Heil Dubya!

Poor "Briarroot" is appallingly ignorant. Will someone please point out to
her/him/it documentation concerning Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (all within
a few months in 1945)? I think (s)he/it will believe what is printed in the
United Statesian propaganda organs (such as The New York Times). As for the U.
S. invasion of Korea, begun on 25 June 1950, (almost immediately after John
Foster Dulles FLEW away from the North/South Korea border), I concede that it
would be impossible to get her/him/it even to look at documentation of others
than her/his/its preferred U. S. propaganda sources.

NoMoreChess wrote:

Briarroot seems to have taken the general position that any criticism of
the United States, (or any action it has ever taken), is a bad thing *in
itself*.

That is not my position at all, I merely wish to offer some
balance to what I consider to be a series of one-sided attacks.

(One sentence snipped.)

Charges of wrongdoing or immorality or bungling are to be dismissed
out-of-hand, because it is unacceptable to even *consider* such charges
against the U.S., regardless of merit. I say this because he has not
even bothered to consider the possibility that we may have done exactly
what Nick's posting suggested we did -- or at least so it seems, to me.


(Much snipped.)

BTW, we don't *need* the Korean War in order to know that the U.S.A. has,
in fact, stooped to levels considered *by us* to be well beneath our
stated,
high moral principles.

Even if we were to simply accept Briarroot's position that such hideous
acts as nuking Japan were absolutely necessary, we still have to admit to
blundering, to actions which are unconscionable given our current stated
beliefs with regard to racism, and the value of human life.
We still would have to admit to other violations of conventions to which
we are a signatory. We would still have to admit that -- even when we were
certain of easy victory from the start -- we have needlessly resorted to
"experimenting" on the enemy using weapons of a particularly nasty sort,
when others would have managed the same objective, without all the mess.
We could argue about specific weapons, but that is beside the point.
Humans are not guinnea pigs -- unless they happen to be a different
color, that is.

I would be interested hearing of any documented examples of such
behavior
by the US in World War Two, or the Korean War.

(Much more snipped.)

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

Poor "Briarroot" is appallingly ignorant. Will someone please point out to
her/him/it documentation concerning Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (all
within
a few months in 1945)? I think (s)he/it will believe what is printed in the
United Statesian propaganda organs (such as The New York Times).


LOL! Briarroot is so "low" that he cannot be directly addressed by the
likes of Sir Bibuld, but instead, a go-between is required to span the vast
ocean which separates royalty from the commoner, whoever he/she/it may be!

This is not mere disdain, it is observance of proper protocol -- like bowing
in Sir Bibuld's royal presence, or greeting a fellow United Statesian with the
salute: "Heil Dubya!", in honor of our fearless leader.




Nine sprechen sie Deutche. No comprendo. Whatever did he say about
uuuumurika und her allies? Nevermind. (Bows. Exit, stage left)

Jerome Bibuld wrote:

Poor "Briarroot" is appallingly ignorant. Will someone please point out to
her/him/it documentation concerning Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (all within
a few months in 1945)? I think (s)he/it will believe what is printed in the
United Statesian propaganda organs (such as The New York Times).

Another hilarious communiqué from the Commissar of Comedy!

Is this the same New York Times that printed the Pentagon Papers?
You may remember the case, when the US Justice Department sued in an
attempt to prevent the Times from printing excerpts from the book of
the same name, claiming they were injurious to the national security.
Tsk, such poor behavior from a "propaganda organ."


As for the U.S. invasion of Korea, begun on 25 June 1950, (almost
immediately after John Foster Dulles FLEW away from the North/South
Korea border), I concede that it would be impossible to get her/him/it
even to look at documentation of others than her/his/its preferred U. S.
propaganda sources.

You poor backward simpleton. It may have escaped your notice (!) that
the US Army was *already* occupying southern Korea as a result of taking
over from the defeated Japanese after World War 2. US troops came under
fire on June 25th, 1950 because the North Koreans, with the
encouragement
of Communist China, attacked southward. And where would you expect
Dulles
to fly? Toward the border? Your whacky theories of fascist world
domination are mind boggling. Why don't you go back to worrying about
those black helicopters hovering over your residence?

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message ...
(snipped)
As for the U.S. invasion of Korea, begun on 25 June 1950, (almost immediately
after John Foster Dulles FLEW away from the North/South Korea border), I
concede that it would be impossible to get her/him/it even to look at
documentation of others than her/his/its preferred U. S. propaganda sources.

Dear Mr. Bibuld,

Have you read "The Hidden History of the Korean War" by I.F. Stone (1952)?

For further reading on the Korean War (1950-53):

"The Origins of the Korean War" (2 vols.) by Bruce Cumings (1981-90:
Princeton University Press) is the scholarly standard work on the subject.

"Korea: the Unknown War" by Bruce Cumings and Jon Halliday (1988) is a
good introduction for the general reader.

"Korea: the First War We Lost" by Bevin Alexander (2000: revised edition)
is a good general military history by a former official historian for the
United States Army.

"Just before the war the North Korean order of battle numbered about 95000
troops. Thus the initial attacking force was not very large; the KPA had
mobilised less than half its forces on 25 June. Arrayed against them were
five ROK Army divisions located near Seoul or north of it, with some 50000
troops. This evidence is compatible *both* with an unprovoked invasion and
with an interpretation linking the summer of 1949 with June 1950--that the
North waited until it had the majority of its crack soldiers back from China
and then positioned them to take advantage of the first major Southern
provocation in June 1950.

The American position has always been that the North Koreans stealthily
prepared an attack that was completely unprovoked and that constituted an
all-out invasion. On 26 June Kim Il Sung, on the contrary, accused the South
of making a 'general attack' across the parallel. Rhee had long sought to
'provoke' a fraticidal civil war, he said, having incessantly 'provoked clashes'
at the front line; in preparing a 'northern expedition' he had 'even go so far
as to collude with our sworn enemy, Japanese militarism'. Some of these
charges were true, but the charge of making a general attack across the
parallel us false. The possibility that the South opened the fighting on
Ongjin, with an eye to seizing Haeju, cannot be discounted, but there is no
evidence that it intended a general invasion.

The question pregnant with ideological dynamite, 'Who started the Korean War?'
is surely the wrong question. No Americans care any more that the South fired
first on Fort Sumter in their civil war; they do still care about slavery and
secession. No one asks who started the Vietnam War. Like Vietnam, Korea was
a civil and revolutionary war."

--Bruce Cumings and Jon Halliday (Korea: the Unknown War, pp. 73-4)

Civil wars often become waged with exceptional cruelty--on both sides.

"James Cameron of London's 'Picture Post' wrote about what he termed,
'South Korean concentration camps' in Pusan in the late summer of 1950:

'I had seen Belsen, but this was *worse*. This terrible mob of men--convicted
of nothing, un-tried, South Koreans in South Korea, suspected of being
'unreliable'. There were hundreds of them; they were skeletal, puppets of
string, faces translucent grey, manacled to each other with chains, cringing
in the classic Oriental attitude of subjection, the squatting foetal position,
in piles of garbage....Around this medievally gruesome market-place were
gathered a few knots of American soldiers photographiing the scene with casual
industry....I took my indignation to the (UN) Commission, who said very civilly:
'Most disturbing, yes; but remember these are Asian people, with different
standards of behaviour...all very difficult'. It was supine and indefensible
compromise. I boiled, and I do not boil easily. We recorded the situation
meticulously, in words and photographs. Within the year it nearly cost me
my job, and my magazine its existence.'

'Picture Post' never publlished Cameron's story, causing a 'mini-mutiny' on
the magazine."

--Bruce Cumings and Jon Halliday (Korea: the Unknown War, p. 92)

'To look with mercy on the conduct of others is a virtue no less than to look
with severity on your own.'
--Matthew Gregory Lewis (The Monk)

--Nick

I write this post only to address a specific point of history.
I have no interest whatsoever in any personal communication with "Briarroot".

Briarroot wrote in message ... (to Jerome Bibuld):
Jerome Bibuld wrote:
(snipped)
As for the U.S. invasion of Korea, begun on 25 June 1950, (almost
immediately after John Foster Dulles FLEW away from the North/South
Korea border), I concede that it would be impossible to get her/him/it
even to look at documentation of others than her/his/its preferred U. S.
propaganda sources.

You poor backward simpleton. It may have escaped your notice (!) that the
US Army was *already* occupying southern Korea as a result of taking over
from the defeated Japanese after World War 2. US troops came under fire on
June 25th, 1950 because the North Koreans, with the encouragement of
Communist China, attacked southward....

According to Bevin Alexander, a former official historian for the United States
Army, the notion that the Chinese Communists encouraged a North Korean invasion
of South Korea is "almost certainly" a myth.

"The standard American view was that the Russians egged on the North Koreans
to attack, and that the Russians miscalculated the American response. Although
this theory grew out of the general theory that all communist states were
jointly conspiring against the West, it contained an element of logic. It was
senseless for the North Koreans to risk such a hazardous play with no stronger
hole card than an expressed American policy of nonintervention. This was the
reason for much of the anxiety and uncertainty in Washington and other Western
capitals: Western leaders couldn't believe the North Koreans would have attacked
unless they had assurances that Russia or Red China or both would come to their
aid if the Americans did intervene....

Indeed, if North Korea had such an assurance, it was *never* honored. Far more
likely is that North Korean leaders believed, if they got into trouble, the
Soviet Union or Red China would feel compelled to move to their aid. In fact,
the Soviet Union never made the slightest effort to do so, ignoring even a
U.S. Air Force attack on a Siberian airfield, mistakenly thought by the pilots
to be within North Korea. And Red China's motivations were *unrelated* to
saving the North Korean leaders' necks, but rather to protecting China from
possible American aggression.

There is no evidence the Soviet government actually instigated the invasion.
Rather, the evidence seems preponderant that the North Koreans planned it, and
that the Russians, when informed, went along, hoping with the North Koreans
that the Americans would stay out....

Khrushchev's memories of the course of the war itself contain factual errors.
Whether his memories of Stalin-Kim (Il Sung) and Stalin-Mao talks are more
accurate is impossible to determine....

The case for Chinese Communist involvement in the attack rests *entirely* on
Khrushchev's statement that Stalin consulted with Mao before the attack.
In fact, the Red Chinese could have had *no reason whatsoever to encourage*
adventures in the Far East until they had completed the conquest of Taiwan.
The Reds probably would have launched their attack on the island in the summer
of 1950 if the Korean War had not intervened. Therefore, Chinese advice, if
asked, *almost certainly* would have been *negative*."

--Bevin Alexander (Korea: the First War We Lost, pp. 21-3)

'If we act only for ourselves, to neglect the study of history is not prudent;
if we are entrusted with the care of others, it is not just.'
--Samuel Johnson (Rasselas)

--Nick

Nick vomited forth snake venom thus:

snipped

"The standard American view was that the Russians egged on the North Koreans
to attack, and that the Russians miscalculated the American response. Although
this theory grew out of the general theory that all communist states were
jointly conspiring against the West, it contained an element of logic. It was
senseless for the North Koreans to risk such a hazardous play with no stronger
hole card than an expressed American policy of nonintervention. This was the
reason for much of the anxiety and uncertainty in Washington and other Western
capitals: Western leaders couldn't believe the North Koreans would have attacked
unless they had assurances that Russia or Red China or both would come to their
aid if the Americans did intervene...

snip


Listen to me, you pureile propogandist. In terms of Korea, the 'North'
did not prevail. The South hold ascendence, to the day! Who do you
imagine yourself to be? Think, 'thanksgiving', Xmas goose\ Turkey the
sweetbreads, the gravy etc. ..

I write this post to clarify one point, which already has been utterly
misunderstood by one reader here (Michael Adams).

(Nick) wrote in message . com...
(snipped)
According to Bevin Alexander, a former official historian for the United
States Army, the notion that the Chinese Communists encouraged a North Korean
invasion of South Korea is "almost certainly" a myth.

"The standard American view was that the Russians egged on the North Koreans
to attack, and that the Russians miscalculated the American response.
Although this theory grew out of the general theory that all communist states
were jointly conspiring against the West, it contained an element of logic.
It was senseless for the North Koreans to risk such a hazardous play with no
stronger hole card than an expressed American policy of nonintervention.
This was the reason for much of the anxiety and uncertainty in Washington and
other Western capitals: Western leaders couldn't believe the North Koreans
would have attacked unless they had assurances that Russia or Red China or
both would come to their aid if the Americans did intervene....

Indeed, if North Korea had such an assurance, it was *never* honored. Far more
likely is that North Korean leaders believed, if they got into trouble, the
Soviet Union or Red China would feel compelled to move to their aid. In fact,
the Soviet Union never made the slightest effort to do so, ignoring even a
U.S. Air Force attack on a Siberian airfield, mistakenly thought by the pilots
to be within North Korea. And Red China's motivations were *unrelated* to
saving the North Korean leaders' necks, but rather to protecting China from
possible American aggression.

There is no evidence the Soviet government actually instigated the invasion.
Rather, the evidence seems preponderant that the North Koreans planned it, and
that the Russians, when informed, went along, hoping with the North Koreans
that the Americans would stay out....

Khrushchev's memories of the course of the war itself contain factual errors.
Whether his memories of Stalin-Kim (Il Sung) and Stalin-Mao talks are more
accurate is impossible to determine....

The case for Chinese Communist involvement in the attack rests *entirely* on
Khrushchev's statement that Stalin consulted with Mao before the attack.
In fact, the Red Chinese could have had *no reason whatsoever to encourage*
adventures in the Far East until they had completed the conquest of Taiwan.
The Reds probably would have launched their attack on the island in the summer
of 1950 if the Korean War had not intervened. Therefore, Chinese advice, if
asked, *almost certainly* would have been *negative*."

--Bevin Alexander (Korea: the First War We Lost, pp. 21-3)

Elsewhere in this thread, Michael Adams has ignorantly denounced me as a
"pureile propagandist", evidently because I had *quoted* exactly the complete
title of Bevin Alexander's history, "Korea: the First War We Lost".
(I recommend the revised edition that was published in 2000.)

Bevin Alexander has explained why he chose that title for his book:

"This book attempts to show that the United States--with the aid of South Korea
and the support of some United Nations members--*won one war* against the North
Koreans and *lost another war* against the Red Chinese. The causes of these
*two wars* were essentially and totally *different*: the North Koreans were
bent on overt aggression and were thwarted; the Red Chinese were trying to
protect their homeland from the potential threat of invasion and were
successful." (p. ix)

Hence, according to Bevin Alexander, "the first war we (the United States)
lost" was to the Chinese in the (second) Korean War.

Bevin Alexander (a Korean War veteran) has written of his sources (pp. xi-xii):

"I have the happy privilege rare among writers to be able to cite as sources
of uch of the material on the Korean War works produced by personal friends
and former comrades in arms. Without the outstanding work done by these and
other researchers this book ould have been impossible. This volume is a product
of the immense amount of work done by dedicated historians over a long period.
The conclusions in this book I lay on no other shoulders but my own; the facts
contained in it are drawn from the rich mines of material uncovered by the
historians and the basic researchers of the war. If this book is accepted as
a fair representation of the immensely involved and complicated story of the
war, it should be seen as a monument to them.

I specifically wish to thank the following army historians, most of whom I
served with in Korea and most of whom, like myself, commanded Historical
Detachments: (list of fifteen United States Army official historians)...
I have not had the pleasure of meeting the authors of the official histories
of the other services, but I wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge the
essential contributions they have made in their painstaking and accurate
studies: (list of five United States Armed Forces official historians)..."

Bevin Alexander has listed his sources and references in detail (pp. 493-548):

"In my research I have drawn largely from six major types of sources: original
documents in the National Archives; the official histories of the war produced
by the army, navy, air force, marines, and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS);
autobiographies and memoirs of major figures involved in the war; State
Department and Archives publications of presidential and diplomatic messages,
statements and decisions; scholarly studies on the war or political and
diplomatic matters related to the war; and contemporary news reports, mostly
from the 'New York Times', and articles in the English-language
'People's China', published in Beijing."
--Bevin Alexander (2000, revised edition, p. 493)

In short, Bevin Alexander's history of the Korean War was written while almost
completely relying on official or semi-official United States sources.

And, as evident from Alexander's continual usage of the rather disparaging
term, "Red China", instead of the diplomatically correct, "People's Republic
of China", or simply, "China", any political bias in his history, "Korea: the
First War We Lost" would seem to be directed *against* the Communists.

'If we act only for ourselves, to neglect the study of history is not prudent;
if we are entrusted with the care of others, it is not just.'
--Samuel Johnson (Rasselas)

--Nick

Nick wrote:

I write this post to clarify one point, which already has been utterly
misunderstood by one reader here (Michael Adams).

snip

Em, I'll thank you, you gullible 'Guardian' parrot, to allow me to fully
misunderstand anything I see fit. Now, regarding the one [1] pt. you
have in mind. Care to elaborate further, you nasty little man?..

michael adams wrote in message ...
Nick wrote:
I write this post to clarify one point, which already has been utterly
misunderstood by one reader here (Michael Adams).
(snipped by Michael Adams)

Em, I'll thank you, you gullible 'Guardian' parrot, to allow me to fully
misunderstand anything I see fit.

I also would like to cite links to selected articles in 'The Independent' at

http://www.independent.co.uk/

But these articles may be completely read by *only* the paying subscribers.

Now, regarding the one [1] pt. you have in mind.
Care to elaborate further, you nasty little man?

If Michael Adams does not care whether or not he understands whatever I write,
then I do not care to make any particular effort to explain it further to him.

'Where men are ignorant, every man thinks himself at liberty to report what he
pleases.'
--Henry Fielding (Amelia)

--Nick

Nick wrote:

michael adams wrote in message ...
Nick wrote:
I write this post to clarify one point, which already has been utterly
misunderstood by one reader here (Michael Adams).
(snipped by Michael Adams)

Em, I'll thank you, you gullible 'Guardian' parrot, to allow me to fully
misunderstand anything I see fit.

I also would like to cite links to selected articles in 'The Independent' at

http://www.independent.co.uk/

But these articles may be completely read by *only* the paying subscribers.

Now, regarding the one [1] pt. you have in mind.
Care to elaborate further, you nasty little man?

If Michael Adams does not care whether or not he understands whatever I write,
then I do not care to make any particular effort to explain it further to him.

Hey, Mr. Nickolodean, you can talk freely here, why be so uptight! I ask
you plainly to specify 'your' point & you ramble like an old fart..