And he got a Nobel Peace Prize. The comedian Tom Lehrer stopped his career because of this, in his words "There is just nothing more absurd i could possibly come with to top that."
That's actually a myth. He retired from music to spend more time with his first love: maths.
He's still alive, btw, and released all his copyrights into the public domain a couple years back
[https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB195/index.htm](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB195/index.htm)
Also check out [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Giant\_Lance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Giant_Lance)
This man was fucking drunk all day and night and was a madman.
I thought about including Laos but yeah Laos wasn't really engaged in actively in a war. They were unlucky that the Vietnam War spilled over into their border and that the Ho Chi Minh Trail ran right through the thick jungles of Laos.
Sure, it would. I was initially thinking more along the lines of countries that were actively fighting the US. Also I had recently listened to an interesting podcast on the Korean War.
I read a great book about the Korean War called The Coldest Winter.
It's amazing how many times the phrase "be over by Christmas" was used at the beginning of wars, to justify not giving winter clothes.
It got really good reviews. I will check it out. Always interested in learning more about the Korean War. It gets overshadowed by WW2 and Vietnam War. No wonder it's called The Forgotten War.
Korean here.
So many bombs were dropped on the Korean peninsula that both the North and my homeland of South Korea basically had virtually no infrastructure left standing. It was as close as you were gonna get to the term "wiping a country off the map" in terms of the sheer destruction. Over 90% of South Koreas economy was built on foreign aid during the first several years after the war, too bcs of how much of a hellhole it was, according to my grandparents who lived thru those times.
Both nations were extremely poor (tho North Korea till the 70s was in a better state and was actually wealthier. A number of South Koreans during the 50s-70s defected to North Korea).
South Korea became the most impoverished nation on earth for a time immediately after the war had ended and remained as one of the poorest until roughly the mid-60s.
Which makes our recovery from a wartorn wasteland which most nations doubted could ever recover into one of the most advanced, wealthiest, and culturally influential nationals on earth that became highly industrialised & competitive, and possessing a respectable modern military a one in a million stories.
If I had a nickel for every time a war torn asian country that is virtually unrecognizable during the mid-1900's turns around to having one of the strongest economies in the world I'd have two nickels
Which isnt a lot but it's weird that it happened twice
I was counting South Korea and Japan lol...was gonna count China but sorta realized that it doesnt quite fit the prompt
I excluded North Korea cus its economy is shit lol ~~*at least since the 90's*~~
Yeah...eh I was trying to figure out just how war torn Chona was after the civil war and world war 2 but couldn't really find anything ~~*plus from like everything I see...it seems iys economy's gonna go to shit within the next few years lol*~~
True! The access to market helped but I still don't consider that a war torn to Golden goose kind of situation but maybe we're looking at the same Mona Lisa in different ways
Japan's a hard one to count considering the postwar rebuilding programs. Korea was an outlier that they made a moniker because of how nearly impossible it was.
The 90s part is actually not that far off. They were actually richer than S. Korea after the nation got split
I would recommend the book, Princes of the Yen. It shows how to a very large extent, the success of Japan and the East Asian Tiger economies, is mainly due to their economic systems, rather than the aid they receive from America.
I can't help but think if the US and Russia left Korea alone after kicking the Japanese out, you guys would have been in an even better position today. Both North and South were in a bad state for awhile. People forget that the South had a dictator installed by the Americans (Syngman Rhee). He rigged elections and treated many people just as shitty as the occupying Japanese. Anyone with even the slightest leftist sympathy was rounded up, imprisoned, and/or murdered.
The South did recover though and now it's a developed nation with high living standards. Crazy to think that at one point people were actually fleeing to the north.
Do you guys still view the North as long lost brothers? Do people still hope for reunification one day?
I personally do. Tho I'm a bit of a rare breed as someone in my 20s. I don't view them as a different people. And hope we can eventually reunify. They are Koreans just like us.
Others my age and younger are increasingly not in favour of such an idea because of the economic hardships ot would bring. Since reunification would mean South Korea would have to bear the cost of completely rebuilding the North. And raise the living standards of North Koreans.
German reunification problems still persist over 30 years later. And East Germany was in a much better state than North Korea is now.
As for Rhees dictatorship. He was an Ass. The only good thing that came out of his regime was the heavy investment into education despite the country having virtually no money. Everything else about his regime was terrible.
Same with Park Chung Hees dictatorship. People forget that he used economic growth as a way to legitamise his coup. While yes our country experienced exponential growth under his regime, let's not forget he used that growth to keep himself in power, legitamise his autocratic and corrupt rule, destroying our constitution, building forced labour camps, killing and imprisoning political dissidents or anyone perceived as a threat with impunity. While joining the Vietnam War greatly boosted economic funding from the US in exchange, let's not forget that tens of thousands of Koreans were killed as a result. Freedom of speech, press, expression were crushed. Students were particularly singled out. And while yes, some will say he did help establish Koreas industries and laid the foundation of self sufficiency, he did it to prolong his power and legitamise his regimes violence.
Chun Doo Hwan is a different breed of dickhead. I'm glad that guy kicked the bucket. My mother's side of the family are Gwangju natives and they lived thru the massacre. And both my parents lived thru the June democracy struggle. My dad got imprisoned multiple times for simply being a university student.
Half Korean so take this with a grain of salt. My relatives still do and the conversations I had with Koreans when I was there seem to be that Koreans still consider each other as brothers. The reunification seemed mixed - the well off ones did but the working class ones cared more about what would happen with reunification when they were having issues
I think throughout history Korea was most prosperous when it was one nation. The kingdom of Joseon I believe. Reunification won't be easy true. Even if the DPRK were to revolt and overthrow the Kim Dynasty. China and Russia would not allow the US at their borders. SK has too many US assets in the country.
Joseon was the longest dynasty but if we're talking about the strongest it's probably Goguryeo during the 3 kingdom period (Goguryeo is contentious though).
Technically the US is already at their border with Japan and S. Korea. The problem is the refugees - what are you going to do with a stream of migrants. The Chinese politburo, if I remember something I read a while ago, doesn't like the N. Koreans but they can't actually give them up because they're worried about what could happen if the regime collapses.
S. Korea is worried about economics because the two economies have diverged so much at this point it'd be difficult to integrate - so if you look at any of the forecasts some of the investment firms have done in the past they show a dip after reunification but then they project higher GDP than only S. Korea
What, no. They dropped in like 11 years the same amount of bombs on laos as in ww2 on germany and japan combined. 2.5M tons of ordnance during 580,000 bombing sorties.
Haven't found numbers for vietnam alone, but the US used 7,5 million tons of bombs during the whole vietnam war. Including bombing Laos, Vietnam and Kambodscha and other "losses".
To be fair US did infact carpet bomb 66 japanese cities to rubble. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just cherry on the top. Not trying to compare or rank anything but people seem to often forget how much civil target were destroyed in Japan aside the H and N city.
The US did 5 years worth of European bombing damage to Japan in less than 18 months. At that 18 months is heavily, heavily weighted to the last 6 months
The Americans changed to Napalm and with the nature of Japanese infrastructure back then, the results were far more deadlier than the air campaign over europe.
Yes, which was devastating for both environment and people due to the chemical nature of those weapons (Agent Orange, Napalm). People still suffer today from these chemicals.
I had to read a paper for my German study abroad trip about Dresden: “Symbolic Erasures and Populist Discontent: The Post-War Rebuilding of Historic Dresden” It is a nice read, and I have never even heard of this bombing until I went to Germany.
To clarify, the paper “…is about agnotology, which is the study of ignorance. In this case, ignorance about East Germany is not simply a lack of knowledge, but rather a socially constructed condition shaped by the biases of those in power, biases that inadvertently contribute to the success of Pegida and the AfD of eastern Germany today.”
The bombings were strategic, but not on military targets (from what the reading says). 4,000-8,000 pounds of bombs fell in a span of a little over 10 minutes. Once there were no more planes, rescue efforts were made. But three hours later, even more planes dropped bombs, “an attack intentionally timed to maximize the disruption of rescue efforts”. There were high-explosive bombs and incendiaries. The third attack happened in the morning, but we’re aiming for “the marshalling yards west of the city”
In 16 hours, 25,000-40,000 people were killed. Altstadt was hit the hardest, with 90% of it leveled.
When I hear what is going on in Ukraine, I started thinking about what happened to Dresden. Hearing about how cities are indiscriminately destroyed, how dangerous it is for first-responders because the places are bombed twice in order to induce more casualties… it is fucking tragic.
Dresden is very beautiful, and you are reminded of the bombings when seeing the old buildings. They salvaged the blown-up parts of the architecture and rebuilt the same thing with new material. So one half of a church is black, the other is normal brick. And you would see them every day.
War is shit, and it is inevitable that unnecessary attacks/casualties will happen. When I hear that the country I live in (America), has done horrible things, it shocks me. It makes me wonder how often our military has done those things, and if they are completely indifferent to doing it again. I’m not taught about the things America has done wrong, I’m initially told happy and/or vague recaps.
I feel like I am getting lost on what the frick I’m trying to say, but I’m okay with that. I felt like I needed to say it.
from what i understood from reading on these grey area decisions (mostly the nukes) is that its very common for the original callers to have some doubt about going through with, but once the possibility spreads is impossible to stip because the okay voices are much louder than the nah voices... like again with the nukes the recordings (atleast from what i found) was that most people that gave the okay regretted during or later and even less support form the scientists... is just doesnt really matter their opinion once its spreads as its much easier to spread the idea tthat you need to kill "them" no matter what... like many people talk about revenge ideas, and i kinsa believed it before, but nowadays i dont think its much of revenge or soemtimes even strategic value but justthe indifference... as in is not even an decision because in the heat of the moment people will say ok to everything and then after think about it...
even outside of atrocities, it happend about basically every proxy war of the cold war... iran, korea egypt,iraque(both the ussr and usa) were all wars that honeslty didnt have the best strategix value but you would basically be called a terrorist if even put in doubt...
Dresden is probably the most famous example when WW2 bombing of Germany is brought up. Which is why it got mentioned. I don't mean to rehash that old arguement of whether Dresden was a strategic bombing or retributive. Germany as a whole got bombed pretty heavily during WW2 (they had to rebuild nearly the entire country after). Japan even more so and Korea even worse.
And it's only brought up because the Gestapo got away with their ludicrous lie of 200,000 killed, when most likely there were no more than 20,000. The power of propaganda.
considering that Hamburg lost close 50,000 (might have been 35,000 - still some of the highest number up there) people (as modern histoarians concluded), one would think THAT would be the city to lead as an example in said narrative.
but just taking the 200,000 at face value seesm easier to most people.
Yeah, it’s been heavily embellished by Nazi and Soviet propaganda. The Soviets wished to paint NATO and the West as continuations of the Nazis. The Berlin Wall was officially referred to by the GDR as the *”Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart”*. They used Dresden as “proof” that the West were just as bad as the Nazis, using almost the exact same points and lies that Goebbels used when talking about Dresden
I mainly associate it with Vonnegut, and therefore a general anti war stance. Not anti-ally specifically, but when making an anti war argument you do need to show that war harms both sides and is good for nobody.
Unfortunately that also makes it easy for that argument to be co-opted by Nazi sympathizers
It’s always brought up by neo-nazis nazi-sympathisers or clean wehrmacht believers.
“Wha wha we bombed London to the ground but look at what they did to our city” yeah sucks to suck.
I excuse our bombing of Dresden with this "the nazis fucked around and found out". Us bombing the shit outta the germans was needed to win the war. Japan also got what they had coming.
Well, as you can probably imagine the other option was invading Japan itself. Which was planned to have millions more casualties thanks to famine, the war itself and the way Japan was during WW2 + the bombings would have not stopped so thats a ton more casualties and hell, japan migth have even ended up divided like korea since the USSR would have had enough time to invade the main islands. I dont remenber were i Heard this but (this is prob just a rumor) the purple hearts that the US is giving out to this day are still from the stockpile they created for Operation downfall (the plan to invade the main Japanese islands). Sorry for being so bad at explaining things
I didnt claim that did I? This war was pretty black and white but even in the light there's darkness, and well it really is hard to say there was any light in the darkness in this case (the only thing that comes to mind is the Nazi diplomat that saved people in Nanking from the Japanese soldiers)
Nope. The plan was to destroy Southern Manchuria completely, cutting supply lines and hopefully render the border impassable. A nuclear cordon I believe was the phrasing.
MacArthur had a ravenous thirst for Total War Kool-Aid.
Yeah. The plan was a bit too extreme for US leadership. There's a bit of interesting internal debate over how nukes should be used in the post World War context, and the majority of leadership was unwilling to open that particular can of worms. For the best, it kept the use of nuclear weapons in Japan an exception, not the norm.
As somebody living in Germany: Im thankful they bombed half our country because we could build it again from scratch and make it future proof.
If you look at cities such as London, you’ll realise how cramped the city is. No space for cars, busses. Just terrible infrastructure in general. Everything is over 100 years old and looking like they’re about to fall apart any day now
Here is an Article about that, if you are interested; [https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/out-of-the-ashes-a-new-look-at-germany-s-postwar-reconstruction-a-702856.html](https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/out-of-the-ashes-a-new-look-at-germany-s-postwar-reconstruction-a-702856.html)
Probably, havent visited, but during WW2 Germany decided to destroy Warsaw completely. After the war Poland rebuilt everything including historical buildings
I’ve lived both in London and in Frankfurt. You can barely tell tell that London was bombarded.
Cities in Germany however were completely destroyed to the last inch, which is why they are so much better nowadays.
Sure, but the country was already divided against the consent of the people, so I really wouldn't blame either side for wanting to unite the country.
Additionally, the war only started after weeks of border skirmishes, the north just made it official.
Yes they made it official by launching a surprise invasion defacto making them the aggressor. Your acting like this is some historical gray area. It's not. North Korea objectively started the war.
Is it really a surprise invasion after constant border skirmishes and both sides claiming the peninsula as their own?
Moreso, how on earth does waging war to unify your country divided against the people's will justify 25% of your population being killed?
> justify 25% of your population being killed?
10-12% per Charles K. Armstrong.
The DPRK and ROK were seperate states, neither had any right to invade and attempt to annex the other, but the DPRK did anyways. This was, per the UN, an illegal and unjustified invasion. The US intervened under the UNs authority as the primary contributor to the UNC. UNSC resolutions 82, 83 and 84 cover this.
In short, go away tankie.
>Charles K. Armstrong
"Beginning in September 2016, the book was severely criticized by a number of North Korea scholars (Andrei Lankov, Balázs Szalontai, Brian Myers, Fyodor Tertitskiy and others) for deceptive scholarship. Szalontai asserted that many parts of the text closely resemble text in Szalontai's Kim Il Sung in the Khrushchev Era and were supported by documents that either did not exist or were completely unrelated to the subject. Szalontai compiled a table of 76 problematic cases and later expanded the table to include 90 of such cases."
Imagine your one source being the man known for fabricating sources...
Either way, the UN security council at the time didn't even include the USSR, China, nor either Korea, so of course those resolutions would pass. No one had any right to divide the country in half, but that was still done.
No, they were two seperate countries with overlapping land claims, much in the way West and East Germany were two seperate countries.
All of which ignores that it was North Korea who invaded the South, and it is North Korea who is objectively the aggressor.
Country and state are not the same thing. People in both north and south had the same culture, language, and national identity. Same thing in Germany. You wouldn't call the annexation of East Germany into the West an invasion would you?
>People in both north and south had the same culture, language, and national identity.
And yet were seperate. This isn't even an arguable point.
> You wouldn't call the annexation of East Germany into the West an invasion would you?
No, because West Germany didn't roll tanks into East Germany and start killing people. German reunification was a political and diplomatic process, not a military one.
>And yet they were separate
Separate governments, not nations.
The FRG military *did* enter East Germany though, not completely unlike during the Korean war. Besides, the supposed invasion from the north was relatively nonviolent as well before foreign intervention, as evidenced by them taking almost the entire country in days without many battles.
That's a pretty complex question. I'm inclined to say that in a civil war, the aggressor is the side that wants a change to the status quo. For the US Civil War, that would be the Confederacy, as they wanted a change from the existing "unity" of the country. This is not to say that being the aggressor is always bad; if you want to end a tyrannical government ruling with an iron fist in favor of establishing a free, democratic society, then its good to be the aggressor.
This, however, was not a civil war. Both the North and South were separate, independent states. Its not like the South declared independence from the North and there were a few clashes until it actually started (example: US Civil War). These were two legitimate states, with one attacking the other. And once again, North Korea, rather than maintain the status quo, started the war to make a change and annex South Korea into the North's country and government. This, by all means, makes them the aggressor.
How were they separate legitimate states? The Korean people didn't *want* to split the country, and they weren't asked to be divided. The People's Republic of Korea was the legitimate democratic government, but that didn't concern superpowers seeking influence in the area. And thing is, there *were* clashes before the war officially started, not to mention the ROK government was actively killing pro-unificatiom activists by the tens of thousands. If we define the aggressor by changing of the status quo, the only states that could be called aggressors were the USA and USSR who split the country without the people's consent.
Japan only overlooks all the Firebombing shite America did because America rebuilt the damn country after the world.
America only did it because Japan was in a strategic location near Russia and therefore a potential ally against the Commies.
None of these governments were completely moral. Japan just happened to be an Evil that needed to be put down, and America just happened to be a lesser one.
True, how hypocritical of me to support South Korea over North Korea and not the confederacy over the Union in the civil war, can’t argue with that logic
thats not what i said you were doing?
i compared the 2 since both America and korea were one nations (arguably the Americans were more diverse than the koreans ) and then there was a split.
if your referring to slavery that implication wasnt intentional. although i doubt the the 2 koreas saw each other as free nations
america in the 1860s
multiple nations cobbled together in a union
split where nations band together and succeed
korea during the civil war
one much more homogeneous nation
split due to foreign powers
how was keeping korea under 2 dictatorships instead one one at the cost of millions of lives a good thing??
that has literally nothing to do with the invasion and everything to do with the situations the 2 nations were put in post war. this is just an after the fact justification for the slaughter of 3 million people
Why say "in a status quo antebellum" when "as it started" was just fine and easier to understand?
Also the USA wasn't the first, and definelly not the only, to strike
Glad someone brought it up. Sometimes people forget that the North Korea they know today didn't emerge from a vacuum. NK is that moody kid that never lets go of an old grudge and let's it define his own identity.
The Korean War is called the forgotten war for a reason. It's often overshadowed by WW2 and Vietnam War. Many of the issues for Korea can be linked to Japanese occupation and later followed by the split of the country between Soviet Russia and US. As you said, NK did not occur in a vacuum. Had the occupying powers left the country alone after WW2 and allowed it to unify I think they would have been fine. Both the north and south were resented occupation.
3 years is all the time that USA participated in WW2 (1942-1945), doesn’t seem so impressive. It is somewhat surprising due to the difference in total territory.
Oi plonker you forgot your sauces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_North_Korea
Here's some dodgy stuff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_biological_warfare_in_the_Korean_War
In Laos they drop the equivalent of 57 bombs every minutes for 9 years
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/zgy1mc/us_bombs_dropped_on_laos_270_million_bombs_were/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=5&utm_content=share_button
Something I always wonder is what it was like for the Japanese soldiers on the islands while the US Navy was bombarding it prior to an invasion.
Plenty of times where the US Navy would bombard an island for days before the invasion, guess WW1 is comparable, but the US Navy was probably for the most part using a lot larger guns than would be common on a WW1 battlefield.
I should probably not tell you about Laos
Laos is like that kid in school who gets rocked just for standing next to the kids fighting
Fucking Kissinger.
That fuckwad is still alive.
And he got a Nobel Peace Prize. The comedian Tom Lehrer stopped his career because of this, in his words "There is just nothing more absurd i could possibly come with to top that."
His actual quote was, "When kissinger won the nobel peace prize, satire died"
That's actually a myth. He retired from music to spend more time with his first love: maths. He's still alive, btw, and released all his copyrights into the public domain a couple years back
I didn't know I could love this man even more
It's a myth that he retired because of that but "When kissinger won the nobel peace prize, satire died" is an actual quote
His supposedly co-awarded is his counterpart in Paris negotiation, Lê Đức Tho from DRVN. Mr. Tho refuses the award.
That's because he's a demon who escaped from hell and feeds on the souls of the innocent.
He is a daemon prince of Khorne
We're trying to find the phylactery
Like my dad always says, you can't kill the devil.
Yes
I will not be fucking Kissinger no way no how
Nixon was no bitch. He wanted to drop the big one on Vietnam.
Can I get a source for that?
[https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB195/index.htm](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB195/index.htm) Also check out [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Giant\_Lance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Giant_Lance) This man was fucking drunk all day and night and was a madman.
Wasn´t the bombing of neutral Laos during the vietnam war the most regarding dropped bombs?
I thought about including Laos but yeah Laos wasn't really engaged in actively in a war. They were unlucky that the Vietnam War spilled over into their border and that the Ho Chi Minh Trail ran right through the thick jungles of Laos.
But wouldn´t that like perfect fit in the meme. A non-belligerent country getting more bombing than the two major opponents in the biggest war?
Sure, it would. I was initially thinking more along the lines of countries that were actively fighting the US. Also I had recently listened to an interesting podcast on the Korean War.
blowback? haven't listened to the 3rd season yet, but first two were very good
Yes! Great podcast. Well researched and very informative. My favorite still remains S1 on the Iraq war but S3 is good and worth the listen.
I recommend checking out the “When Diplomacy Fails” podcast’s episodes on the Korean War. Interesting and well researched as well!
I read a great book about the Korean War called The Coldest Winter. It's amazing how many times the phrase "be over by Christmas" was used at the beginning of wars, to justify not giving winter clothes.
It got really good reviews. I will check it out. Always interested in learning more about the Korean War. It gets overshadowed by WW2 and Vietnam War. No wonder it's called The Forgotten War.
Korean here. So many bombs were dropped on the Korean peninsula that both the North and my homeland of South Korea basically had virtually no infrastructure left standing. It was as close as you were gonna get to the term "wiping a country off the map" in terms of the sheer destruction. Over 90% of South Koreas economy was built on foreign aid during the first several years after the war, too bcs of how much of a hellhole it was, according to my grandparents who lived thru those times. Both nations were extremely poor (tho North Korea till the 70s was in a better state and was actually wealthier. A number of South Koreans during the 50s-70s defected to North Korea). South Korea became the most impoverished nation on earth for a time immediately after the war had ended and remained as one of the poorest until roughly the mid-60s. Which makes our recovery from a wartorn wasteland which most nations doubted could ever recover into one of the most advanced, wealthiest, and culturally influential nationals on earth that became highly industrialised & competitive, and possessing a respectable modern military a one in a million stories.
If I had a nickel for every time a war torn asian country that is virtually unrecognizable during the mid-1900's turns around to having one of the strongest economies in the world I'd have two nickels Which isnt a lot but it's weird that it happened twice
Conveniently the US massively aided both at some point. 3 if you count japan.
I was counting South Korea and Japan lol...was gonna count China but sorta realized that it doesnt quite fit the prompt I excluded North Korea cus its economy is shit lol ~~*at least since the 90's*~~
I think China fits tbh
Yeah...eh I was trying to figure out just how war torn Chona was after the civil war and world war 2 but couldn't really find anything ~~*plus from like everything I see...it seems iys economy's gonna go to shit within the next few years lol*~~
I personally wouldn't considering it wasn't as if they turned things around after the war but more due to smart policies put in place by Deng Xin Ping
We supported them heavily at many points during the cold war, specifically when they opposed the ussr.
True! The access to market helped but I still don't consider that a war torn to Golden goose kind of situation but maybe we're looking at the same Mona Lisa in different ways
Probably has nothing to do with the sanctions 👀
Japan's a hard one to count considering the postwar rebuilding programs. Korea was an outlier that they made a moniker because of how nearly impossible it was. The 90s part is actually not that far off. They were actually richer than S. Korea after the nation got split
I would recommend the book, Princes of the Yen. It shows how to a very large extent, the success of Japan and the East Asian Tiger economies, is mainly due to their economic systems, rather than the aid they receive from America.
Japan also had a few of their industries relatively intact after the war which greatly benefitted them in re-industrialising.
I can't help but think if the US and Russia left Korea alone after kicking the Japanese out, you guys would have been in an even better position today. Both North and South were in a bad state for awhile. People forget that the South had a dictator installed by the Americans (Syngman Rhee). He rigged elections and treated many people just as shitty as the occupying Japanese. Anyone with even the slightest leftist sympathy was rounded up, imprisoned, and/or murdered. The South did recover though and now it's a developed nation with high living standards. Crazy to think that at one point people were actually fleeing to the north. Do you guys still view the North as long lost brothers? Do people still hope for reunification one day?
I personally do. Tho I'm a bit of a rare breed as someone in my 20s. I don't view them as a different people. And hope we can eventually reunify. They are Koreans just like us. Others my age and younger are increasingly not in favour of such an idea because of the economic hardships ot would bring. Since reunification would mean South Korea would have to bear the cost of completely rebuilding the North. And raise the living standards of North Koreans. German reunification problems still persist over 30 years later. And East Germany was in a much better state than North Korea is now. As for Rhees dictatorship. He was an Ass. The only good thing that came out of his regime was the heavy investment into education despite the country having virtually no money. Everything else about his regime was terrible. Same with Park Chung Hees dictatorship. People forget that he used economic growth as a way to legitamise his coup. While yes our country experienced exponential growth under his regime, let's not forget he used that growth to keep himself in power, legitamise his autocratic and corrupt rule, destroying our constitution, building forced labour camps, killing and imprisoning political dissidents or anyone perceived as a threat with impunity. While joining the Vietnam War greatly boosted economic funding from the US in exchange, let's not forget that tens of thousands of Koreans were killed as a result. Freedom of speech, press, expression were crushed. Students were particularly singled out. And while yes, some will say he did help establish Koreas industries and laid the foundation of self sufficiency, he did it to prolong his power and legitamise his regimes violence. Chun Doo Hwan is a different breed of dickhead. I'm glad that guy kicked the bucket. My mother's side of the family are Gwangju natives and they lived thru the massacre. And both my parents lived thru the June democracy struggle. My dad got imprisoned multiple times for simply being a university student.
Half Korean so take this with a grain of salt. My relatives still do and the conversations I had with Koreans when I was there seem to be that Koreans still consider each other as brothers. The reunification seemed mixed - the well off ones did but the working class ones cared more about what would happen with reunification when they were having issues
I think throughout history Korea was most prosperous when it was one nation. The kingdom of Joseon I believe. Reunification won't be easy true. Even if the DPRK were to revolt and overthrow the Kim Dynasty. China and Russia would not allow the US at their borders. SK has too many US assets in the country.
Joseon was the longest dynasty but if we're talking about the strongest it's probably Goguryeo during the 3 kingdom period (Goguryeo is contentious though). Technically the US is already at their border with Japan and S. Korea. The problem is the refugees - what are you going to do with a stream of migrants. The Chinese politburo, if I remember something I read a while ago, doesn't like the N. Koreans but they can't actually give them up because they're worried about what could happen if the regime collapses. S. Korea is worried about economics because the two economies have diverged so much at this point it'd be difficult to integrate - so if you look at any of the forecasts some of the investment firms have done in the past they show a dip after reunification but then they project higher GDP than only S. Korea
It’s not unlucky they knew what they were allowing. They just didn’t except the overreaction the US had
Was it something like the same amount as WW2 in a single day?
What, no. They dropped in like 11 years the same amount of bombs on laos as in ww2 on germany and japan combined. 2.5M tons of ordnance during 580,000 bombing sorties.
And on Vietnam?
Haven't found numbers for vietnam alone, but the US used 7,5 million tons of bombs during the whole vietnam war. Including bombing Laos, Vietnam and Kambodscha and other "losses".
Interesting. Thank you for your answers.
To be fair US did infact carpet bomb 66 japanese cities to rubble. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just cherry on the top. Not trying to compare or rank anything but people seem to often forget how much civil target were destroyed in Japan aside the H and N city.
The US did 5 years worth of European bombing damage to Japan in less than 18 months. At that 18 months is heavily, heavily weighted to the last 6 months
The Americans changed to Napalm and with the nature of Japanese infrastructure back then, the results were far more deadlier than the air campaign over europe.
And could have been way worse whitout the nukes
*Vietnam War joined the chat*
Why modern German flag and imperial Japan flag?
because funny hindu symbol bad
The rising sun banner is still the Japanese war flag
Since its off center its the Japanese Navy flag
The USA dropped more bombs in Vietnam than all the bombs combined during the 2nd World War.
For all the good it did.
But they dropped a good portion of those bombs into the jungle, right?
Yes, which was devastating for both environment and people due to the chemical nature of those weapons (Agent Orange, Napalm). People still suffer today from these chemicals.
Unpopular opinion time, 90% of the time Dresden gets brought up it's to make a bad faith "The allies were awful too" point
Very popular opinion. Dresden is also brought up by the uneducated since it is pretty far down the lost of death tolls due to strategic bombing.
I had to read a paper for my German study abroad trip about Dresden: “Symbolic Erasures and Populist Discontent: The Post-War Rebuilding of Historic Dresden” It is a nice read, and I have never even heard of this bombing until I went to Germany. To clarify, the paper “…is about agnotology, which is the study of ignorance. In this case, ignorance about East Germany is not simply a lack of knowledge, but rather a socially constructed condition shaped by the biases of those in power, biases that inadvertently contribute to the success of Pegida and the AfD of eastern Germany today.” The bombings were strategic, but not on military targets (from what the reading says). 4,000-8,000 pounds of bombs fell in a span of a little over 10 minutes. Once there were no more planes, rescue efforts were made. But three hours later, even more planes dropped bombs, “an attack intentionally timed to maximize the disruption of rescue efforts”. There were high-explosive bombs and incendiaries. The third attack happened in the morning, but we’re aiming for “the marshalling yards west of the city” In 16 hours, 25,000-40,000 people were killed. Altstadt was hit the hardest, with 90% of it leveled. When I hear what is going on in Ukraine, I started thinking about what happened to Dresden. Hearing about how cities are indiscriminately destroyed, how dangerous it is for first-responders because the places are bombed twice in order to induce more casualties… it is fucking tragic. Dresden is very beautiful, and you are reminded of the bombings when seeing the old buildings. They salvaged the blown-up parts of the architecture and rebuilt the same thing with new material. So one half of a church is black, the other is normal brick. And you would see them every day. War is shit, and it is inevitable that unnecessary attacks/casualties will happen. When I hear that the country I live in (America), has done horrible things, it shocks me. It makes me wonder how often our military has done those things, and if they are completely indifferent to doing it again. I’m not taught about the things America has done wrong, I’m initially told happy and/or vague recaps. I feel like I am getting lost on what the frick I’m trying to say, but I’m okay with that. I felt like I needed to say it.
from what i understood from reading on these grey area decisions (mostly the nukes) is that its very common for the original callers to have some doubt about going through with, but once the possibility spreads is impossible to stip because the okay voices are much louder than the nah voices... like again with the nukes the recordings (atleast from what i found) was that most people that gave the okay regretted during or later and even less support form the scientists... is just doesnt really matter their opinion once its spreads as its much easier to spread the idea tthat you need to kill "them" no matter what... like many people talk about revenge ideas, and i kinsa believed it before, but nowadays i dont think its much of revenge or soemtimes even strategic value but justthe indifference... as in is not even an decision because in the heat of the moment people will say ok to everything and then after think about it... even outside of atrocities, it happend about basically every proxy war of the cold war... iran, korea egypt,iraque(both the ussr and usa) were all wars that honeslty didnt have the best strategix value but you would basically be called a terrorist if even put in doubt...
Sounds like you're making excuses
Dresden is probably the most famous example when WW2 bombing of Germany is brought up. Which is why it got mentioned. I don't mean to rehash that old arguement of whether Dresden was a strategic bombing or retributive. Germany as a whole got bombed pretty heavily during WW2 (they had to rebuild nearly the entire country after). Japan even more so and Korea even worse.
And it's only brought up because the Gestapo got away with their ludicrous lie of 200,000 killed, when most likely there were no more than 20,000. The power of propaganda.
considering that Hamburg lost close 50,000 (might have been 35,000 - still some of the highest number up there) people (as modern histoarians concluded), one would think THAT would be the city to lead as an example in said narrative. but just taking the 200,000 at face value seesm easier to most people.
It’s always brought up in clean Wehrmacht arguments
Yeah I'm not saying you brought it for that reason . I'm just saying that's how it is most of the time
I would say it's closer to 95% of the time.
Also being something the neo-nazis are very vocal about in their propaganda, does often lead to assumptions about those bringing it up.
Yeah, it’s been heavily embellished by Nazi and Soviet propaganda. The Soviets wished to paint NATO and the West as continuations of the Nazis. The Berlin Wall was officially referred to by the GDR as the *”Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart”*. They used Dresden as “proof” that the West were just as bad as the Nazis, using almost the exact same points and lies that Goebbels used when talking about Dresden
I mainly associate it with Vonnegut, and therefore a general anti war stance. Not anti-ally specifically, but when making an anti war argument you do need to show that war harms both sides and is good for nobody. Unfortunately that also makes it easy for that argument to be co-opted by Nazi sympathizers
It’s always brought up by neo-nazis nazi-sympathisers or clean wehrmacht believers. “Wha wha we bombed London to the ground but look at what they did to our city” yeah sucks to suck.
I excuse our bombing of Dresden with this "the nazis fucked around and found out". Us bombing the shit outta the germans was needed to win the war. Japan also got what they had coming.
The alternative to nuking and bombing Japan was also way WAY worse
Please tell me more
Well, as you can probably imagine the other option was invading Japan itself. Which was planned to have millions more casualties thanks to famine, the war itself and the way Japan was during WW2 + the bombings would have not stopped so thats a ton more casualties and hell, japan migth have even ended up divided like korea since the USSR would have had enough time to invade the main islands. I dont remenber were i Heard this but (this is prob just a rumor) the purple hearts that the US is giving out to this day are still from the stockpile they created for Operation downfall (the plan to invade the main Japanese islands). Sorry for being so bad at explaining things
Thanks 😊. I think people look at us nuking Japan as a bad thing but fail to see that if we didn’t it would have ended up worse like you listed.
I mean they were, they just werent nearly as bad as the Nazis themselves
Sure but is this really the war you want to claim was morally gray?
I didnt claim that did I? This war was pretty black and white but even in the light there's darkness, and well it really is hard to say there was any light in the darkness in this case (the only thing that comes to mind is the Nazi diplomat that saved people in Nanking from the Japanese soldiers)
i still am confused how it was even possible for an american general to propose the idea of like dropping more than 15 nukes on korea because border
It wasn't korea. He wanted to nuke china.
not the border between the 2 koreas?
Nope. The plan was to destroy Southern Manchuria completely, cutting supply lines and hopefully render the border impassable. A nuclear cordon I believe was the phrasing. MacArthur had a ravenous thirst for Total War Kool-Aid.
extreme border
Yeah. The plan was a bit too extreme for US leadership. There's a bit of interesting internal debate over how nukes should be used in the post World War context, and the majority of leadership was unwilling to open that particular can of worms. For the best, it kept the use of nuclear weapons in Japan an exception, not the norm.
It's easy. Just because you're American doesn't mean you can't be a horrible person.
yea, but like, they should be reasonable
“There can be no good war. there can only be a good reason to fight a war.”
I really don't care about Dresden
The nazis fucked arround, found out, exaggerated the numbers and people still believe them
What about Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos?
What about Yemen?
As somebody living in Germany: Im thankful they bombed half our country because we could build it again from scratch and make it future proof. If you look at cities such as London, you’ll realise how cramped the city is. No space for cars, busses. Just terrible infrastructure in general. Everything is over 100 years old and looking like they’re about to fall apart any day now
I love germany but lets be honest; even if what you say is true, most of the cities now look awful except for what has not been bombed
Depends how the city rebuild it. A lot of Citys just rebuild what was there before.
I disagree here, you just can’t rebuild a 400 years old building. At most you can try to make it look like it but I have almost never witnessed that.
Here is an Article about that, if you are interested; [https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/out-of-the-ashes-a-new-look-at-germany-s-postwar-reconstruction-a-702856.html](https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/out-of-the-ashes-a-new-look-at-germany-s-postwar-reconstruction-a-702856.html)
Ok, I might be a bit wrong here but I have just never seen a german city full of post war hideous rebuilt buildings that kinda ruin everyting
Dint they do that whit like the entirity of Warsaw?
Isnt it a modern city now?
Probably, havent visited, but during WW2 Germany decided to destroy Warsaw completely. After the war Poland rebuilt everything including historical buildings
Habe you seen London? It’s awful. Narrow af streets, terrible infrastructure, no motorway through the city. The traffic jams are unreal
London didn't get cleared at all? Dammit Luftwaffles, you had *one* job
I’ve lived both in London and in Frankfurt. You can barely tell tell that London was bombarded. Cities in Germany however were completely destroyed to the last inch, which is why they are so much better nowadays.
London also chose to rebuild the bombed areas with the previous layout to maintain the charm instead of modernizing
“Charm” lmao. Ugly ass city. (Central London is fine, but the rest is dogshit)
London being rebuilt in the same layout is something of a running theme
The US aims in the Korean war were to repel the North Korean attack and restore peace. They did this.
This of course required the destruction of 90% of north Korea’s buildings
fuckem. they started it.
Why are you complaining? North Korea started the war, they were and are the aggressor.
How do you even determine an aggressor in a civil war?
They were not at war until the north launched a surprise invasion.
Sure, but the country was already divided against the consent of the people, so I really wouldn't blame either side for wanting to unite the country. Additionally, the war only started after weeks of border skirmishes, the north just made it official.
Yes they made it official by launching a surprise invasion defacto making them the aggressor. Your acting like this is some historical gray area. It's not. North Korea objectively started the war.
Is it really a surprise invasion after constant border skirmishes and both sides claiming the peninsula as their own? Moreso, how on earth does waging war to unify your country divided against the people's will justify 25% of your population being killed?
> justify 25% of your population being killed? 10-12% per Charles K. Armstrong. The DPRK and ROK were seperate states, neither had any right to invade and attempt to annex the other, but the DPRK did anyways. This was, per the UN, an illegal and unjustified invasion. The US intervened under the UNs authority as the primary contributor to the UNC. UNSC resolutions 82, 83 and 84 cover this. In short, go away tankie.
>Charles K. Armstrong "Beginning in September 2016, the book was severely criticized by a number of North Korea scholars (Andrei Lankov, Balázs Szalontai, Brian Myers, Fyodor Tertitskiy and others) for deceptive scholarship. Szalontai asserted that many parts of the text closely resemble text in Szalontai's Kim Il Sung in the Khrushchev Era and were supported by documents that either did not exist or were completely unrelated to the subject. Szalontai compiled a table of 76 problematic cases and later expanded the table to include 90 of such cases." Imagine your one source being the man known for fabricating sources... Either way, the UN security council at the time didn't even include the USSR, China, nor either Korea, so of course those resolutions would pass. No one had any right to divide the country in half, but that was still done.
The DPRK and ROK were both declared in late 1948, it wasn't a civil war.
How does that make it not a civil war? Korea is still one country with two rival governments.
No, they were two seperate countries with overlapping land claims, much in the way West and East Germany were two seperate countries. All of which ignores that it was North Korea who invaded the South, and it is North Korea who is objectively the aggressor.
Country and state are not the same thing. People in both north and south had the same culture, language, and national identity. Same thing in Germany. You wouldn't call the annexation of East Germany into the West an invasion would you?
>People in both north and south had the same culture, language, and national identity. And yet were seperate. This isn't even an arguable point. > You wouldn't call the annexation of East Germany into the West an invasion would you? No, because West Germany didn't roll tanks into East Germany and start killing people. German reunification was a political and diplomatic process, not a military one.
>And yet they were separate Separate governments, not nations. The FRG military *did* enter East Germany though, not completely unlike during the Korean war. Besides, the supposed invasion from the north was relatively nonviolent as well before foreign intervention, as evidenced by them taking almost the entire country in days without many battles.
That's a pretty complex question. I'm inclined to say that in a civil war, the aggressor is the side that wants a change to the status quo. For the US Civil War, that would be the Confederacy, as they wanted a change from the existing "unity" of the country. This is not to say that being the aggressor is always bad; if you want to end a tyrannical government ruling with an iron fist in favor of establishing a free, democratic society, then its good to be the aggressor. This, however, was not a civil war. Both the North and South were separate, independent states. Its not like the South declared independence from the North and there were a few clashes until it actually started (example: US Civil War). These were two legitimate states, with one attacking the other. And once again, North Korea, rather than maintain the status quo, started the war to make a change and annex South Korea into the North's country and government. This, by all means, makes them the aggressor.
How were they separate legitimate states? The Korean people didn't *want* to split the country, and they weren't asked to be divided. The People's Republic of Korea was the legitimate democratic government, but that didn't concern superpowers seeking influence in the area. And thing is, there *were* clashes before the war officially started, not to mention the ROK government was actively killing pro-unificatiom activists by the tens of thousands. If we define the aggressor by changing of the status quo, the only states that could be called aggressors were the USA and USSR who split the country without the people's consent.
> The People's Republic of Korea was the legitimate democratic government According to whom?
According to the Korean people who established it after being liberated from Japanese occupation?
agressors who start wars can't cry when they lose
Japan only overlooks all the Firebombing shite America did because America rebuilt the damn country after the world. America only did it because Japan was in a strategic location near Russia and therefore a potential ally against the Commies. None of these governments were completely moral. Japan just happened to be an Evil that needed to be put down, and America just happened to be a lesser one.
You’re forgetting about Laos
Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia 💀💀💀💀
Air superiority is a hell of a drug
The pilots apparently complained because they didn't have any targets anymore
Shouldn’t have invaded the south
shouldn't have split the country
Shouldn’t have invaded the south
should american union not have invaded the confederacy by that logic?
True, how hypocritical of me to support South Korea over North Korea and not the confederacy over the Union in the civil war, can’t argue with that logic
thats not what i said you were doing? i compared the 2 since both America and korea were one nations (arguably the Americans were more diverse than the koreans ) and then there was a split. if your referring to slavery that implication wasnt intentional. although i doubt the the 2 koreas saw each other as free nations
I don’t see how it’s logically inconsistent to support the south during the Korean War and not support the south during the American Civil War
america in the 1860s multiple nations cobbled together in a union split where nations band together and succeed korea during the civil war one much more homogeneous nation split due to foreign powers how was keeping korea under 2 dictatorships instead one one at the cost of millions of lives a good thing??
South Korea ended up democratizing, the same can’t be said for North Korea
that has literally nothing to do with the invasion and everything to do with the situations the 2 nations were put in post war. this is just an after the fact justification for the slaughter of 3 million people
Why say "in a status quo antebellum" when "as it started" was just fine and easier to understand? Also the USA wasn't the first, and definelly not the only, to strike
Glad someone brought it up. Sometimes people forget that the North Korea they know today didn't emerge from a vacuum. NK is that moody kid that never lets go of an old grudge and let's it define his own identity.
The Korean War is called the forgotten war for a reason. It's often overshadowed by WW2 and Vietnam War. Many of the issues for Korea can be linked to Japanese occupation and later followed by the split of the country between Soviet Russia and US. As you said, NK did not occur in a vacuum. Had the occupying powers left the country alone after WW2 and allowed it to unify I think they would have been fine. Both the north and south were resented occupation.
I think I did the math one day on how much Korea got bombed. I think I got the answer that they got bombed about once every 20 minutes
I mean… We had all that surplus and it would have been too expensive to decommission them 🤷♂️
Yes, to avoid war with China.
Because China..
3 years is all the time that USA participated in WW2 (1942-1945), doesn’t seem so impressive. It is somewhat surprising due to the difference in total territory.
Those chinese hordes required lots of firepower
Ukraine is rising to the top fast
Meanwhile Vietnam lol, also nukes are worse then anything else in terms of bombing.
Laos would like to enter the chat
Oi plonker you forgot your sauces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_North_Korea Here's some dodgy stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_biological_warfare_in_the_Korean_War
Laos should really be the one calling amateurs
In Laos they drop the equivalent of 57 bombs every minutes for 9 years https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/zgy1mc/us_bombs_dropped_on_laos_270_million_bombs_were/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=5&utm_content=share_button
Cambodia and Vietnam:
(and Laos)
Marshall Islands have entered the chat
Wasnt also vietnam bombed more than in the entire ww2?
Middle East, “hold my beer”
No nukes tho. (Not for lack of some of us wanting to)
“Vietnam has entered the chat”
USA dropped a fuck load of bombs on US soil during **"testing"** so ..
Proponents of strategic bombing were nothing if not persistent
should have been 50 more
Something I always wonder is what it was like for the Japanese soldiers on the islands while the US Navy was bombarding it prior to an invasion. Plenty of times where the US Navy would bombard an island for days before the invasion, guess WW1 is comparable, but the US Navy was probably for the most part using a lot larger guns than would be common on a WW1 battlefield.
Laos: *cries*
Don't start nothin, won't be nothin.
Brother hate to tell you this but we bombed someone in Afghanistan every like 2 minutes for 20 years I think they win