5 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Historical perspective...

 

Gen. MacArthur witnessed Trump-style ‘fire and fury’ in Korea, and it sickened him

 

Having just been fired as commander of allied forces in Korea, a defiant Douglas MacArthur appeared before Congress and spoke of human suffering so horrifying that his parting glimpse of it caused him to vomit.

 

“I have never seen such devastation,” the general told members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. At that time, in May 1951, the Korean War was less than a year old. Casualties, he estimated, were already north of 1 million.

 

“I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living man,” he added, “and it just curdled my stomach.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/10/what-president-trump-can-learn-about-fire-and-fury-from-gen-macarthurs-korean-war-horror/?utm_term=.b8ba6c49fcb4

Yes and he was fired for arguing with Truman about wanting to pursue to Chinese across the border and finish China too. I guess he hadn't seen enough yet

3 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

With America preoccupied with a North Korean battle, this will happen:

China will enter Taiwan and completely take over Hong Kong

Russia will enter the Balkans again and take over the 3 countries there

India and Pakistan will press buttons

Nato countries will be left to defend Europe.

Turkey will join the Russian faction

The internet will be shut down completely to avoid information and leads

ZERO tourists will come to Thailand

The world economy will collapse

 

Seriously folks, it looks pretty dire to me.

1

You have what one would call a positive and optimist mind, really! 

A surgical elimination of the loon may backfire, as the arsenal pointing at S.K. could still easily be unleashed.

A major strike (nuclear or otherwise) is very unlikely to have the desired result.

With the US acting like the "Bad Cop", it may be best for China to come in and play "Good Cop" and calm this thing down.

This could placate the loon, allow Trump to save face, and give China some political currency.

The North Koreans will never give up their program. This is an impoverished, authoritarian country, and this is their insurance policy. At same time, they will never use it. They know it will be the end. And they’re not suicidal.”

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-way-the-way-out-of-trumps-ad-lib-war-with-north-korea

 

Well, as long as the USA doesn't shoot first. Let NK kill millions with its military first; then act.

The US, European and Israeli arms dealers are getting a sex drive on this potential cataclysm!

Any new Korean war could quickly escalate to catastrophe.

 

....and we need "former U.S. defence officials and experts" to tell us this? Talk about stating the bleeding obvious.

Diplomacy is needed.  Trump and Pence should fly out to Pyongyang ASAP to cut us a deal.  

25 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Diplomacy is needed.  Trump and Pence should fly out to Pyongyang ASAP to cut us a deal.  

They can't both go for security reasons.

.....on 2nd thought....

22 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

With America preoccupied with a North Korean battle, this will happen:

China will enter Taiwan and completely take over Hong Kong

Russia will enter the Balkans again and take over the 3 countries there

India and Pakistan will press buttons

Nato countries will be left to defend Europe.

Turkey will join the Russian faction

The internet will be shut down completely to avoid information and leads

ZERO tourists will come to Thailand

The world economy will collapse

 

Seriously folks, it looks pretty dire to me.

Hysterical much?

19 hours ago, tonray said:

Yes and he was fired for arguing with Truman about wanting to pursue to Chinese across the border and finish China too. I guess he hadn't seen enough yet

                    In the 1950's, The Chinese came charging over the Yalu River into N.Korea to assist the N.Koreans.  They immediately became enemy forces from the US/coalition perspective.  Yet US forces were not allowed, by Truman, to deal with their HQ/supply/command centers on the Chinese side of the border.   A general can't effectively fight a war if he is not allowed to attack/disable the enemy.  

 

                         I don't agree with the reasons the US went to war in Korea.  I think the US should have stayed out of it, and stayed out of VN for the same reasons.  The basic reasons the US jumped into both those wars, feet first, was to try to stop the spread of Communism and to further US corporate interests.  None of those goals were met in either war (except maybe for S.Korea).   Yet, once the US is committed to war, it should fight to win.  In Korea, in the 1950's, McArthur had one hand tied behind his back, as mentioned in the paragraph, above.

 

 

2 hours ago, Credo said:

They can't both go for security reasons.

.....on 2nd thought....

Exactly.  

 

Well, it was worth a try. 

Edited August 12, 20178 yr by ChidlomDweller

On 8/11/2017 at 1:25 PM, tonray said:

Yes and he was fired for arguing with Truman about wanting to pursue to Chinese across the border and finish China too. I guess he hadn't seen enough yet

Yes but maybe because he studied Patton who wanted to pursue the Russians over the border and finish them too. Remember how that ended. Guess politicians might not understand combat quite as well as 1 might be lead to believe.

On 8/11/2017 at 1:25 PM, tonray said:

Yes and he was fired for arguing with Truman about wanting to pursue to Chinese across the border and finish China too. I guess he hadn't seen enough yet

He did not pursue the Chinese to the border. He pursued the North Koreans to the border. And that's when China entered the war.

12 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Yes but maybe because he studied Patton who wanted to pursue the Russians over the border and finish them too. Remember how that ended. Guess politicians might not understand combat quite as well as 1 might be lead to believe.

Yes because the battle-hardened Russian Army would have been a pushover.

 

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

He did not pursue the Chinese to the border. He pursued the North Koreans to the border. And that's when China entered the war.

Yes because the battle-hardened Russian Army would have been a pushover.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865616489/This-week-in-history-China-enters-the-Korean-War.html

 

A little added reading for you. IF Patton had been allowed to pursue the Russians they wouldn't have been in the position to replenish their economy by selling weapons to China making then capable of helping NK. IF MacArthur hadn't had to fight with his hands tied and not been given bad intel, we wouldn't be dealing with The Little Fat Man today. 

24 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865616489/This-week-in-history-China-enters-the-Korean-War.html

 

A little added reading for you. IF Patton had been allowed to pursue the Russians they wouldn't have been in the position to replenish their economy by selling weapons to China making then capable of helping NK. IF MacArthur hadn't had to fight with his hands tied and not been given bad intel, we wouldn't be dealing with The Little Fat Man today. 

Assuming Patton would have been successful. A very big assumption. And what if the USA had gotten bogged down in a huge war? What would have been the repercussions of that?

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Assuming Patton would have been successful. A very big assumption. And what if the USA had gotten bogged down in a huge war? What would have been the repercussions of that?

we STILL wouldn't be dealing with the little fat man today. :)

12 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

we STILL wouldn't be dealing with the little fat man today. :)

Well you might persuade me if you could that we wouldn't have the big fat man today. That said, apparently your criterion for judging American foreign policy 70 years ago is whether or not it would have led to North Korea having nuclear weapons. Perhaps if America had been tied down in another war in Europe there wouldn't be a South Korea today. Your kind of analysis goiing backwards and then projecting 70 years into the future is laughably tendentious.

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Perhaps if America had been tied down in another war in Europe there wouldn't be a South Korea today.

As Patton's plan was set to be launched BEFORE the end of America's occupation of Europe, he would have armed the countries liberated and employed their help. With well over 100,000 tons of resources still on European soil, he could have launch his attack, taken down Moscow and potentially cause the break up of the USSR years earlier.

Either way, he'd have won in a year or less so still free to help SK.

30 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

...

Either way, he'd have won in a year or less so still free to help SK.

That is completely ludicrous.  The Soviet army was some 6.5 million with over 50 tank divisions and having fought the Germans back and forth a cross Eastern Europe for 3 years was the most battled hardened army in the world. The US forces was about 1.9 million with many less tanks, fast becoming demoralized realizing many were on the way to Japan and a well known preference by that time of avoiding combat to keep casualties down.

 

To think it could have beaten Russia in year is amazing revisionist history. The most likely outcome would have been Soviet dominance of all of Europe.  Or the use of American nuclear weapons in western Europe to avoid a catastrophe. 

TH 

27 minutes ago, thaihome said:

That is completely ludicrous.  The Soviet army was some 6.5 million with over 50 tank divisions and having fought the Germans back and forth a cross Eastern Europe for 3 years was the most battled hardened army in the world. The US forces was about 1.9 million with many less tanks, fast becoming demoralized realizing many were on the way to Japan and a well known preference by that time of avoiding combat to keep casualties down.

 

To think it could have beaten Russia in year is amazing revisionist history. The most likely outcome would have been Soviet dominance of all of Europe.  Or the use of American nuclear weapons in western Europe to avoid a catastrophe. 

TH 

You're still not taking into account the full scope by making the numbers only US vs USSR. It would have been US + Europe vs USSR.

On 8/11/2017 at 3:37 AM, timendres said:

A surgical elimination of the loon may backfire, as the arsenal pointing at S.K. could still easily be unleashed.

A major strike (nuclear or otherwise) is very unlikely to have the desired result.

With the US acting like the "Bad Cop", it may be best for China to come in and play "Good Cop" and calm this thing down.

This could placate the loon, allow Trump to save face, and give China some political currency.

And like clockwork...

 

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

You're still not taking into account the full scope by making the numbers only US vs USSR. It would have been US + Europe vs USSR.

You do realize you are [unsurprisingly]  parroting John Birch society propaganda from the 1950's as part of the anti Roosevelt/New Deal movement claiming they had given away Eastern Europe at Yalta (and lost China as well). 

 

Simple Google search will give you the real facts. There was a plan for a limited attack on the Red Army in Eastern Europe 1945/6 in an attempt to "save" Poland. Patton was all for it. He was just about the only one that was. 

 

The conclusions of that plan:

Quote

 

 Finally, as the plan itself points out, the notion of a limited war with the Soviet Union was manifestly unrealistic. 

The plan points out that the US and Britain would be outnumbered 2 to 1 in armored divisions, 4 to 1 in infantry and the US and British air forces were untried against the Soviet air forces. 

Finally, the plan points out the strategic dilemma that any European invasion of Russia has; the farther the invasion advances into Russia, the greater front the invader has to cover. A numerically inferior invader would necessarily weaken and become vulnerable the farther he advanced into Russia. 

https://www.quora.com/What-would-have-happened-if-the-US-had-attacked-the-USSR-in-1945

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20101116152301/http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/11/a-view-from-the-fringe
 

 

Ludicrous ?

TH 

 

Edited August 14, 20178 yr by thaihome

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

You're still not taking into account the full scope by making the numbers only US vs USSR. It would have been US + Europe vs USSR.

You mean the mighty economies of the UK, France, Germany etc. You think after enduring all those years of war the people of Europe were going to line up to attack the Soviet Union?

Trump is about to destroy the entire Asian continent and you guys are arguing about history.  Geez.

38 minutes ago, casper54 said:

Trump is about to destroy the entire Asian continent and you guys are arguing about history.  Geez.

You mean our discussions in this forum are actually going to have a material effect on the Korean situation if we just focus them properly.  Mom is going to be so proud of the important role I'm about to play in world affairs.

23 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

You mean the mighty economies of the UK, France, Germany etc. You think after enduring all those years of war the people of Europe were going to line up to attack the Soviet Union?

Since all 90% of Europe had ran and hid, "enduring" the war was all they did.

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Since all 90% of Europe had ran and hid, "enduring" the war was all they did.

You realize Russia is in Europe right?

 

You realize that without Russia winning the eastern front WWII was lost right?

Funny debate here. US troops had about zero chance of getting as far as USSR territory let alone capturing Moscow back then lol. The other around - for sure. Soviets could have gone all the way to lamanche and got themselves entrenched there, had they any desire to do so. US forces were more likely to successfully invade Mars than USSR with that army that they had back then.

 

Nukes weren't going to help the Americans either - nukes in those days had lower yield than some conventional payloads these days - that wouldn't even put a dent in the Soviet armies stretched across millions of square km in continental Europe back then..

14 hours ago, Nilats said:

Funny debate here. US troops had about zero chance of getting as far as USSR territory let alone capturing Moscow back then lol. The other around - for sure. Soviets could have gone all the way to lamanche and got themselves entrenched there, had they any desire to do so. US forces were more likely to successfully invade Mars than USSR with that army that they had back then.

 

Nukes weren't going to help the Americans either - nukes in those days had lower yield than some conventional payloads these days - that wouldn't even put a dent in the Soviet armies stretched across millions of square km in continental Europe back then..

Funny, that's not the opinion of the Japanese back then.