It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

India, US join hands to make futuristic soldier

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


It doesn't even make a difference whether whether they were communists or not. Their nation would have been at the mercy of Japan if it weren't for us. They could only repay our favor by attacking us.


the americans supported the KMT not china. the KNT only represented a lillte bit of china. even if the americans didn't go to war the USSR would have done it for US.

in 9days the USSR almost single-handedly destroyer half the japanese army.




Yea, they realized it was "silly" after they suffered far more casualties then they expected against the militia of Vietnam...

What do you think would have happened once China ran into Vietnam's veterans?


Educate yourself on the matter before opening your mouth again



You know, you could at least point out real atrocities commited by our military (could even have found real examples from Korea) insteadd of what amounts of a little humiliation of mostly scumbags. What happened at Abu Ghraib is hardly torture, or comparable to what happened to American POW's in the hands of the Chinese.

And my point wasn't to demonize the Chinese. I was merely showing that the statement that the abuse was one sided, and purely by America was false.


you think one statement from a american site proves anything.??
american POWs were mainly enemy fighter poilots already badly wounded. and because of chinas poor state at the time couldn't help them.

The american public wanted answers for all the american POW and the government said china killed them


24. How were Chinese and NK POWs treated by US?

"Western treatment of the Koreans and the Chinese was dictated by a deeply rooted conviction that they were not people like themselves, but near-animals..."( Hastings p307)

Well, let's see what the British say, since they did not guard the POW camps (US did), we can assume that they are more honest on this.

From "The Korean War" by Max Hastings

"Koje-do wasn't managed properly--there were far too many men in one enclosure. There was a lot of bronchitis, pneumonia, dysentery, pinkeye. TB was widespread. There were men with open wounds that were still draining. All of them had lice."

(POW rioted on Feb.18 and March 13, 1952, and UN guards fired into the POWs, killing 89 and wounded 166).

On May 7 1952, the POWs captured the camp commander Brigadier Dodd and tried him for brutality against POWs, and he signed a document that admitted the brutality by US guards, and agreed to cease immediately the "barbarous behaviour, insults, torture...[and] mass murdering" of POWs.

After the Dodd incident, Major D. R. Bancroft reported on Koje-do POW camp situation: "All US troops were apt to regard the PWs as cattle... They...handled them, including cripples who had been badly wounded, extremely roughly". When he questioned the Americans, "Their replay was invariably, 'Well, these people are savages' and on one occasion, 'Congress has never ratified the Geneva Convention anyway'".

In August 1952, British Foreign Office commented on Bancroft's report: "The report confirms other accounts we have had of the 'Hate Asia' attitude so freely displayed by Americans in the Far East. The harm which such behaviour does to our joint cause needs no emphasising."

From "Korea, the war before vietnam" by Callum A. MacDonald

"American medical officers estimated that 50 per cent of the POWs in Pusan were suffering malnutrition in January 1951".

"The POW command instituted a 'shoot to kill' policy. 'POW threw rocks at UNC personnel: POW shot dead', was considered a satisfactory incident report."

"6600 prisoners had died in UN captivity by December 1951".


www.centurychina.com...




posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
hey guys i think we are off the topic for quite a while, about time to get back to the original topic.
also i'd like to add one more thing:
chinese forces can never ever defeat the americans in a fullfledged war.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcombe
hey guys i think we are off the topic for quite a while, about time to get back to the original topic.
also i'd like to add one more thing:
chinese forces can never ever defeat the americans in a fullfledged war.


I'm glad you can predict the future. Can you please tell me what will happen next year? What the lottery numbers will be this weekend? List goes on. Don't make blanket statements which are backed by no facts what so ever and do not tell people they're going off-topic when you refuse to help it. If you would bother to read the ToS you would find out you're breaking them.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcombe
hey guys i think we are off the topic for quite a while, about time to get back to the original topic.
also i'd like to add one more thing:
chinese forces can never ever defeat the americans in a fullfledged war.


elaborate...how?

[edit on 9-6-2005 by siddarthpanditv]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Why was there such disparity in casualties between Chinese and American soldiers and the lesson to be applied to the current military strategies.

I have often wondered why the casualty rates are so much more for the Chinese than for the Americans in the Korean War. My own explanations were that it was mostly due to the better medical services of the Americans coupled with the much more powerful firepower of the Americans. The fact that America had superior warplanes would also have contributed to the higher casualty rates of the Chinese.

I’ve just read a very insightful article in the East Asia Military Web at the link below:

news.warchina.com...

This article gave several other reasons why the Americans suffered much fewer casualties than the Chinese. First the number of casualties of the Chinese, Americans, and the S. Koreans:

Chinese casualties:
1. death: 205,269
2. wounded: 349,400
Total: 554,669

American casualties:
1. death: 33,629 - 37,904 (according to different American sources)
2. wounded: 103,284
3. captured or MIA: 5,178
Total: 142,091

South Korean casualties:
1. death: 227,800
2. wounded: 717,100
3. captured or MIA: 43,500
Total: 988,400

As can be seen easily from above, the casualty rate between China and America is some 4 to 1. And the death rate between the two was some 5.5 to 1.

The article mentioned the reasons that I thought had accounted for the high casualty rates such as better medical services and the much more powerful firepower of the American weapons. However, it also gave several other reasons.

1. Strategy:

Americans always denigrated the Chinese saying that the Chinese used “human wave” tactic of throwing huge numbers of Chinese soldiers against well defended American positions mindlessly and without regard to the lives of the Chinese soldiers. This is actually directly contrary to the Chinese strategies in the Korean War.

The Chinese strategy as learned and perfected from fighting the KMT was to probe all along the front and attack the weakest positions. The tactic is to penetrate the front line and then surround the isolated enemy unit and wait for enemy re-enforcements. The idea is to ambush and destroy the enemy re-enforcements thus increasing the enemy casualties. As can be seen immediately, this is directly opposite to making frontal assaults against the strongest enemy position regardless of human losses that the Americans claim is the Chinese human wave tactic. However, this strategy was not as effective against the Americans as it was against the KMT because of the overwhelmingly more powerful American firepower which can stand off at a great distance beyond the range of the Chinese guns and systematically destroy the Chinese positions. The fact that the American planes could easily see the ambush also made it impossible to ambush the American re-enforcements. This lesson was quickly learned by the Chinese and the tactic modified in later battles.

2. Supplies:

The biggest problem of the Chinese was in getting supplies to the frontline. At the beginning there was a great deal of confusion and supplies of food, clothing, and ammunitions did not reach the frontline in adequate number to allow the Chinese soldiers to prosecute the war vigorously. There were many horror stories of Chinese soldiers going without shoes in freezing weather. The lack of food and warm clothing accounted for many of the Chinese casualties.

3. Chinese fighting spirit:

The American soldiers did not wish to die in Korea. They retreated immediately when they realized that they could not defend their positions. The Chinese soldiers on the other hand were imbued with patriotic fervor and thought nothing of fighting to the death and taking as many American soldiers with them. Therefore, when they were wounded, they simply stayed in their position and kept firing until they died. Many also volunteered for suicide attacks against tanks and machine guns and fortified positions. This increased the Chinese casualty rates.

When the Americans retreated, they took all their wounded with them. The Chinese on the other hand had problems taking their wounded with them when they retreated due to the lack of trucks and other means of transport. Therefore, many wounded soldiers volunteered to stay behind rather than become a burden and hindered and endangered the retreat of their comrades. These generally stayed and fought to the death slowing the advance of the American soldiers and helped ensure the escape of their comrades. But in the process increased the Chinese casualties. Therefore, the fact that the Americans tend to avoid sacrificing themselves while the Chinese tend to volunteer for suicide missions tend to increase the casualty rate of the Chinese.

4. Americans used S. Koreans as shields:

The Americans never take the front positions. The front positions were always manned by the South Koreans. Therefore, when the Chinese attacked, they always kill a lot of S. Koreans first. Only when the Chinese broke through the S. Korean positions and reached the Americans before they could run away were the American soldiers killed and wounded in any number. The fact that the number of casualties of the S. Koreans were almost 2 S. Korean casualties to each Chinese casualty testifies to the fact that the S. Koreans bore the brunt of the battles. The truth was that the S. Koreans did the fighting while the Americans did the running away. In view of this, it is surprising that any Americans got killed at all. And the fact that the Chinese were able to inflict almost 150,000 casualties on the Americans demonstrated that the Chinese were highly mobile and very effective in their tactics.

Considering that the Chinese had inferior weapons and still able to inflict twice the number of casualties on the S. Koreans and the Americans testifies to the superior tactics and fighting spirits of the Chinese soldiers. (Chinese total casualties: 554,669; combined S. Korean and American casualties: 1,130,491. The ratio is more than 2 to 1 in favor of the Chinese.)

5. Terrain:

The preferred tactic of the Chinese army was mobile attack on weaker enemy units. However, the hilly terrain of the Korean peninsula made it difficult for the Chinese soldiers to maneuver rapidly. Furthermore, the Americans had a lot of trucks which could rapidly transport the American soldiers around to outmaneuver the Chinese. Therefore, the terrain worked against the Chinese tactics.

The fact that there were certain positions that must be defended combined with the fact that the Americans had superior weapons forced the Chinese to hunker down and get blown to bits by the American bombers and cannons.

There is also another possible reason not mentioned by the article is that the Americans and their allies probably killed the Chinese prisoners rather than take them prisoners. There are many stories of Americans and their allies who killed Chinese prisoners. This accounts for the much higher death toll on the Chinese soldiers. On the other hand, there were many stories of Chinese soldiers freeing S. Korean soldiers because they did not have the resources to feed them and imprison them. And so out of the desire to forge solidarity with the Korean people, the Chinese routinely freed the captured S. Korean soldiers.

Realizing these factors makes it obvious that the Chinese could have fought a much better war with much fewer casualties if they had the same quantity and quality of both weapons and supplies as their American adversaries. The fact that the Chinese soldiers must get in close to the Americans before they could inflict any casualties on the Americans increased the casualties of the Chinese while they were approaching the American positions. The fact that the Chinese avoided frontal assaults on strong American positions and attacked only weak isolated positions minimized the Chinese casualties and inflicted large number of American casualties in spite of the fact that the Americans as a rule hid behind the S. Koreans who took the largest number of casualties. The large number of American casualties in spite of their superior weapons also testified to the tenacious fighting spirit of the Chinese soldiers and the superior Chinese tactics.

Contrasting the good results of the Korean War and the shameful results of the war against the Japanese, one must conclude that the main difference were in 4 main factors. The first is the much greater fighting spirit of the Chinese soldiers in Korea. The second is the much better weapons of the Chinese soldiers in Korea. The Chinese had almost nothing against the Japanese. At least the Chinese soldiers had rifles and machine guns in Korea. The third is the better leadership. The Chinese leaders were notoriously corrupt during the war against the Japanese. The Chinese military leaders were also much more experienced by the time they entered Korea. The fourth reason was that the Chinese could not mount a significant assault on the Japanese because the Japanese were very brutal and killed many Chinese randomly for each Japanese soldier killed by the Chinese guerrillas. Therefore, the Chinese could not kill any Japanese for fear of Japanese retaliation against innocent Chinese civilians. In Korea there were no such inhibition against attacking the S. Koreans and the Americans. Hence the Chinese soldiers could maneuver and attack at will.

What the Chinese leaders must realize now is that China must have a powerful military backed up by a strong economy that could supply first rate weapons and provide food, transports, medicines, etc. to support front line actions. China must also stop the invading enemies before they entered and become entrenched in China. This means that China must be able to destroy the tanks before they intrude into China or destroy the enemy ships before they could land troops on the Chinese beaches. Above all China must be able to destroy the enemy homeland by long range ICBMs carrying at least 1,200 nuclear strategic warheads. China should avoid fighting wars on the Chinese homeland and always fight wars outside of China.

China must modernize its military to fight modern wars. This means especially battles in terms of destroying the electronic equipments of the enemy including computers, computer controlled machines, electronic machines of all kinds, etc. China must also increasingly automate the war machines to increase the acquisition of enemy strength and position capability as well as the capability to track and launch and guide attacks to destroy the enemy forces. This means the Chinese economy must be in the hands of the Chinese domestic companies so that China will not be dependent on foreigners for China’s own critical military needs.

From the Korean War experience, we can see that one critical ingredient for the Chinese success was the fighting spirit of the Chinese soldiers which made them fight ferociously in spite of inadequate food, clothing, and weapons. Therefore, the Chinese leaders should make it one of the most important tasks to imbue the Chinese soldiers with patriotic spirit. Such patriotic spirit should be based on love of the Chinese nation and not on unfounded loyalty to any political party. This means that the Chinese government must make fundamental changes to the structure of the Chinese political system. I would advocate a slow and sure transition to democracy by 2020.

Lastly, the best way to convince the Chinese people that the Chinese nation belong to them is to reserve all the economic opportunities to the Chinese people. This means FDI should be cancelled. All the Chinese companies must be financed by Chinese banks and all the stocks must be owned by Chinese investors. Foreign trade must be immediately reduced and urbanization emphasized to transform hundreds of millions of poor farmers into rich urban consumers. Once China is transformed into a free and prosperous country, the Chinese people will automatically fight to preserve their superior way of life against all invading enemies thus making China impregnably secure.


www.network54.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   

the americans supported the KMT not china. the KNT only represented a lillte bit of china. even if the americans didn't go to war the USSR would have done it for US.


The KMT were the government of China. And the USSR wouldn't have gone to war with anyone if it weren't for America.


Educate yourself on the matter before opening your mouth again


How about you actually try and explain why I'm wrong? It should be easy if I'm really so uneducated.


you think one statement from a american site proves anything.??
american POWs were mainly enemy fighter poilots already badly wounded. and because of chinas poor state at the time couldn't help them


Wikipedia isn't even an American site... And it's completely credible. You'll notice that they also talk about the accusations made towards the American military.

It's sure as hell more credible than anything you've provided.


The american public wanted answers for all the american POW and the government said china killed them


Right. Keep believing that. America has been trying to find out what happened to the POW's since the war ended. That's just about the only direct contact we've had with North Korea.


Why was there such disparity in casualties between Chinese and American soldiers and the lesson to be applied to the current military strategies.


You find that kind of stuff credible, though, right? First, it toned down the Chinese casualties big time. They had some 1 million killed and wounded, and about 500,000 dead.

The rest is just pure propaganda without any fact backing it up at all.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

The KMT were the government of China. And the USSR wouldn't have gone to war with anyone if it weren't for America.


It would have if the war didn't already finish.

Think about who was running the soviet union at the time. STALIN the wrost war criminal ever.




How about you actually try and explain why I'm wrong? It should be easy if I'm really so uneducated.







Wikipedia isn't even an American site... And it's completely credible. You'll notice that they also talk about the accusations made towards the American military.

It's sure as hell more credible than anything you've provided.


Im trying to say that they have failed to mention or intentionally forgot to mention the fact that americans abused prisoners more than the other side around.

Its your trying to say that a eastern site is not creditable then dont even think about it.



Why was there such disparity in casualties between Chinese and American soldiers and the lesson to be applied to the current military strategies.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Think about who was running the soviet union at the time. STALIN the wrost war criminal ever.


Stalin wouldn't have had the supplies to go to war without America. Their entire army was built up by aid they received from America. They would have lost to the Germans without America. Without America, the Japanese would have been free to attack Russia.


Im trying to say that they have failed to mention or intentionally forgot to mention the fact that americans abused prisoners more than the other side around.


Maybe because it didn't happen that way.

You'll still notice that my source provides a list of claims made by both sides, yours is completely one-sided.


Its your trying to say that a eastern site is not creditable then dont even think about it.


Yea, because how could a Chinese site lie? I mean, they only have a government controlled media, and thousands upon thousands of people busy monitering the internet and blocking any material they don't like...

And didn't they just recently make it necessary for all websites in China to register, or else get shut down?



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Casualties has nothing to do with winning wars. It's objectives achieved that matters. Say you went to some country, kill a fell million ppl, right, lose no troops, and go home accompolishing nothing. Can you say you won a war?

Once again, the point wasn't to show that we won the war, but how the American military performed.

Fine. So wouldn't ability to hold/gain ground, achieve objectives, and win wars be an indication of performance also?


It was the KMT that the US supported. The CCP didn't like the US the whole time.

It doesn't even make a difference whether whether they were communists or not. Their nation would have been at the mercy of Japan if it weren't for us. They could only repay our favor by attacking us.

Well considering that the US prceeded to help the KMT fight the CCP I find it unreasonable to expect anything nice from the CCP in return. And since the CCP was successful in controlling mainland China, it follows that it is also unreasonable to expect anything nice from mainland China. The KMT might be interested in offering repayments though, I'm not sure if they have made any in the past.


One front doesn't necessarily mean you cannot be outflanked. The battlefield isn't a straight line, but jagged.

And when did America ever get to launch an attack on China's flanks? We fought was basically amounted to a war of attrition with the Chinese.

I don't know about the details of the war (and I don't know where you got your details from either) but if a unit gains ground by spearheading into your territory, can you not sidestep the spearhead and assault from the side? Or retreat and instruct another unit to attack the spearhead from the side? Are you sure the clever American commanders never thought of that?

The sad thing is, even with superior numbers, the Chinese were still loosing.

If you're talking about the Korean War, nobody won or lost the war.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Fine. So wouldn't ability to hold/gain ground, achieve objectives, and win wars be an indication of performance also?


The Americans never lost a battle. They never failed at achieving any objectives. They never failed at gain ground when told to do so.

The problem was they weren't allowed to gain ground, not that they weren't able.


Well considering that the US prceeded to help the KMT fight the CCP I find it unreasonable to expect anything nice from the CCP in return. And since the CCP was successful in controlling mainland China, it follows that it is also unreasonable to expect anything nice from mainland China. The KMT might be interested in offering repayments though, I'm not sure if they have made any in the past.


We actually interfered very little during the Chinese civil war. And I'm not asking for the communists to love us, just to not go and launch an attack on us unprovoked.

Americans died for the Chinese. We showed no aggression towards them. Their attack on us was unwarranted.


I don't know about the details of the war (and I don't know where you got your details from either) but if a unit gains ground by spearheading into your territory, can you not sidestep the spearhead and assault from the side? Or retreat and instruct another unit to attack the spearhead from the side? Are you sure the clever American commanders never thought of that?


The statement from Chinawhite would indicate they were fighting on multiple fronts, or being pushed from multiple sides. This certainly was not happening to China when they attacked.

America and the NATO forces basically retreated to the coast, and regrouped.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


Stalin wouldn't have had the supplies to go to war without America. Their entire army was built up by aid they received from America. They would have lost to the Germans without America. Without America, the Japanese would have been free to attack Russia.


can you list some items?




Yea, because how could a Chinese site lie? I mean, they only have a government controlled media, and thousands upon thousands of people busy monitering the internet and blocking any material they don't like...

And didn't they just recently make it necessary for all websites in China to register, or else get shut down?


this is chinese site but not located in china but in the USA.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


The Americans never lost a battle. They never failed at achieving any objectives. They never failed at gain ground when told to do so.

The problem was they weren't allowed to gain ground, not that they weren't able.


they lost numerous battles in the korean war.

How wasn't american army allowed to gain land. i would like to see you elaborate




We actually interfered very little during the Chinese civil war. And I'm not asking for the communists to love us, just to not go and launch an attack on us unprovoked.

Americans died for the Chinese. We showed no aggression towards them. Their attack on us was unwarranted.


WTF?????

500,000 american trained american equipped soldiers were the ones fighting the red army in manchuria. and what about when the war ended the americans transported 50,000 or 500,000(forgot the number) to deny the communist the liberation of chinese cities.

And the americans wouldn't let the japanese surrender to communist troops and were ordered to shoot them if they come near.


Also when Mac arthur was advancing to the yalu river he was calling for a invasion of the chiense mainland with a coordinated attack with the KMT in taiwan.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

The statement from Chinawhite would indicate they were fighting on multiple fronts, or being pushed from multiple sides. This certainly was not happening to China when they attacked.

America and the NATO forces basically retreated to the coast, and regrouped.


the reason the chinese had to fall back is because they overstreched their supply lnes. it wasn't because of increases in UN/US pressure



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by newcombe
hey guys i think we are off the topic for quite a while, about time to get back to the original topic.
also i'd like to add one more thing:
chinese forces can never ever defeat the americans in a fullfledged war.


I'm glad you can predict the future. Can you please tell me what will happen next year? What the lottery numbers will be this weekend? List goes on. Don't make blanket statements which are backed by no facts what so ever and do not tell people they're going off-topic when you refuse to help it. If you would bother to read the ToS you would find out you're breaking them.



well its not any kind of prediction, its a fact that you have to accept whether u like it or not,
i'm not saying that the americans are not going to have any casualities but at the end america will win VICTORY FAVOURS THE STRONGEST.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   

the reason the chinese had to fall back is because they overstreched their supply lnes. it wasn't because of increases in UN/US pressure


Really? And what's your source for this? The same one that claims a sign of a high death toll is the sign of highly motivated warriors? After the innitial retreat, the American forces continued to push China back for pretty much the rest of the war.


500,000 american trained american equipped soldiers were the ones fighting the red army in manchuria. and what about when the war ended the americans transported 50,000 or 500,000(forgot the number) to deny the communist the liberation of chinese cities.


The most support we gave was funding, and that was in fact after we tried to settle the entire dispute peacefully with a coahilition government.

And once again, none of this changes the fact that they wouldn't even exist as a nation without America.


Also when Mac arthur was advancing to the yalu river he was calling for a invasion of the chiense mainland with a coordinated attack with the KMT in taiwan.


When did McArthur make this threat? It's complete nonsense.


they lost numerous battles in the korean war.

How wasn't american army allowed to gain land. i would like to see you elaborate


I was talking about Vietnam. And if one looks at Korea, we WERE gaining ground and achieving our objectives in the war.


can you list some items?


Pretty much all of the material the Soviet industry needed to build their massive number of tanks and planes. The trucks we gave them were the only thing that allowed them to keep up their supply lines. WE drove the Soviet war machine WW2.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer



Really? And what's your source for this? The same one that claims a sign of a high death toll is the sign of highly motivated warriors? After the innitial retreat, the American forces continued to push China back for pretty much the rest of the war.




After the third campaign, due to stretch of supply line, the main PVA forces were taking rest around 38th parallel, leaving a group of the forces defend the line further south. Feeling the logistic difficulties of the PVA, on Jan 25 of 1951, UN forces launched an attack using 16 divisions, plus 3 brigades and 1 airborne regiment, a total of 230,000 ground force. The UN strategy was using an attrition warfare to "kill the communists" with its superior firepower. At this moment, PVA had not fully recovered from the exhaustion from the previous three campaigns and its battle casualties had not been filled in. In view of this, PVA decided to fight a delaying retreat on the west (where US troops concentrated), lure the UN forces north on the east (where ROK concentrated) and seek to counter attack using forces deployed at the center. The western group consisted of PVA 50th army, 38th army and NKPA 1st divions; the center group consisted of PVA 39th army, 40th army, 42d army, 66th army; the eastern group was NPKA 2d, 3d and 5th divisions.


by the end of 1951 there was a stalemate. i dont see how the americans still continued to push the chinese forces back? can you give me some battles.




The most support we gave was funding, and that was in fact after we tried to settle the entire dispute peacefully with a coahilition government.

And once again, none of this changes the fact that they wouldn't even exist as a nation without America.


Ummm... i have never heard this bit of history about an coalition government?
do you mean the peace plan gernel stillwell was purposing.

China wasn't liberated by americans? they were liberated by chinese and russian forces.




When did McArthur make this threat? It's complete nonsense.


wait i need to find link




Pretty much all of the material the Soviet industry needed to build their massive number of tanks and planes. The trucks we gave them were the only thing that allowed them to keep up their supply lines. WE drove the Soviet war machine WW2.


i got a book that tells you exactly what the americans gave to the soviets.

218,000 tons of explosives.
1.2 million tons of steel
170, 000 of aluminium

9214 amoured vehicles.
12300 planes
4,111 20mm and 40mm AA guns

break down

Britian
tanks 4292
aircraft 5800
AA guns 4111

America
tanks 3734
planes 6430

canada
tanks 1188

also 434 000 trucks
28000 jeeps
5,500 artillery tractors.

2.67 million of petroleum


Most of this stuff can after the soviets were wining the war.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
What? The Soviets would have lost the war if not for America? Please, read more history books
In that sense, the whole of the Allies would have been defeated if not for the Japanese "help".

The turning point was in 1941, when Germany decided to attack the Soviets. Their goal was to capture Moscow before winter. They failed, winter came and their troops were caught without proper equipment. They eventually did capture Moscow, but soon the Russians fought back and were advancing steadily. All the American and Allied aid only came after the Soviets had began taking back their territory.

Like Stalin once said, The Americans give money, the British give food, but it is only us Soviets who give blood. That sums up the importance of the Soviets in the war. The aid given by the rest of the Allies were barely enough to do anything.

[edit on 12/6/05 by W4rl0rD]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Most of this stuff can after the soviets were wining the war.


You mean it mostly came after the defense of Moscow. I'd say someone would have to be pretty damn naive to think Russia could have mounted an offensive without the huge amounts of aid we gave them, considering the fact that they barely managed to drive the Germans out in the first place.


wait i need to find link


Where is it?


China wasn't liberated by americans? they were liberated by chinese and russian forces.


Russian forces? The Russians were only in Manchuria. You consider that to be more help then what America gave?


Ummm... i have never heard this bit of history about an coalition government?
do you mean the peace plan gernel stillwell was purposing.


This is what I'm talking about:


General George Marshall arrived in China and was part of negotiations over a cease-fire between the KMT and the CPC, the terms of which would build a coalition government that would include all of the contending political/military groups in China.


Source - en.wikipedia.org...


by the end of 1951 there was a stalemate. i dont see how the americans still continued to push the chinese forces back? can you give me some battles.


America was driven back to pretty much the coastline. Explain to me how both sides ended back up at the original borders, if China wasn't pushed back...


The turning point was in 1941, when Germany decided to attack the Soviets. Their goal was to capture Moscow before winter. They failed, winter came and their troops were caught without proper equipment. They eventually did capture Moscow, but soon the Russians fought back and were advancing steadily. All the American and Allied aid only came after the Soviets had began taking back their territory.


It's funny that I'm being told to pick up a history book from someone who thinks the Germans actually captured Moscow for a time...

The aid we gave was the only thing that allowed the Russians to keep up their logistics. Where was Russian going to get the material to build their tanks at that time? They were dirt poor. How about those trucks we gave them. How were they going to transport their troops without those?

The war was hardly guarenteed for Russia just because they beat the Germans at Stalingrad and the battle for Moscow. It required a massive, and very bloody campaign to drive the Germans back which took three more years. The Russians were nearly out of men and funds by the end of the war.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Not Moscow, sorry. I meant Stalingrad. The Russians moved back quickly from Stalingrad to Moscow after it was captured by the Germans.

Towards the end of the war, yes, the Russians were dirt poor. The money and supplies given by the Allies did help them a lot. However, without the money and supplies, Russian soldiers would still just push through on foot, maybe less tanks and aircraft, but they would still eventually win the war. The Soviets were starting to gain ground at least a year before the D-day invasion. The British and American bombing campaigns only helped a little bit, after all, they were bombing the civillian population for the most of the time instead of the military or strategic targets.

Assuming that the Germans never attacked the Soviet union, winning the war against Germany would be near impossible. During D-day, most German troops were still fighting on the Eastern front. When the Americans and British reclaimed France, most of the German troops were busy trying to repel the Soviets. Resistance in the Western front was still quite strong however.

My point is, the Germans were not fighting the Allies (as in Britain, America and remaining French) at full strength. They were too tied down with the Soviets, and it would be more like the Americans and British would have lost the war if not for the Soviets.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
And on to the Korean war.

You said the Americans gave aid to China. They did, but during the war and a while after that in 1946 when the KMT was in power. When the CCP took over, there was no aid whatsoever coming from America. Militarily, the Americans only helped China with fighting the Japanese during WWII, after that, the Americans eventually began supplying the KMT which took control in Taiwan. Simply put, Americans never aided the CCP with anything after the war since it didn't want to aid a communist country.

Yes, in the Korean war, the Americans were pushed all the way back to the coast. The Americans eventually pushed back, but, the Chinese goal from the start was just to push the Americans away from the Chinese-NK border. With the 38th parallel being the point where the border is between NK and SK, the Chinese could be said as winning their part of the war, and preventing the US from moving in closer.

You mentioned the CCP attacking US forces unprovoked. Well, for a start, US forces attacked NK forces, which can be said to be an "unprovoked" attack too, since NK never attacked any US target, military or civillian. The US was in the Korean war to drive NK back away from getting SK, so the Chinese would be partly justified in not wanting US and SK forces from taking NK and being able to build military bases on the Chinese border. The CCP had issued warnings that they would react if the UN forces encroached on the frontier at the Yalu River. Mao sought Soviet aid and saw intervention as essentially defensive: "If we allow the U.S. to occupy all of Korea… we must be prepared for the US to declare… war with China", he told Stalin

In the air, the UN, American and SK forces initially had the advantage, with F-80s and F-2 Banshees up against Soviet acquired propeller fighters. Soon, with Chinese pilots flying MiG-15s, the NK and Chinese forces had the advantage. When F-86s came, that changed, NK and Chinese training were way behind the US-trained pilots. The Chinese had the advantage of better planes, but the US had better training. American and UN forces claim to have shot down 792 MiG-15s and 108 additional aircraft for the loss of 78 Sabres, a ratio more than 10:1.

However, post-war research (Not Chinese/Russian, but WESTERN) was only able to confirm 379 victories and recently exposed Soviet documentation admits only 345, but even with the lower figures the advantage was still clearly with the U.N. fighter pilots with a kill ratio of at least 4.4:1. Still, this is way less than the 10:1 kill ratio that some posters still believe.

Chinese military deaths can be put at 500,000 dead. American losses on the other hand, could be put at around 70,000 dead. South Korean losses on the other hand were over a million. However, more than 70% of those losses were civillian losses. Technically, there was a ceasefire, with a demilitarized zone at the 38th parallel, but no peace treaty has been signed yet.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join