get peace (note: that is peace, not victory). For conservatives who blame the media for the unpopularity of wars & treat anyone not bent on 'victory' as some sort of appeaser, Korea poses some awkward questions. 
 
Quote    Reply

kane       3/3/2007 3:26:51 AM

THE TURKISH BRIGADE


"The advance party of the Turkish Brigade or Turkish Armed Forces command, arrived in Pusan on 12 October 1950. The main body numbering 5190 troops arrived five days later, on 17 October. Brigadier General Tahzin Yazici commanded the brigade. Colonel Celal Dora was assistant Brigade Commander. When the main body arrived the brigade went into bivouac near Taegu where it underwent training and received U.S. equipment. The brigade was attached to the U.S. 25th infantry division so after limited training the brigade moved north to the Kaesong area to join the division.


The Turks in the Korean War

(The Turkish perspective from "The Korean War -- a short history by the Turkish War Veterans Association.)

The Turkish Brigade has been the subject of the world's praise, by showing a very superior combat capability which provided our state with honor through the successes it won one after another during the three year period of blood and fire starting from the hardest and most critical moment it entered the battlefield until the signing of the "Ceasefire" agreement. Because addressing all the battles of the Turkish Brigades, however briefly, will extend the subject, we will just suffice to list the battles fought and briefly address the most important ones.

The Turkish brigades, between the dates of November 1950 and July 1953, have fought the following battles the Kunuri diversion; the Kumyangjangni-Illi-431-639 -Imjin attacks; 22/23 April 1951; the Chorwon-Seoul diversion; the Taegyewonni defense; the Barhar-Kumhwa-701 attacks; and the Wegas defense battles. We will not just talk here about the battles accomplished by our Brigades--for the Turkish brigades have accomplished all their war tasks without default but about four important battles which affected the course of the war. And these are the battles of Kunuri, Kumjangjangni, Taegyewonni and Wegas.

The Kunuri Battle

The United Nations Forces started to attack on the morning of 24 November 1950, under the command of Five Star General Douglas MacArthur with the objective being the Yalu River (Border Line). At this time the Turkish Brigade was constituting the reserve force of the IXth Army Corps, 3.5 km. west southwest of the town of Kunuri. The attacks of the United Nations Forces had easily developed until the evening of 25 November. However the attacks of the Chinese which started as raids on the night of 25/26 November 1950, created great surprise and confusion at the fronts.

When morning came on 26 November it was understood that the Chinese Forces had penetrated the front of the II'nd South Korean Army Corps situated in the Central Segment of the front and that they had stalked behind the U.S. Divisions situated on the western segment of the front. Especially the Chinese Forces, advancing towards Tokchon from the area of the II (Second) South Korean Army Corps had started to threaten the Eighth Army and specifically the IXth (U.S.) Army Corps.

Therefore upon the IX Army Corps advance the Turkish Brigade on reserve against the forces threatening its eastern side and back. After dusk on 26 November the Turkish Brigade began to march by way of the Kunuri-Kaechon-Sinnimni-Wawon-Tokchon. The Brigade was given the task of capturing the town of Tokchon. The Turkish Brigade had started to advance towards the battlefield having undertaken a very rare and heavy war task which reserves could ever meet against disproportional enemy forces and under negative conditions.

Having spent the night in Wawon the Brigade restarted to march at 0530 in the morning (27 November). As the units were crossing the steep Karill Yon Mountain and as the Advance Guard were descending on the Tokchon Valley (1430 hrs) the Army Corps gave the order "Do not advance any further and get on the defensive on the line which you have reached." General Tahsin RAZICI having read in the order the seemingly innocent and unimportant news "If you do not have troops in Changsangni, our aircraft have identified a force about the size of a regiment whose nationality is unknown" perceived a danger and ordered the Turkish Brigade to get on the defensive not where the Army Corps ordered, but on the Wawon line 15 km, back west. General Yazici's decision would take the Turkish Brigade back from the point of destruction and bring it to a point which would preve

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Price of Victory   3/3/2007 11:59:53 AM
For conservatives who blame the media for the unpopularity of wars & treat anyone not bent on 'victory' as some sort of appeaser, Korea poses some awkward questions. 
 
Not questions. Lessons.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

BadNews       3/3/2007 11:56:50 PM

There is something else about Korea which is generally forgotten - it was as unpopular as Vietnam. Support for the war dropped dramatically following the Chinese intervention - when US casualties skyrocketed - and remained low as the war became locked in stalemate thereafter. Interestingly, some clever folk have plotted the popularity of both wars against their casualties. In both cases the rate of decline in support matched the rate of rise in casualties.

 

It is also forgotten that Eisenhower campaigned on his ability to bring peace. He promised to 'go to Korea' if necessary to get peace (note: that is peace, not victory). For conservatives who blame the media for the unpopularity of wars & treat anyone not bent on 'victory' as some sort of appeaser, Korea poses some awkward questions. 


There are no awkward`questions as I see it. But there was some serious deception by the chinese.
 
Mac Arthur was accused of provoking the chinese by marching north, generals under his command were opposed, the president (Truman) was opposed. Later after it was learned that 200,000 chinese regulars were in fact in north korea poised for an offensive, and 200,000 more were found to be on their way. Most the generals under Mac Arthur recanted and in fact said that it was in fact sound to advance. Most unfortunate for him, as by then he was alreadyu relieved, and the presedent that relieved him retired. The fact was that the Intellegence back in the states concerning China was wrong, and the intellegence that Mac Arthur had was correct.
 
You can not hide the fact that the North Koreans attacked the south in an unprovoked attack.
You can not dispute the fact that they murdered 100's of thousands of civilians, including marching civilians over minefields.
You can not hide the fact that the North Koreans murdered 100's of US POW's execution style not to mention executing 10,000+ South Korean POW's
 
At the beginning of the Korean War, we were still morning millions killed in WW II, we were told that the end of WWII would end all wars. (One of the greatest public lies ever told)
 
In any war, as casualties grow, public support wanes there is nothing unusual or percarious about that at all.
 
Your hidden implication with respect to our current war is obvious as well. Your apparant lack of understanding of what peace really is obvious as well.
 
Through out history, diplomacy has never averted war, ever, it may have slowed the onset, but there are always those who want power by any means. Diplomacy is viewed by tyrants as weakness, and tyrants will always seize weakness as a means to acheive their ends. It is always the good in heart that tire of war, never the aggressor.
 
North Korea with real support from China, and logistical support from the soviets was clearly an aggressor that needed to be stopped. At that point, it was fighting the spread of communism, in vietnam, that might be debatable, but in Korea, it definately was not.
 


 
 
Quote    Reply

BadNews    kane   3/4/2007 12:04:12 AM
Kane,
 
I have read this before, I have also read several accounts by US Generals that praised the Turkish brigade for their actions. The actions of the Turkish Brigade in Korea IMHO should be raked high among stories of true heroism and valor for centuries to come. TY for your post, I sincerely hope that it enlightens all who read it
 
Quote    Reply

AdamB       3/4/2007 6:52:48 AM
Republic of Korea 590,911
Columbia 1,068
United States 302,483
Belgium 900
United Kingdom 14,198
South Africa 826
Canada 6,146
The Netherlands 819
Turkey 5,453
Luxembourg 44
Australia 2,282
Philippines 1,496
New Zealand 1,385
Thailand 1,204
Ethiopia 1,271
Greece 1,263
France 1,119
 
I'm not surprised that France was one of the smallest contributors.
 
Even back then it was reluctant to send troops abroad.
 
Quote    Reply

Bigfella2       3/4/2007 8:12:36 AM

Republic of Korea 590,911
Columbia 1,068
United States 302,483
Belgium 900
United Kingdom 14,198
South Africa 826
Canada 6,146
The Netherlands 819
Turkey 5,453
Luxembourg 44
Australia 2,282
Philippines 1,496
New Zealand 1,385
Thailand 1,204
Ethiopia 1,271
Greece 1,263
France 1,119

 

I'm not surprised that France was one of the smallest contributors.

 

Even back then it was reluctant to send troops abroad.



Republic of Korea 590,911
Columbia 1,068
United States 302,483
Belgium 900
United Kingdom 14,198
South Africa 826
Canada 6,146
The Netherlands 819
Turkey 5,453
Luxembourg 44
Australia 2,282
Philippines 1,496
New Zealand 1,385
Thailand 1,204
Ethiopia 1,271
Greece 1,263
France 1,119

 

I'm not surprised that France was one of the smallest contributors.

 

Even back then it was reluctant to send troops abroad.


 
It is truly depressing to see such a public display of ignorance & prejudice. A few points:
 
1) These are numbers at the Armistice, they do not represent total numbers committed. France actually contributed about 4000 ground troops & 12 naval vessels.
 
2) France was just 5 years on from the occupation & destruction of WW2. It is worth remembering that France suffered considerably more death, destruction & general disruption than did Britain or the US (the US suffered more deaths, but it was less than double for a population about 3x that of France). France had to rebuild her military, economy & political system from the ground up while managing all the divisions brought out by 5 years of occupation. If not for that stretch of water between Dover & Calais, Britain would probably have been in just as bad shape.
 
3) It may have escaped your notice, but France was a tad preoccupied during the period 1950-1953. She had just brutally suppressed a revolt in Madagascar (1947-48); Was fighting an uprising in Tunisia (1952-56); was confronting the first hints of the unrest that would become the Algerian War of Independence (started 1954); and was fighting a war you may remotely have heard of in Indochina. This latter conflict alone occupied over 500,000 French troops during its course. Indeed, France was so broke & lacking in military equipment that America had to stump up 90% of the money. The war cost the lives of 94,000 French Union soldiers - about the same as US losses in Korea & Vietnam combined, and considerably more than any postwar UK losses. This, combined with the need to conscript soldiers for the war mafde it increasingly unpopular in France.
 
In short, France was hardly in a position where a large contribution of forces could be expected.
 
As for your general attitude to French deployment of troops overseas, it simply reinforces the impression that you are ill-informed. French forces have popped up all over the world in the past 60 years. Granted, many of these deployments were to save her withering Empire, but the same is true for the UK. I seem to recall significant French comtributions to Suez & the first Gulf War and a French contribution to the recent invasion of Afghanistan. French troops have been regular visitors to conflict zones in Africa, even after de-colonization. I also recall a lot of French troops in the former Yugoslavia on UN duty. Indeed, if I recall correctly the French were the ones straining at the leash to send in troops to end the conflict & save Bosnian civilians, while the US & UK in particular urged caution...until it was too late.
 
There is no shortage of reasons to dislike the French, just as there is no shortage of reasons to dislike the English or Americans. No need to make stuff up or take cheap shots based on ignorance.    
 
Quote    Reply

the British Lion    Bigfella2   3/4/2007 1:17:05 PM
"If not for that stretch of water between Dover & Calais, Britain would probably have been in just as bad shape."
 
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, it's just the above quote is one of my major pet peeves. The English Channel didn't save us, the R.A.F., R.N., and the lack of a feesible invasion plan by the Germans saved us. If you take away the English Channel, you change a whole lot of history going back some 2000 years... take away the Channel, and maybe it would be fascist British tanks rolling into Berlin; who knows? Hitler mightn't have even been born!
 
No disrespect meant Bigfella, I just had to say something.
 
Reguards,
 
B.L.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics