During the campaign, conventional weapons such as explosives, incendiary bombs, and napalm destroyed nearly all of the country’s cities and towns, including an estimated 85% of its buildings.
A total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, were dropped on Korea. By comparison, the U.S. dropped 1.6 million tons in the European theater and 500,000 tons in the Pacific theater during all of World War II (including 160,000 on Japan). North Korea ranks alongside Cambodia (500,000 tons), Laos (2 million tons), and South Vietnam (4 million tons) as among the most heavily-bombed countries in history.
In an interview with U.S. Air Force historians in 1988, USAF General Curtis LeMay, who was also head of the U.S. Strategic Air Command, commented on efforts to win the war as a whole, including the strategic bombing campaign, saying “Right at the start of the war, unofficially, I slipped a message in “under the carpet” in the Pentagon that we ought to turn SAC lose with some incendiaries on some North Korean towns. The answer came back, under the carpet again, that there would be too many civilian casualties; we couldn’t do anything like that. We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, some way or another, and some in South Korea, too…Over a period of three years or so we killed off, what, 20 percent of the population of Korea, as direct casualties of war or from starvation and exposure? Over a period of three years, this seemed to be acceptable to everybody, but to kill a few people at the start right away, no, we can’t seem to stomach that.”
Sahr-Conway Lanz, who holds a Ph.D. in the history of American foreign relations, has written extensively about the legacy and impact on American discourse on the international norm of noncombatant immunity. He states:
“During the war, American military and civilian officials stretched the term “military target” to include virtually all human-made structures, capitalizing on the vague distinction between the military and civilian segments of an enemy society. They came to apply the logic of total war to the destruction of the civil infrastructure in North Korea. Because almost any building could serve a military purpose, even if a minor one, nearly the entire physical infrastructure behind enemy lines was deemed a military target and open to attack. This expansive definition, along with the optimism about sparing civilians that is reinforced, worked to obscure in American awareness the suffering of Korean civilians in which U.S. firebombing was contributing.”
The song was inspired by Korean war veteran that John McCrea met in a bar.
@Hyggyldy@sffa.community that feeling gnawing at the back of your awareness is the realization that you’ve been duped by the most prolificly evil entity to ever exist on the planet
Won’t realize anything. When I showed this article to my liberal friend he doubled down and said that while civilian deaths were unfortunate, it was a proportional response to Kim invading the South and compared it to Hitler invading Poland. Its veryt rare that shit like this gets through.
Hey I too know a lib I can’t get through to; this guy however doesn’t know nearly enough about history to try and sound informed; he instead spouts whatever comes to mind, for example: when I told him about what had been going on in Donbas until the war, and that Ukraine wanted the land but not the people, he argued for ethnic cleansing in the form of forcing all the Russians there to leave, and it was enough that the Ukrainian government wanted them gone for him to say that. When I brought up that the US is causing major issues with Taiwan, his response was “Do you believe that China does bad things?”, and then wanted to start talking about the Uyghurs even though…it has literally no relation to the situation with Taiwan. He pretends that countries not being democracies is the reason he supports the US intervening or invading many nations, and when I point out that Ukraine has shut down many left wing parties, he then pivots and says Putin does it too with a face as though he’s said something really clever.
I’ve spent hours trying to educate him about what’s going on in many countries the US intervenes in but the truth is this guy just inherently supports US empire.
Your friend may be different, but I suspect he’s using what little historical info he has to try and lend legitimacy to his claims but the truth is he already knows who he supports (just not why).
“During the war, American military and civilian officials stretched the term “military target” to include virtually all human-made structures, capitalizing on the vague distinction between the military and civilian segments of an enemy society. They came to apply the logic of total war to the destruction of the civil infrastructure in North Korea. Because almost any building could serve a military purpose, even if a minor one, nearly the entire physical infrastructure behind enemy lines was deemed a military target and open to attack. This expansive definition, along with the optimism about sparing civilians that is reinforced, worked to obscure in American awareness the suffering of Korean civilians in which U.S. firebombing was contributing.”
One of the things I never understood is why Western countries (as we’re not the only ones who do this) bother coming up with these laws and rules of engagement and such if they’re just going to basically be interpreted in the most liberal sense to allow one to do whatever they want. Take that adviser to Trump who suggested sending out a drone to ‘deal’ with migrants before they crossed the US border or entered American waters because they wouldn’t be protected by the US constitution at that point. What even is the point of these laws if the intent is ignored and people simply find a way to play the system?
the mask of civility is the thin veneer that liberals use to hide their agenda
it’s related to the difference between materialist and idealist perspectives
if you claim to uphold lofty ideals, then you can just claim the material failure to live up to those ideals is an oversight, mistake, accident, victim-blame etc
this is also why plausible deniability is a critical aspect of many operations, it was those few bad people that caused the bad things, not the institutional structure that is dedicated to lofty ideals
It’s a war, what do you expect to happen? Regardless, considering how North Korea turned out, defending South Korea, was without a doubt, the right decision.
I’m sorry, but you’re deeply misinformed. I’m saying this not to start a fight, but in the hope that seeing it from someone outside hexbear (I’m banned from that instance!) will be received better.
What you’re saying is the us propaganda during and about the war after it ended. The consensus among even american historians stands in stark contrast to what youve posted.
I’m on mobile at the moment, so I can’t make the biggest post, but if you wanna know something in particular lmk and I’ll get to it as soon as I can.
What I said isn’t propaganda, it’s the reality. If you want to make the case that the war was brutal then I would agree. If you want to make the case that South Korea was ran by dictators until recently then I would also agree. These are also facts, but they’re irrelevant to the point that I was trying to make. The idiot I was replying to really pretended that Korean war was started by the US and not the Soviet backed invasion of the North which is simply not true. Whether you think the war was justified or not is subjective. Just like the nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, everybody has their moral opinions on it. In my view, the US involvement in Korea to help the South was the right decision. Even if South Korea didn’t democratize in the 1990s, they still would’ve been better off being sovereign then under the control of the North. The North after the war went through an economic collapse, a famine, and chronic food and supplies shortages that are still plaguing the country today. It wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows, but the it was ultimately the right call.
there’s a lot youre leaving out. I don’t think it’s on purpose, but one of the only ways that the korean war can be made to look like a soviet invasion is by conveniently leaving out everything that happened before the norths army crossed the 38th parallel.
korea was one nation and people before it was divided roughly along a line of latitude by two american officers with no input from those knowledgeable about korea or its history. one of those officers, dean rusk, has said that he would have done things differently if he knew that forty years before, the tsarist russians and japanese had discussed dividing korea along a very similar line.
They divided the peninsula because the idea among the allies was to reunify it five years or so after china’s civil war ended and it was clear weather koreas only land border would be with the communists or the koumintang.
as the japanese retreated south, the korean people formed their own governing committees. the soviet forces integrated those committees into the provisional government, the american side integrated the collaborators from the japanese occupation into theirs. the north had a democratic election, the south became a military dictatorship.
both sides claim to have held elections, but while a majority of the north wanted to vote for kim il sung, the fighter who was an ally of the liberators that empowered koreans to kick out collaborators and do land reform, the souths election that would put syngman rhee in power were boycotted by the souths political parties and accompanied by what was reported on in even western papers as brutal repression. it’s worth noting that one of the leaders of a prominent political party would be assassinated a little later.
there’s plenty i’m glossing over, but the north didn’t cross the 38th parallel out of the blue for no reason but to impose their evil communist brainwashing on the kindly people of the south. in the south, the repression of jeju island, the military uprising against the government in response to that repression and the bodo league massacre are the backdrop for the norths invasion.
now think about those circumstances and history for a second.
the americans divide your country along the same line the russians and occupiers wanted to use before. lets say youre in the north: maybe you don’t trust these soviets, but they respect the peoples committees and theyre doing that land reform youve been wanting for decades. they’re supportive of you expelling the japanese collaborators and things feel like they’re getting better. how about if youre in the south? the americans put the collaborators back in charge, broke up the peoples committees and are putting the ever growing number of collaborators to work beating everyone into shape for the election.
when 30,000 koreans die on jeju island, there’s a failed military uprising and a massacre of south korean communists, what would any right minded person do? of course the north crossed the made up line keeping them away from their countrymen in peril!
since i’ve written enough already i’ll just address what you said about the state of the north being so bad: when and why was it so bad? why did it take a carpet bombing campaign and international blockade to make it so bad?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_North_Korea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Rgsihd6WM
@Hyggyldy@sffa.community that feeling gnawing at the back of your awareness is the realization that you’ve been duped by the most prolificly evil entity to ever exist on the planet
Won’t realize anything. When I showed this article to my liberal friend he doubled down and said that while civilian deaths were unfortunate, it was a proportional response to Kim invading the South and compared it to Hitler invading Poland. Its veryt rare that shit like this gets through.
Hey I too know a lib I can’t get through to; this guy however doesn’t know nearly enough about history to try and sound informed; he instead spouts whatever comes to mind, for example: when I told him about what had been going on in Donbas until the war, and that Ukraine wanted the land but not the people, he argued for ethnic cleansing in the form of forcing all the Russians there to leave, and it was enough that the Ukrainian government wanted them gone for him to say that. When I brought up that the US is causing major issues with Taiwan, his response was “Do you believe that China does bad things?”, and then wanted to start talking about the Uyghurs even though…it has literally no relation to the situation with Taiwan. He pretends that countries not being democracies is the reason he supports the US intervening or invading many nations, and when I point out that Ukraine has shut down many left wing parties, he then pivots and says Putin does it too with a face as though he’s said something really clever.
I’ve spent hours trying to educate him about what’s going on in many countries the US intervenes in but the truth is this guy just inherently supports US empire.
Your friend may be different, but I suspect he’s using what little historical info he has to try and lend legitimacy to his claims but the truth is he already knows who he supports (just not why).
It’s not a pissing contest, but I still believe Nazi Germany takes the cake in that regard.
its certainly possible, as someone living under the former example and 85 years separated from the latter, its impossible for me to say
Death to america/nazis!
One of the things I never understood is why Western countries (as we’re not the only ones who do this) bother coming up with these laws and rules of engagement and such if they’re just going to basically be interpreted in the most liberal sense to allow one to do whatever they want. Take that adviser to Trump who suggested sending out a drone to ‘deal’ with migrants before they crossed the US border or entered American waters because they wouldn’t be protected by the US constitution at that point. What even is the point of these laws if the intent is ignored and people simply find a way to play the system?
the mask of civility is the thin veneer that liberals use to hide their agenda
it’s related to the difference between materialist and idealist perspectives
if you claim to uphold lofty ideals, then you can just claim the material failure to live up to those ideals is an oversight, mistake, accident, victim-blame etc
this is also why plausible deniability is a critical aspect of many operations, it was those few bad people that caused the bad things, not the institutional structure that is dedicated to lofty ideals
To say that they have them
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=52Rgsihd6WM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It’s a war, what do you expect to happen? Regardless, considering how North Korea turned out, defending South Korea, was without a doubt, the right decision.
Fuck you “the Korean War was the right decision”
Fuck you, imperialist warmonger. Pray that the souls of millions of dead Koreans killed by American hands don’t haunt you tonight.
Removed by mod
I’m sorry, but you’re deeply misinformed. I’m saying this not to start a fight, but in the hope that seeing it from someone outside hexbear (I’m banned from that instance!) will be received better.
What you’re saying is the us propaganda during and about the war after it ended. The consensus among even american historians stands in stark contrast to what youve posted.
I’m on mobile at the moment, so I can’t make the biggest post, but if you wanna know something in particular lmk and I’ll get to it as soon as I can.
What I said isn’t propaganda, it’s the reality. If you want to make the case that the war was brutal then I would agree. If you want to make the case that South Korea was ran by dictators until recently then I would also agree. These are also facts, but they’re irrelevant to the point that I was trying to make. The idiot I was replying to really pretended that Korean war was started by the US and not the Soviet backed invasion of the North which is simply not true. Whether you think the war was justified or not is subjective. Just like the nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, everybody has their moral opinions on it. In my view, the US involvement in Korea to help the South was the right decision. Even if South Korea didn’t democratize in the 1990s, they still would’ve been better off being sovereign then under the control of the North. The North after the war went through an economic collapse, a famine, and chronic food and supplies shortages that are still plaguing the country today. It wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows, but the it was ultimately the right call.
there’s a lot youre leaving out. I don’t think it’s on purpose, but one of the only ways that the korean war can be made to look like a soviet invasion is by conveniently leaving out everything that happened before the norths army crossed the 38th parallel.
korea was one nation and people before it was divided roughly along a line of latitude by two american officers with no input from those knowledgeable about korea or its history. one of those officers, dean rusk, has said that he would have done things differently if he knew that forty years before, the tsarist russians and japanese had discussed dividing korea along a very similar line.
They divided the peninsula because the idea among the allies was to reunify it five years or so after china’s civil war ended and it was clear weather koreas only land border would be with the communists or the koumintang.
as the japanese retreated south, the korean people formed their own governing committees. the soviet forces integrated those committees into the provisional government, the american side integrated the collaborators from the japanese occupation into theirs. the north had a democratic election, the south became a military dictatorship.
both sides claim to have held elections, but while a majority of the north wanted to vote for kim il sung, the fighter who was an ally of the liberators that empowered koreans to kick out collaborators and do land reform, the souths election that would put syngman rhee in power were boycotted by the souths political parties and accompanied by what was reported on in even western papers as brutal repression. it’s worth noting that one of the leaders of a prominent political party would be assassinated a little later.
there’s plenty i’m glossing over, but the north didn’t cross the 38th parallel out of the blue for no reason but to impose their evil communist brainwashing on the kindly people of the south. in the south, the repression of jeju island, the military uprising against the government in response to that repression and the bodo league massacre are the backdrop for the norths invasion.
now think about those circumstances and history for a second.
the americans divide your country along the same line the russians and occupiers wanted to use before. lets say youre in the north: maybe you don’t trust these soviets, but they respect the peoples committees and theyre doing that land reform youve been wanting for decades. they’re supportive of you expelling the japanese collaborators and things feel like they’re getting better. how about if youre in the south? the americans put the collaborators back in charge, broke up the peoples committees and are putting the ever growing number of collaborators to work beating everyone into shape for the election.
when 30,000 koreans die on jeju island, there’s a failed military uprising and a massacre of south korean communists, what would any right minded person do? of course the north crossed the made up line keeping them away from their countrymen in peril!
since i’ve written enough already i’ll just address what you said about the state of the north being so bad: when and why was it so bad? why did it take a carpet bombing campaign and international blockade to make it so bad?
fuck you, I’m not reading any of that
Removed by mod