Excellent article. I don't know if democratic societies will ever learn how to get out of the yo-yo of "win wars, relax, demilitarise, scramble, fight for survival, win, repeat". Or, even more to the point, recognise a near emergency and ramp up faster - as Europe doesn't do today, when it should.
Yet another top quality argument. I see that Lord Dannatt was doing the rounds with the newspapers again last weekend reminding the public of just this. As Justin has noted below it seems that the cycle still revolves in the same way and that lessons from history continue to be ignored.
True! The point was that it was the legitimate government of Korea, recognised by the UN though, of course, it wasn't as democratic as we would have wished.
There is also some record of discussions from the period that reflect concerns among American officials that if the US gave South Korea too much military equipment and too advanced a collection of military equipment that it might have been the South that invaded the North. Also, the US was compelled to call back into service numerous veterans of the Second World War to serve alongside our draftees fighting in Korea. In 1972, I would have one such individual as a Drill Sergeant in our advanced training segment who was called back into service again for Korea. His situation at the end of the Korean War was such that he decided to stay in the Army even at the cost of his officer's rank so that he could earn a decent military pension even retiring as an NCO.
Absolutely correct. One reason why the ROK was so poorly defended in 1950 is that the USA worried that Syngman Ree would use his army to reunite the country by force.
Excellent article. I don't know if democratic societies will ever learn how to get out of the yo-yo of "win wars, relax, demilitarise, scramble, fight for survival, win, repeat". Or, even more to the point, recognise a near emergency and ramp up faster - as Europe doesn't do today, when it should.
Thank you for the nice comparison.
Yet another top quality argument. I see that Lord Dannatt was doing the rounds with the newspapers again last weekend reminding the public of just this. As Justin has noted below it seems that the cycle still revolves in the same way and that lessons from history continue to be ignored.
Some fair points but I'm not sure Syngman Rhee's government in Seoul can accurately be described as "democratic"!
True! The point was that it was the legitimate government of Korea, recognised by the UN though, of course, it wasn't as democratic as we would have wished.
But it's an important distinction from Ukraine? The "Korean" regime was imposed by the US. Ukraine has a free-ish govt.
That aside it's wholly appropriate to show that frozen conflicts can be so debilitating. An important reference we should be more aware of.
True, there are lots of differences, but the commonalities remain compelling. Roberts & Petraeus start ‘Conflict’ with a superb analysis of Korea.
There is also some record of discussions from the period that reflect concerns among American officials that if the US gave South Korea too much military equipment and too advanced a collection of military equipment that it might have been the South that invaded the North. Also, the US was compelled to call back into service numerous veterans of the Second World War to serve alongside our draftees fighting in Korea. In 1972, I would have one such individual as a Drill Sergeant in our advanced training segment who was called back into service again for Korea. His situation at the end of the Korean War was such that he decided to stay in the Army even at the cost of his officer's rank so that he could earn a decent military pension even retiring as an NCO.
Absolutely correct. One reason why the ROK was so poorly defended in 1950 is that the USA worried that Syngman Ree would use his army to reunite the country by force.