Korean vs. Vietnam war

[kajser]

I always wondered what the main difference between the korean and vietnam war was... not in the term of military technology and tactics but more politicaly based.
I mean why were there numerous UN forces involved in Korea and only USA, South Korea, Australia, New Zeland and Phillippines in Vietnam war?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Korea was occupied by Japan in the beginning of the 20th century and Vietnam was a Franch colony? Or maybe 'cause S. Korea was directly invaded by its north brother and in Vietnam case it was done through infiltration and NLF ?
can anyone shed some light on this for me?

thx

[gaijinsamurai]

Just my $.02:

The Korean War happened when the American populace was a lot more trusting, and less cynical of the federal government. If the president said we needed to go across the pacific and protect a "fledgeling democracy" from Communism, the people took him at his word.

Also, like you mentioned, in Korea, it was a more clear-cut case of the North invading the South, whereas in Vietnam, there were grassroots cells of insurgents, making it more of a civil war.

Both the North Vietnamese government and the South Korean government were far from democratic, but the South Vietnamese corruption and lack of will to make necessary reforms largely contributed to their own downfall.

Also, the North Vietnamese had the will to continue to fight the Americans and South Vietnamese, despite having taken a horrible beating on nearly every large-scale ground engagement, plus the bombings of Hanoi and other cities. After several years of fighting, the American people had enough.

Also, in my opinion, the North Vietnamese were more politically skilled, and were able to present their struggle as a fight against Western Imperialism, which brought a lot of world sympathy to their cause.

[James]

I always wondered what the main difference between the korean and vietnam war was... not in the term of military technology and tactics but more politicaly based.
I mean why were there numerous UN forces involved in Korea and only USA, South Korea, Australia, New Zeland and Phillippines in Vietnam war?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Korea was occupied by Japan in the beginning of the 20th century and Vietnam was a Franch colony? Or maybe 'cause S. Korea was directly invaded by its north brother and in Vietnam case it was done through infiltration and NLF ?
can anyone shed some light on this for me?

thx

Well, I'd first suggest some extensive reading, but I think you're pretty close to it. Here are a few of my thoughts.

South Korea was a sovereign nation that was invaded by conventional military forces from North Korea. The UN was a young organization that still needed to shake off the reputation of the League of Nations (which was more or less impotent in the face of German and Japanese aggression 20 years earlier). Also, Harry Truman was president of the U.S. To me, he is one of the better presidents the United States has had. Basically, I can;t think of a BETTER example of what the UN has ever done militarily - A sovereign nation is invaded by a neighbor, and most of the rest of the world stood up and said "No!". I think it's important to note that the UN was fighting aggression, not communism.

The situation in Vietnam was far more muddled, and it took in a different time period. In 1953, when the hard fighting in Korea was winding down, the French were fighting in Indochina, trying to hold onto their colony. This was a touchy time period around the world for anyone having a colony - especially for one of the victors of World War Two, which had ostensibly been fought by the Allies to, among other things, free hundreds of millions of people from the yokes of oppression and tyranny. There was also a sort of malaise that existed in the U.S. Government about Korea - a long, hard war with many casualties that, after three years, was more or less back where it had started - near the 38th parallel.
France lost at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, and Vietnam was formally divided into North and South. What followed was not a conventional military invasion of the South by the North, as was the case in Korea. Instead, the insurgency that had been going on against the French continued, and eventually Vietnam as a whole became involved in what was a Civil War; Communist North vs. "Democratic" South. Since the South was "Democratic" and the North was beset by evil Communism, it was only natural for the U.S. to support the South. This started with economic and military aid - money, equipment, and advisers. Starting in about 1959, the U.S. started to slide down a long, slippery slope.

That is your $.05 lesson in history today. ;) It is a drastically simplified and streamlined version of what was going on. As I stated earlier, I'd read up!

Have a good one.

[JeeJee]

I believe James wrote an answer that is short and to the point.

Even shorter one would have been that in the case of Korea, the idea was to be against aggressors, whereas in the case of Vietnam the battle was very much against communism. The latter of course is something that was worth the war from the US point of view but not so much from the rest of the world.

[Limeyfellow]

We also have to take account that early on in the Korean War they had a set goal to repel the North Koreans from the country, much like the goal was in Desert Storm. Unfortantly McArthur screwed up big time by continuing the push into North Korea and getting the Chinese involved and only response was nuclear weapons when things looked bad. Otherwise that war would have been over in a month.

Vietnam suffered from a lack of political goals and stablising forces, until strangely we pulled out and started talking a decade later and now they are a close ally.

[Jaguar]

Well, I'd first suggest some extensive reading, but I think you're pretty close to it. Here are a few of my thoughts.



Talking about reading just finished The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War by David Halberstam. Superb. Together with The Best and the Brightest (sometimes very boring) from the same author about Vietnam and there´s an excellent reading.

[James]

We also have to take account that early on in the Korean War they had a set goal to repel the North Koreans from the country, much like the goal was in Desert Storm. Unfortantly McArthur screwed up big time by continuing the push into North Korea and getting the Chinese involved and only response was nuclear weapons when things looked bad. Otherwise that war would have been over in a month.

I'm pretty sure that no nuclear weapons were used in Korea.

[HOLLiS]

What both war had in common and conflict after is in Part due to the UN. The land war if fought with the military the solution is fought politically. Resolutions are not clear and defined such as WWII and WWI. the difference in both war was as the wars moved farther from the end of WWII, the solutions was determined more by global politics than by force of arms. Because of the global politics involved, the actual goals seemed more unclear and uncertain. Military goals and success's being met did not have the effect they once had on the over all resolution of the conflict.

[biar_ecare]

the korean war also taught that the americans should'nt threaten the chinese border

the americans had learned their lesson from the korean war and was hesitated towards invading north vietnam due to the chinese border, i'm sure they would be able to do so as the north vietnamese suffered way more casualties

[HOLLiS]

the korean war also taught that the americans should'nt threaten the chinese border

the americans had learned their lesson from the korean war and was hesitated towards invading north vietnam due to the chinese border, i'm sure they would be able to do so as the north vietnamese suffered way more casualties


Try reading a history book not written by some political comrade.

[biar_ecare]

Try reading a history book not written by some political comrade.

lol what's up with MP lol, so many discrimination towards chinese

anyway this is common sense, i doubt china would let the US conquer north vietnam, i guess vietnam was all about US defending the corrupted south vietnam, and bombing northern cities

[HOLLiS]

lol what's up with MP lol, so many discrimination towards chinese

anyway this is common sense, i doubt china would let the US conquer north vietnam, i guess vietnam was all about US defending the corrupted south vietnam, and bombing northern cities



What so China could conquer North Viet-Nam for their selves?

"The Sino–Vietnamese War, also known as the Third Indochina War, was a brief but bloody border war fought in 1979 between the People's Republic of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China) (PRC) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Vietnam). The PRC launched the offensive in response to Vietnam's invasion and occupation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian-Vietnamese_War) of Cambodia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia), which ended the reign of the PRC-backed Khmer Rouge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge). After a brief incursion into Northern Vietnam, PRC troops withdrew about a month later. Both sides claimed victory in the last of the wars of Indochina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Indochina)."

Let me suggest you learn to chill, read forum rules and stickies.

[biar_ecare]

i'm just saying that the US could conquer north vietnam if they wanted to, but the Chinese would likely aid the north vietnamese allies by sending troops

not because of "friendship", but security, imagine Americans building airfields in northern vietnam and china will be doomed

anyway the vietnam was over and it's not worth arguing out a fictional topic

[Laconian]

lol what's up with MP lol, so many discrimination towards chinese

anyway this is common sense, i doubt china would let the US conquer north vietnam, i guess vietnam was all about US defending the corrupted south vietnam, and bombing northern cities

I've read several histories of the US involvement in RVN and no where have I ever heard of a US plan to invade/conquer/ or even unify North and South VN. The US plan was to prop up the RVN govt. and stop the communist invasion of an independent govt, and stop the spread of communism in the region.

In the same way, Korea was an attempt to roll back the communist invasion of a sovereign nation, contain the spread of communism and stabilize the govt of a US ally in the region.

[SnakeBiteLeader]

i'm just saying that the US could conquer north vietnam if they wanted to, but the Chinese would likely aid the north vietnamese allies by sending troops


Maybe, but I tend to think not. You're forgetting that Mao's government was under siege by overly zealous students. What resources the PLA had at the time were needed to keep the Red Guards in check and to protect the ruling elite.

[Ichabod]

France lost at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, and Vietnam was formally divided into North and South. What followed was not a conventional military invasion of the South by the North, as was the case in Korea. Instead, the insurgency that had been going on against the French continued, and eventually Vietnam as a whole became involved in what was a Civil War; Communist North vs. "Democratic" South.

Yes but weren't they divided into provisional states with the point of regrouping the viet minh in the north ad democratic forces south until elections took place? As i understood it,Vietnam was only temporarily divided!?

i'm just saying that the US could conquer north vietnam if they wanted to, but the Chinese would likely aid the north vietnamese allies by sending troops

''After the launch of "Rolling Thunder", China sent anti-aircraft units and engineering battalions to North Vietnam to repair the damage caused by American bombing, rebuild roads and railroads and to perform other engineering works. This freed North Vietnamese army units for combat in the South. Between 1965 and 1970, over 320,000 Chinese soldiers served in North Vietnam. The peak was 1967, when 170,000 served there.''

[Ichabod]

Maybe, but I tend to think not. You're forgetting that Mao's government was under siege by overly zealous students. What resources the PLA had at the time were needed to keep the Red Guards in check and to protect the ruling elite.

Couldn't they send those students to join their comrades in the battle against ''imperialist US GI''??

[SnakeBiteLeader]

Couldn't they send those students to join their comrades in the battle against ''imperialist US GI''??

I doubt that would have been very effective given that the Red Guards were essentially rioters and considered dangerous even to Mao himself. I can't help but think that the ideological differences between the RGs and the North Viets would only cause trouble.

[James]

Yes but weren't they divided into provisional states with the point of regrouping the viet minh in the north ad democratic forces south until elections took place? As i understood it,Vietnam was only temporarily divided!?

The division was supposed to be temporary. The elections never took place. So, the de facto result was division into North and South. Like I said in my original post:

That is your $.05 lesson in history today. ;) It is a drastically simplified and streamlined version of what was going on.