1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

WW I, Korea, WW II and Israel; Heads You Win Should Not be Tails I Lose

Discussion in 'Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy' started by jbg, Jan 7, 2018.

  1. jbg

    jbg Council Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2017
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    6
    The premise of this thread it that when a party starts a war and loses, the defending side should be allowed to finish it. In the cases of WW I, Korea and Vietnam the aggressors, respectively Germany/Austro-Hungarian Empire, North Korea and North Vietnam started wars. The wars ended in armistices, not in military victories. In all cases complete victory was possible but the West, being “nice” left the losing side to their own devices. In all cases it has leapt us to bite us.



    WW I (armistice) – This case is perhaps the least clear. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, tied by treaty and history to Germany (only recently Prussia and other principalities) tried to take over the Balkans, lured by the chaos surrounding the murder of the Archduke of Sarajevo on June 28, 1914. (source). After a long war with unprecedented bloodshed the Austro-Hungarian Empire was split into Austria, Hungary Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and Czechoslovakia, and the Balkans reconstituted into Yugoslavia. However the core of the countries remained intact and were not occupied. The terms of this armistice did not sit easily with a still-intact and independent Austria and Germany. They covertly did not comply with the disarmament mandates of Versailles. All else is history.



    Korea (armistice) – Probably the strongest case. Korea was historically under the sway of either Japan or China (source). In or about 1910 Japan seized control. When WW II ended Korea was partitioned between the northern half, occupied by the USSR and the southern half, occupied by the U.S. There was, to my understanding, little reason for this generosity to the U.S.S.R. since they took astonishingly little part in the defeat of Japan in the war. In Europe, at least a colorable argument could be made that they earned a share of the spoils, and effective control of Eastern Europe. When NK invaded in 1950 there was little reason for not conquering and holding NK, reuniting it under South Korea’s military dictatorship.



    Since then, NK has clearly not found the status quo acceptable. They are now a nuclear power, leaving the West with little choice but surrender or a full-scale war before NK poses a mortal threat to the civilized world.



    WW II – This is an example in the opposite direction, of what happens when there is total victory, mostly by the civilized world. While we have not had “kumbaya” perfection (see above regarding Korea, and also other small wars such as Vietnam and the Middle East), the world has by and large not had major wars. Victory was total. Japan and Germany are not a threat to world safety nor are they likely to be.



    Israel (armistice in 1948 and 1956, victory in 1967 and 1973) – Another good example. 1948 and 1956 ended in standstills. The Arabs kept on attacking. In 1967 they closed the Straits of Tiran, threatening to throttle Israel’s imports of oil from Iran. Israel obliterated Egypt’s air force on the ground. The war lasted six days.



    Since then the rest of the world has sought to give the Arabs a do-over. Trump finally recognized Israel’s choice of capitals. The Arabs should have sued for peace when they had a chance. Israel won and the world “boo-hoos” at their exercise of the victory. If they were anything like North Vietnam, Myanmar or other victorious countries there would have been a bloodbath.



    Summary – A loss in war should severely and permanently penalize the aggressor. Germany and Japan were reduced to second-rate, though affluent powers. I don’t think that’s such a bad fate for the people of the Arab world, as opposed to their “leaders.”
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  2. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    38,948
    Likes Received:
    2,143
    The U.S. couldn't conquer N. Korea. It was beaten by N. Korea (and China), just as its was beaten by Vietnam, which was definitely not the aggressor. Soviet intervention was crucial to the defeat of Japan, even if Japan surrendered before they did much fighting, it scared the hell out of Japan (much more than the atomic bomb Truman hastily launched before Japan could prevent such a denouement by surrendering) ... Japan had seen what the Soviet Union did to Germany.
     
  3. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    38,948
    Likes Received:
    2,143
    Japan and Germany remain big threats to world safety ... right up there with the U.S. ... partly because they were given among the most generous terms (by the U.S.) of any defeated party in a war.

    WWI and the imperialist aspect of WWII took both sides to start. You could make the case that the Korean War was started by N. Korea, but they were responding to the invasion and occupation of Korea by an unwelcome foreign empire.
     
  4. jbg

    jbg Council Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2017
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    6
    How much had the USSR done in Germany between V-E Day and August 14, when Fat Boy flew?
    NK did start the war. And what "unwelcome foreign empire"?
     
  5. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    38,948
    Likes Received:
    2,143
    In Germany? Well, they ended the gassings, shut down most of the concentration camps, organized war crimes trials for the leaders, recruited scientists and spies, raped and killed a number of people, and dismantled German factories and shipped them to the Soviet Union.

    The unwelcome foreign empire was the U.S., of course. Are you aware that the Pyongyang government was the elected government of all of Korea? Or that the Seoul government was dominated by Japanese collaborators who were hand-picked by the U.S.?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. jbg

    jbg Council Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2017
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    6
    Oops, I meant in Korea?
     
  7. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    38,948
    Likes Received:
    2,143
    Well, they trained Kim Il Sung, the Korean leading the guerrilla fight against the occupation of Korea and China on behalf of the People's Republic government, set up with Soviet aid, and an officer in the Red Army, as well as many other Koreans who were trained in warfare and politics in the USSR. They declared war on Japan on August 9 and sent in Marines to Korea by August 14. The U.S. had no troops in Korea at the time, and could not have stopped the USSR from occupying all of Korea, but Stalin was more concerned with placating the U.S. than with the Korean people's sovereignty.
     
  8. jbg

    jbg Council Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2017
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    6
    Sounds like FDR made more promises at Yalta and Truman felt constrained to keep some of them.
     
  9. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    38,948
    Likes Received:
    2,143
    Truman was held back by long supply lines and the reluctance of U.S. troops to fight.
     

Share This Page