Biggest lesson of this is that the most important factor in justifying a war is whether you win it. Korean War was the better war because it resulted in a better South Korea, while the Vietnamese War got people killed for nothing. The rational to enter the war is the last thing anyone thinks about. If the US won the Vietnam War, average Americans would probably sing its praises.
I think in both cases the outcome was similar. Both wars hit a stalemate (Korea in 1953 and Vietnam in 1972), but the US signed an alliance with Korea the following year, whereas it abandoned Vietnam the following year and cut off aid. Hence, Korea was able to develop and prosper, while Vietnam was overrun by the north two years later.
People think of Korea and think of modern Korea, they imagine that in the 1950s Korea had one side that was highly developed and one shithole autocracy side. In reality the entire peninsula was about as poor as Africa. Not sure why we made it such a big deal
In addition, people equate North Korea with a uniquely totalitarian government and the ROK with democracy, but under Kim Il-Sung the DPRK was no worse than any other eastern bloc country and the First Republic under Rhee was equally tyrannical
3) If the North can invade the South, why can't the Soviet Union invade West Germany?
4) Today we make a stink about "democracy", but for most of the Cold War the only criteria was "not communist".
And that's fine, I think we all know at this point that moderate authoritarians with high IQ populations and capitalism do just fine. Hong Kong didn't have one man one vote. Singapore was ruled by the PAP. Japan had the one and a half party system with the LDP. Taiwan was the same as Korea. Democracy is overrated, its markets and rule of law and having some system for throwing out bums that fail without a revolution.
1) Contrary to popular mythology, Vietnam was a conventional war (at least by the 70s). The Tet Offensive in 1968 basically wiped out the NLF insurgency. The Nguyen-Hue campaign/Easter Offensive/Red Fiery Summer was a massive conventional assault across the DMZ that the South Vietnamese army halted with the assistance of US airpower. Saigon wasn't conquered by guerillas but by infantry and Soviet tanks.
2) The First Republic that the US installed and backed was a hapless regime not worth preserving. It was overthrown in 1960. Korea only started to develop under Park Chung-Hee who came to power in 1961.
The same could be said of Vietnam. Vietnam's development was held back a decade and a half by communism, and even though it's fast-growing now, it probably won't reach first world status because in a post-Cold War world it can't benefit from the same trade practices as the NICs.
3) If North Vietnam can invade South Vietnam, why can't the Soviet Union invade West Germany?
NATO's Article 5 and US extended nuclear deterrence. The US had no alliance with Korea until 1954 and therefore no plans to defend it. Hence, when the US gave it independence in 1948, US forces were withdrawn. See Acheson line in the article.
4) Yes, and Rhee's non-communist regime was no better than Kim's communist one. North Korea today is officially no longer communist. Its ideology is juche, not Marxism-Leninism. In 1950 the DPRK was just another eastern bloc country; it only started to become uniquely unpleasant in the latter half of the sixties with Kim's consolidation
1) I'm pretty sure that Americans were walking into the jungle and getting shot at after 1968. The only thing that ended that was leaving.
That the South collapsed basically the second we left shows it was worthless.
2) "NATO's Article 5 and US extended nuclear deterrence."
Nuclear deterrence really wasn't around in the 1950s. In 1950 the US arsenal was 300 nukes, not all of them of the kind of strategic power we would think of today (by the mid 60s this was 32,000). They had to be delivered by Strategic bombers that could be shot down. The first ICBM didn't come around until 1960 or so and we didn't have a lot of them until later in the 60s.
In short, the possibility of a conventional conflict with Soviet forces in Europe that didn't end in nuclear Armageddon was a real possibility in the 40s and 50s. By the time of the Vietnam war MAD was firmly in place and direct war was basically impossible.
3) "North Korea today is officially no longer communist"
You could fool me. Well, when I look at a satellite image and see some lights on maybe I'll believe it.
1) Getting shot at doesn't equal guerilla war. See Christopher Goscha's "The Road to Dien Bien Phu" for a history of how the PAVN evolved into a regular force designed for set piece battles culminating at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.
The US Army was responsible for conventional combat against the PAVN, while the ARVN and Aussies did pacification. By 1972, South Vietnam's territory was 95% pacified, and the offensive that year was a conventional assault across the DMZ just like in Korea.
The South didn't collapse "basically the second we left." US forces peaked in 1969 and began to be withdrawn later that year. By 1972 US forces were limited to support troops and air power. In January 1973 the peace treaty was signed and all US forces were withdrawn. The South held out for two years and probably would've longer if US arms and fuel had been provided.
If the US had withdrawn from Korea in 1953, the ROK would've collapsed. This in fact happened when its own citizens toppled it in 1960.
2) Nuclear deterrence was around in the 1950s. Look up "massive retaliation" and "New Look." These were Eisenhower's official policies to reduce US conventional commitments.
3) North Korea's officially no longer communist. Its official ideology is juche (self-reliance). Communism was removed from its constitution. Communism doesn't equal no lights on
I mean, wasn’t it simply to fight the communists? China exhausted some ressources to help North Korea. Losing men and ressources yourself is not a big deal if one of your main rival does too.
Definitely sounds more logical than some of the last few American interventions
China had already been at war non-stop (WWII and Chinese Civil War) and for a country with such a large (and at that time still growing) population the costs of the Korean War were a drop in the bucket. The Vietnam War, on the other hand, shielded the rest of SE Asia so that it would have time to consolidate after decolonization
Biggest lesson of this is that the most important factor in justifying a war is whether you win it. Korean War was the better war because it resulted in a better South Korea, while the Vietnamese War got people killed for nothing. The rational to enter the war is the last thing anyone thinks about. If the US won the Vietnam War, average Americans would probably sing its praises.
I think in both cases the outcome was similar. Both wars hit a stalemate (Korea in 1953 and Vietnam in 1972), but the US signed an alliance with Korea the following year, whereas it abandoned Vietnam the following year and cut off aid. Hence, Korea was able to develop and prosper, while Vietnam was overrun by the north two years later.
People think of Korea and think of modern Korea, they imagine that in the 1950s Korea had one side that was highly developed and one shithole autocracy side. In reality the entire peninsula was about as poor as Africa. Not sure why we made it such a big deal
In addition, people equate North Korea with a uniquely totalitarian government and the ROK with democracy, but under Kim Il-Sung the DPRK was no worse than any other eastern bloc country and the First Republic under Rhee was equally tyrannical
1) Korea was a conventional military conflict, the kind of thing the US is pretty decent at. Vietnam was a guerrilla war, which we are not good at.
2) Obviously, the Korean War resulted in a hugely better world. South Korea has a lot of happy people in it and North Korea does not.
https://geospatialmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ABC.png
3) If the North can invade the South, why can't the Soviet Union invade West Germany?
4) Today we make a stink about "democracy", but for most of the Cold War the only criteria was "not communist".
And that's fine, I think we all know at this point that moderate authoritarians with high IQ populations and capitalism do just fine. Hong Kong didn't have one man one vote. Singapore was ruled by the PAP. Japan had the one and a half party system with the LDP. Taiwan was the same as Korea. Democracy is overrated, its markets and rule of law and having some system for throwing out bums that fail without a revolution.
1) Contrary to popular mythology, Vietnam was a conventional war (at least by the 70s). The Tet Offensive in 1968 basically wiped out the NLF insurgency. The Nguyen-Hue campaign/Easter Offensive/Red Fiery Summer was a massive conventional assault across the DMZ that the South Vietnamese army halted with the assistance of US airpower. Saigon wasn't conquered by guerillas but by infantry and Soviet tanks.
2) The First Republic that the US installed and backed was a hapless regime not worth preserving. It was overthrown in 1960. Korea only started to develop under Park Chung-Hee who came to power in 1961.
The same could be said of Vietnam. Vietnam's development was held back a decade and a half by communism, and even though it's fast-growing now, it probably won't reach first world status because in a post-Cold War world it can't benefit from the same trade practices as the NICs.
3) If North Vietnam can invade South Vietnam, why can't the Soviet Union invade West Germany?
NATO's Article 5 and US extended nuclear deterrence. The US had no alliance with Korea until 1954 and therefore no plans to defend it. Hence, when the US gave it independence in 1948, US forces were withdrawn. See Acheson line in the article.
4) Yes, and Rhee's non-communist regime was no better than Kim's communist one. North Korea today is officially no longer communist. Its ideology is juche, not Marxism-Leninism. In 1950 the DPRK was just another eastern bloc country; it only started to become uniquely unpleasant in the latter half of the sixties with Kim's consolidation
1) I'm pretty sure that Americans were walking into the jungle and getting shot at after 1968. The only thing that ended that was leaving.
That the South collapsed basically the second we left shows it was worthless.
2) "NATO's Article 5 and US extended nuclear deterrence."
Nuclear deterrence really wasn't around in the 1950s. In 1950 the US arsenal was 300 nukes, not all of them of the kind of strategic power we would think of today (by the mid 60s this was 32,000). They had to be delivered by Strategic bombers that could be shot down. The first ICBM didn't come around until 1960 or so and we didn't have a lot of them until later in the 60s.
In short, the possibility of a conventional conflict with Soviet forces in Europe that didn't end in nuclear Armageddon was a real possibility in the 40s and 50s. By the time of the Vietnam war MAD was firmly in place and direct war was basically impossible.
3) "North Korea today is officially no longer communist"
You could fool me. Well, when I look at a satellite image and see some lights on maybe I'll believe it.
1) Getting shot at doesn't equal guerilla war. See Christopher Goscha's "The Road to Dien Bien Phu" for a history of how the PAVN evolved into a regular force designed for set piece battles culminating at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.
The US Army was responsible for conventional combat against the PAVN, while the ARVN and Aussies did pacification. By 1972, South Vietnam's territory was 95% pacified, and the offensive that year was a conventional assault across the DMZ just like in Korea.
The South didn't collapse "basically the second we left." US forces peaked in 1969 and began to be withdrawn later that year. By 1972 US forces were limited to support troops and air power. In January 1973 the peace treaty was signed and all US forces were withdrawn. The South held out for two years and probably would've longer if US arms and fuel had been provided.
If the US had withdrawn from Korea in 1953, the ROK would've collapsed. This in fact happened when its own citizens toppled it in 1960.
2) Nuclear deterrence was around in the 1950s. Look up "massive retaliation" and "New Look." These were Eisenhower's official policies to reduce US conventional commitments.
3) North Korea's officially no longer communist. Its official ideology is juche (self-reliance). Communism was removed from its constitution. Communism doesn't equal no lights on
I mean, wasn’t it simply to fight the communists? China exhausted some ressources to help North Korea. Losing men and ressources yourself is not a big deal if one of your main rival does too.
Definitely sounds more logical than some of the last few American interventions
China had already been at war non-stop (WWII and Chinese Civil War) and for a country with such a large (and at that time still growing) population the costs of the Korean War were a drop in the bucket. The Vietnam War, on the other hand, shielded the rest of SE Asia so that it would have time to consolidate after decolonization