Korean War June 25, 1950: U.S. beaten by revolutionary war

[Zero_wing]

The entire Philipinnes was overrun in six months.

If China lost almost every front, the entire China would have been conquered. The Japanese had a massive collaborator army led by Wang Jingwei and Demchugdongrub. The Soviet Union also invaded Xinjiang in 1937 and stationed an entire army in Kumul.

The Japanese controlled less than 25% of the entire China in 1940 and only gained significant amounts of (strategically useless) land in Operation Ichi-go. Their attempt to invade northwest China failed and General Fu Zuoyi and the Muslim Ma warlords defeated their invasion.

China used over 100,000 soldiers in wrest Xinjiang back from the Soviet Union and then to fight the Soviets in the Ili Rebellion. China fought a two front war in WW2.

But that was worthy and besides the Americans surrender not us majority went on continue the fight and even the filipinos who were captured and release later on fought as guerrillas compare to almost years of loses because majority of chinese were fighting among themselves that's the truth this internal fighting weaken china otherwise Japan would have been contain in china northern provinces and never spread to South East Asia and the war would have ended sooner

 

[jhungary]

You are using ad hominem and straw man attacks. I clearly said that American history books made outright lies like claiming China was not fighting Japan and keeping soldiers and war material for resuming the Civil War later while in reality those soldiers were taking back Xinjiang from the Soviets and fighting the Red Army.

I hear word but I do not see any proof, show me EXACTLY which history textbook said what you claim then we can talk. With title, ISBN, and author information. Otherwise it's just an "Unfounded" claim man, as if I have to take your word for it.

You do know there are 4 tiers of history book out there in the US right? The first one is for matriculation, for grade student, they only contain historical significant detail and only even then with a brief mentioning. The second one is college grade book collection, where you find specific topic are covered in more in depth detail and it's for college student who would process the knowledge to become a apprentice historian. The third one is special history book, it's for specialist only, such as Military History or History for the Precise period. They are detail account for History researcher, which highly specific either by event or by period.
While the last one is altered history book, they are for stupid wannabe who trying to swing history their way, they are extremely BIAS and like the fox news, they only select history as that represent of them as they please. Guess which one you think you saw??

Beside, as I pointed out, every little information you provided is incorrect in history term.

If you cannot offer anymore insight, then I think its' end of discussion from here.

You

 

[jhungary]

What would you call the vietnam war then?

Vietnam war is a different story. When US retreat from Vietnam, the South Vietnamese government still exist, and theoretically, had US never left Vietnam, South Vietnam would still exist today. The strategic goal for US in Vietnam was is to pop up the southern regime, and we achieve that, and the tactical goal for US is to win each and every battle and/or engagement, and we had achieve that too.

South Vietnam losses to North Vietnam, that's the history, how do we know when we withdraw from Vietnam, South will collapse within 3 years......That's not of our concern as, well, simply, we are not part of the conflict anymore. Hence the result do not concern us anymore, and that's also history too.

My advice to you is watch that video retreat from hell again

Maybe you should visit South Korea again. That's still standing and well, Chinese losses

 

[jhungary]

So why did you need help fighting Japanese then? you had twice her number and yet you lose almost every front? you people were well armed and experience and yet the Filipino-American defenders manage to hold off the Japanese more than the yours and yet they went and done it so that the allies can prepare for a counter offensive

His argument also missed out 1 major factor. Now, I don't really know did he intentionally leave out this piece of information or he is just twisting information to make his point.......

China is about 32 times the size of Philippine and it's about 40-50 times the population. China have a land area of 9,706,961 sq km where as Philippine have a land area of 300,000 sq.km.

If a proportional time is needed to totally conquer China with respect to Philippine will be 32 times of 6 months he claim (Which is not true by the way) that's 192 calendar months. Which is 16 years, the war lasted 8 years (1937 - 1945) 45- 55% of China is conquered. I would say China is on the same track with respect to the speed of Japan Conquered Philippine, don't you think?

I don't really know why Chinese keep booster the fact that they are hard fighter, when the reason they were not conquer in full is because, well, they are too big and too vast to conquer.

 

[phead128]

When US retreat from Vietnam, the South Vietnamese government still exist, and theoretically, had US never left Vietnam, South Vietnam would still exist today.

On the same token, had U.S. invaded North Vietnam, China would have theoretically intervened on North Vietnam's behalf like it did with North Korea in the first Korean War in 1950.

...and we all know that U.S. won't simply repulse the Communist invasion, the U.S. would have invaded North Vietnam, which would open an entirely different war with China involved.

Hence, theoretics is plausible to the extent it reflects the political will of the U.S. to win the war (ie. unify Vietnam under democracy), not merely repulsing an Communist invasion.

 

[ChinaToday]

Vietnam war is a different story. When US retreat from Vietnam, the South Vietnamese government still exist, and theoretically, had US never left Vietnam, South Vietnam would still exist today. The strategic goal for US in Vietnam was is to pop up the southern regime, and we achieve that, and the tactical goal for US is to win each and every battle and/or engagement, and we had achieve that too.

South Vietnam losses to North Vietnam, that's the history, how do we know when we withdraw from Vietnam, South will collapse within 3 years......That's not of our concern as, well, simply, we are not part of the conflict anymore. Hence the result do not concern us anymore, and that's also history too.



Maybe you should visit South Korea again. That's still standing and well, Chinese losses

you not that smart are you? may be you should watch that video again skorea still standing coz it was a deal for china to get a un seat with America, don't post for the sake of posting if you don't want to make yourself look stupid, even America admitted they lost the Korean war

 

[jhungary]

On the same token, had U.S. invaded North Vietnam, China would have theoretically intervened on North Vietnam's behalf like it did with North Korea in the first Korean War in 1950.

...and we all know that U.S. won't simply repulse the Communist invasion, the U.S. would have invaded North Vietnam, which would open an entirely different war with China involved.

Hence, theoretics is plausible to the extent it reflects the political will of the U.S. to win the war (ie. unify Vietnam under democracy), not merely repulsing an Communist invasion.

First of all, please report in the Intro section.....I think it's a violation of forum rule that new member does not report in Intro section......

Anyway. Actually No. We had a chance to invade North Vietnam - WITH CHINESE BLESSING, in 1971 before Nixon visit China in 1972. Instead we choose to left South Vietnam as we were certain that.

A.) The Southern Regime is a lost clause,
B.) China will take cares of things from now on

Had we invade North Vietnam from 1971 on, we would be able to roll over North Vietnam without Chinese intervention.

So, to answer your question. No, our complete objective is to keep the South petitioned (the communist containment strategy) but not Reunited both Vietnam in mind, in fact, if we do invade North Vietnam after 1971, there are high probable that China will actually land a hand to us and the History of Vietnam would have changed forever, seeing they gave us the Carte blanche and they themselves invaded Vietnam in 1979.

you not that smart are you? may be you should watch that video again skorea still standing coz it was a deal for china to get a un seat with america

lol you can't read then

Your countrymen tried for 3 years trying to get back to South Korea. BUT FAILED

Your country only become UN/UNSC seat in 1971s, 20 years after the war is long over. What kind of deal is there to stand for 20 years? you tell me.

Before 1971, UN Seat are belong to ROC, we made the deal when Nixon visit China to GET OUT OF VIETNAM, NOT SOUTH KOREA, in exchange for that UNSC seat.

You probably need to get your brain check, you may have brain tremor(s), how did someone mixed up 2 Vietnams and 2 Koreas?? Normal people will not do that

 

[ChinaToday]

First of all, please report in the Intro section.....I think it's a violation of forum rule that new member does not report in Intro section......

Anyway. Actually No. We had a chance to invade North Vietnam - WITH CHINESE BLESSING, in 1971 before Nixon visit China in 1972. Instead we choose to left South Vietnam as we were certain that.

A.) The Southern Regime is a lost clause,
B.) China will take cares of things from now on

Had we invade North Vietnam from 1971 on, we would be able to roll over North Vietnam without Chinese intervention.

So, to answer your question. No, our complete objective is to keep the South petitioned (the communist containment strategy) but not Reunited both Vietnam in mind, in fact, if we do invade North Vietnam after 1971, there are high probable that China will actually land a hand to us and the History of Vietnam would have changed forever, seeing they gave us the Carte blanche and they themselves invaded Vietnam in 1979.



lol you can't read then

Your countrymen tried for 3 years trying to get back to South Korea. BUT FAILED

Your country only become UN/UNSC seat in 1971s, 20 years after the war is long over. What kind of deal is there to stand for 20 years? you tell me.

Before 1971, UN Seat are belong to ROC, we made the deal when Nixon visit China to GET OUT OF VIETNAM, NOT SOUTH KOREA, in exchange for that UNSC seat.

You probably need to get your brain check, you may have brain tremor(s), how did someone mixed up 2 Vietnams and 2 Koreas?? Normal people will not do that

you are full of sh@t are you telling me you are more credible than the person that made the retreat from hell video?

 

[jhungary]

you are full of sh@t are you telling me you are more credible than the person that made the retreat from hell video?

lol. let's see

FACT: People Republic of China join the UN on Oct 25, 1971 under Resolution 2578
FACT: Henry Kissenger visited China on July 15, 1971, with a meeting with Premier Zhou
FACT: Korean War Armistice Agreement were signed July 27, 1953
FACT: Vietnam war is still raging at the time of Oct 15, 1971
FACT: The person who make that Retreat from Hell is a nobody

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1972 Nixon visit to China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China and the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Korean Armistice Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you do the maths, I don't know why a Chinese do not know when do the PRC joined the UN. I think it's a punishable offence in China. Watch out for "Re-education" camp

I rest my case

 

[ChinaToday]

lol. let's see

FACT: People Republic of China join the UN on Oct 25, 1971 under Resolution 2578
FACT: Henry Kissenger visited China on July 15, 1971, with a meeting with Premier Zhou
FACT: Korean War Armistice Agreement were signed July 27, 1953
FACT: Vietnam war is still raging at the time of Oct 15, 1971
FACT: The person who make that Retreat from Hell is a nobody

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1972 Nixon visit to China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China and the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Korean Armistice Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you do the maths

I rest my case

read the thread title again , this thread is about America beaten by china in korea war, man you are really is stupid and boring

 

[jhungary]

read the thread title again , this thread is about America beaten by china in korea war, man you are really is stupid and boring

read my response again, I am saying your title is crap and full of shiite. Man you are really slow

 

[gambit]

On the same token, had U.S. invaded North Vietnam, China would have theoretically intervened on North Vietnam's behalf like it did with North Korea in the first Korean War in 1950.

...and we all know that U.S. won't simply repulse the Communist invasion, the U.S. would have invaded North Vietnam, which would open an entirely different war with China involved.

Hence, theoretics is plausible to the extent it reflects the political will of the U.S. to win the war (ie. unify Vietnam under democracy), not merely repulsing an Communist invasion.

Not likely. Even before Johnson's escalation of US involvement in Viet Nam, North Vietnamese leaders, including Ho himself, has traveled to China, notably the 1962 visits, to ask for active Chinese combat troops involvement in the event the SVN/US alliance would invade North Vietnam. The 1962 visits ended with contradictory 'promises' from China, from Liu Shaoqi and Mao himself. According to Liu, it was the duty of the Chinese people to assist Viet Nam, but Mao overruled and pretty much promised only 'volunteers' and that they would be performing support duties. In the end, all Chinese troops did was air defense and constructions while US troops were in active combat.

 

[Wholegrain]

His argument also missed out 1 major factor. Now, I don't really know did he intentionally leave out this piece of information or he is just twisting information to make his point.......

China is about 32 times the size of Philippine and it's about 40-50 times the population. China have a land area of 9,706,961 sq km where as Philippine have a land area of 300,000 sq.km.

If a proportional time is needed to totally conquer China with respect to Philippine will be 32 times of 6 months he claim (Which is not true by the way) that's 192 calendar months. Which is 16 years, the war lasted 8 years (1937 - 1945) 45- 55% of China is conquered. I would say China is on the same track with respect to the speed of Japan Conquered Philippine, don't you think?

I don't really know why Chinese keep booster the fact that they are hard fighter, when the reason they were not conquer in full is because, well, they are too big and too vast to conquer.

China also had a massive population of collaborators like Wang Jingwei's government, the puppets in Manchukuo, Mengjiang and all of their soldiers.

China also had a massive Red Army unit stationed in Xinjiang to deal with.

Your percentage is also fake. If 45-55% of China was conquered, China would be left with only Xinjiang, Qinghai and Xikang.

The Japanese were totally halted in the northwest by Fu Zuoyi and Ma Hongbin and didn't advance an inch into Ningxia. The only operation where they captured massive amounts of land after 1940 was Operation Ichi-go and almost all of it was strategically useless.

 

[jhungary]

China also had a massive population of collaborators like Wang Jingwei's government, the puppets in Manchukuo, Mengjiang and all of their soldiers.

China also had a massive Red Army unit stationed in Xinjiang to deal with.

Your percentage is also fake. If 45-55% of China was conquered, China would be left with only Xinjiang, Qinghai and Xikang.

The Japanese were totally halted in the northwest by Fu Zuoyi and Ma Hongbin and didn't advance an inch into Ningxia. The only operation where they captured massive amounts of land after 1940 was Operation Ichi-go and almost all of it was strategically useless.

Blah blah blah, the Japanese is TOTALLY halted in the 1940 again. Time and time again, I show you about 10 battle that wage between 1942-1943, there are more than 50 battle waged by either the Japanese and Chinese during the 1940-1945 period, yet you keep calling the front line is "Stabilised" lol, kind of hard to argue with this "Chinese Logic"

And do you think collaborator is the only product from China? There are some in Philippine too. So spare me the Collaborator speech.

Fact is China is too big for Japan to conquer in just 8 years end of story. Come back when you have some solid evidence to suggest otherwise. And not just you are saying it. Dude, I show proof and you show me your finger....

 

[rott]

Forces on South Korean side:
South Korea: 602,902
USA : 326,863
UK And others: 14,198
Total: 972,214

Forces on North Korean side:
China: 1,350,000
North Korea: 266,600
USSR: 26,000
Total: 1,642,60

The total forces on North's side was almost double that of on South's side. China alone had 1.5 times the combined Southern forces.

The North suffered more than double the deaths and casualties of the South.

The reason Chinese lost more men in the Korean war is part of it's military strategy, and that was "You will run out of bullets before we run out of soldiers"
Also know as "Human wave tactics."