Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean
Subject: Re: questions of the Korean War
From: hnkst2+@pitt.edu (Hanhwe N Kim)
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:43:24 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

wenz@ucs.orst.edu (Wen Zongyao) writes:
>I recently saw a program of the Koeran War.
>I wonder why the U.S. didn't get a victory
>in that war.  The U.S. troops are much stronger
>than North Koeran and Chinese troops by the
>mean of equipments.  The same force with the 
>same general, General McArthur, defeated Japanese
>troops in the Pacific, but were frustrated by
>North Korean and China.

From what I have heard, the US were not as well-prepared or
equipped for the war when it occurred as it would seem. Their
military was drastically scaled down, and the US forces
in Japan were short on equipment as well as training and 
experience. While on paper they had much more guns, their equipment was
in poor condition. So they were NOT the same army that defeated the 
Japanese. The US forces improved as they mobilized their experienced 
reservists, and gained experience.

The South Korean army was built up almost from scratch with US weopons 
and training during the war.

The North Korean Army was both superbly trained and equipped at the
beginning but quickly lost their experienced soldiers and equipment
in the first year because of the intense fighting.

The Chinese made up for their lack of equipment with superior tactics
and training, especially in night time warfare. 

>Which side did most Korean people support?

If I was around during the war, I'd probably want the damn war to
stop. I'd think that is how most of the people felt. If you want to
get into numbers, the people who ran away from the North to the South
outnumbered the people who went the other way.

>Was the conflict between General McArthur and
>President Truman(spelling ?) a big cause of
>the non-victory ending?
The Americans had already suffered their biggest defeat at the
Yalu River when McArthur and Truman  began to really fight.
Both sides learned that they could not defeat the other (or 
should have if they hadn't been so stubborn and stupid) when each 
advanced deep into the others territory but found themselves overextended
( NK at Nakdong River, UN at Yalu River, and PRC at Wae-gwan ) resulting 
in severe losses. both sides had very skilled military forces by the
time they reached the current DMZ. I think it was due to poor quality 
of political leadership that caused a stalemated war to drag on for much 
longer than necessary. The Peace talks continued for almost 2 years while
both sides wasted lives over small hills along the DMZ.

>Did the U.S. force fight as hard as they did
>in the WWII?
I don't think you can compare in any meaningful way. The US
lost 30,000 men and spent huge sums of money in Korea. I don't
think they would have committed such forces if they knew that
they were not going to win beforehand. 

>Did North Korean and Chinese forces push the 
>U.S. force back by vast number of troops?
The military forces on both sides fought very well considering
the severe conditions. The NK and Chinese used their numerical
superiority to balance their lack of firepower while the US
and SK did vice versa.

>Should or shouldn't the U.S. enter the war if the UN
>didn't make a decision to help South Korean?
>Should or shouldn't China enter the war?
The war was costly and unrewarding for both the Chinese and
the US. Neither side could afford to lose and neither side
could afford what it would take to win. It was a war that should
have been prevented. The Americans already lost in the sense that
they would have to fight an essentially unwinnable war when the
NK forces invaded South and the Chinese lost when the US - SK forces
crossed the 38th Parallel into North Korea in the same sense.

>What was the reason of North Korean's invasion at
>the beginning of the war?  
They obviously thought they could win.
-Han Kim