Comments on: Roh ally invokes the Nat. Security Law to support him on ‘civil war’

By: Paul H.

Paul H. — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:37:13 +0000

Official US Military History of Korean War does provide some definitive info on this subject, though not exact numbers. ROK had “…a number…” of earlier model (more limited range) US 105mm howitzers.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/pd-c-02.htm (pg 35):

“….When USAFIK withdrew from Korea in 1949 [note: I think last combat regiment left in April], it transferred to the ROK, under the Surplus Property Act through the Office of Foreign Liquidation, military equipment that originally cost the United States approximately $56,000,000 and that had a 1949 replacement value of about $110,000,000. The ground force equipment was sufficient for a force of 50,000 men. It included 100,000 small arms, 50,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, more than 2,000 rocket launchers [note: this almost certainly refert to "bazookas", not indirect fire artillery type rocket launchers] more than 40,000 vehicles [!!!] of all types, and a number of light artillery pieces and mortars with over 700,000 rounds of ammunition for them. Individual organizational equipment for an additional 15,000 men subsequently arrived in Korea from American stocks in Japan. Although the United States Government made plans for further material aid to the Republic of Korea and allotted Military Defense Assistance Program funds for that purpose, low priorities, administrative red tape, and procurement difficulties prevented this aid from reaching Korea before June 1950.”

page 36:

“…Col. John E. Baird, acting chief, KMAG, in the absence of both General Roberts and Colonel Wright, informed Ambassador Muccio that the type and quality of materiel available to South Korea were inadequate for war. On 26 October 1949, he warned that the South Korean Army was outnumbered in all weapons except individual arms and that the Russians had given North Korea much better armament. North Korean artillery had 112-mm. howitzers with a maximum range of 12,980 yards as against the South Korean 105-mm. howitzer M3 which could reach only 7,600 yards. During border clashes, North Koreans placed their artillery just beyond maximum range of the 105-mm. howitzer and shelled at will. They also had the 120-mm. mortar. “The presence in North Korea of high performance aircraft of fighter and bomber type, artillery of medium range and a preponderance of mortars are matters seriously affecting the spirit of the [ROK] Security Forces….”

By: lirelou

lirelou — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:59:59 +0000

I’ll reread it. I wonder just how much artillery was “exchanged”, given that the ROK divisions and corps of the period lacked organic artillery prior to the war (If I recall Gen. Paek’s account correctly). Perhaps guns they had salvaged from the Japanese.

By the way, a good short article by Dr. Lankov in the Korea Tomes on Soviet control in the 1945-50 era. http://times.hankooki.com/lpag.....854140.htm

By: SomeguyinKorea

SomeguyinKorea — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:52:07 +0000

Maybe, but I thought he made it clear that both the North and South exchanged artillery shells on a regular basis prior to the war. Doesn’t sound like something someone would say if they wanted to set all the blame on to the US and South Korea.

By: lirelou

lirelou — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:15:54 +0000

My impression of Cumings (whose ancestors obviously never learnt to spell their patronym, but at least had the courtesy to name him after Robert the Bruce!) is that he was out to prove that Rhee and the U.S. started the war. Nevertheless, he did make some salient points. As for Korea being a “civil war”, from an international perspective, it was a war between two internationally recognized states. Thus a war much like those fought between Prussia and Austria, or between Austria and Prussia and any number of German states who later got rolled up into the modern Germany (less Austria). And, great power involvement obviously gave the two sides seeking to annihilate one another far better weaponry. It would be nice to see a Korean history that essentially said: Hey, we did this to ourselves! Without splitting hairs over esoteric points. (As I have obviously done here.)

By: SomeguyinKorea

SomeguyinKorea — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:12:01 +0000

He’ll…

By: SomeguyinKorea

SomeguyinKorea — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:11:17 +0000

Paul H., that’s because he made the mistake of trusting George Washington. Never trust a toothless man, I say. They’ll cut down your cherry tree and leave you hanging with the bag.

By: Paul H.

Paul H. — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:57:33 +0000

It’s all the King of France’s fault. Had he not intervened in the first American civil war (Tories vs the Patriots), history would have taken a different turn and the Americans might never have come to the peninsula.

Of course, he paid the ultimate price for his misdeeds.

By: SomeguyinKorea

SomeguyinKorea — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:32:03 +0000

sanshinseon, I was about to make that point. The way I understood it, his arguement was specifically aimed at sheding some light on who actually started the Korean War, North or South Korea. It appears he hinting that both Rhee Syng Man and Kim Il Sung were to blame…something about civil wars never occuring overnight, but rather coming over months and years.

By: ZZOOzzoo

ZZOOzzoo — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:29:29 +0000

Such a compelling argument from the guy who got caught dancing with North Korean waitresses a few days after North Korea nuke test. -_-

By: sanshinseon

sanshinseon — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:19:01 +0000

That was B. Cumming’s famous/infamous main point — it was “really” a civil war, actually going on since 1946, then outsiders (first Russia, then America, then China) got involved and made it much worse; and yes by 1952 it was mainly the US and China slugging out the Cold War.

Many other civil wars in this world suffer from outside interference that leads to amplification — Angola comes to mind.