British Troops in Korea

Other Wars Korean War
#1

I was wondering if anyone could explain why Britain sent so few troops to Korea. Obviously, a larger force would have helped. The US sent amny thousands, but Britain sent only a few thousand.

This is the same scenario in other UN actions. While the US sends many thousands of troops, Britain sends a handful. I’m hoping some of the british members of this forum can tell us why britain contributes so little in comparison for international forces. Perhaps they can also explain why they send them at all if they don’t publicly support the UN actions that they participate in.

#2

Because its not the their war, its the americans and the USA just brought england into it aswell as australia.

#3

CJ,Well done that man,we were still getting over a six year war and as Iron mans dad was there with his M1 carbine the govenment felt that the problem was solved.

#4

How did the US bring Britain into the Korean War? They entered it by choice as a part of a UN Task Force? Surely you don’t mean to imply that Britain follows the US around like a puppy?

#5

:lol: good post largebrew.

Though Seriously IRONMAN, creating rooms like this you make yourself and the site look silly, we dont want new people and guests looking at these rooms and leaving thinking this is all a big arguement and proposterous debates just because of you.

#6

Why is America so big and strong and Britian so small and puny?

We sent smaller numbers to Korea as we had other things to be getting on with thank you,

We send smallers numbers to day because we re a smaller army. nation.

But what we lack in numbers we make up in quality. Hence the Yanks saying “pretty please send one of your BGs up to a sh*thole called Camp Dogwood”

#7

Because we also had an entire Empire to worry about and were skint (had no money for the non-Brits) because we’d bothered to fight a whole World War (again) instead of sitting on our arses doing sod all for the first three years (again)?

#8

Matbe you don’t like the question, but that’s not an anwer to the qquestions.

#9

You mean britain has an army of 10,000? Come on. Britain was not involved in any other war at the time. So why did they send a smattering fw to Korea?

#10

Empire? What empire? There is no British empire. Hasn’t been for 100 years, almost. So you’re saying that because Britain faught WWI they were afraid to fight in Korea?

#11

Actually, the vast majority of the Empire was dismantled in the years after WW2. India got independence in 1948 for instance, and most of the rest got independence in the 1950s and 1960s.
The real reason we sent so few troops to Korea was that we were busy fighting the Malayan Emergency. This consisted of a large number of Communist Rebels hiding in jungles and launching attacks on the civilian population, with a fair bit of support from China. Rather like Vietnam really, only we won. However, what with that, sorting out the Mau Mau in Kenya, deploying large numbers of troops to Germany to keep the Russians out and an economy that had collapsed once US aid was removed at the end of WW2 we really didn’t have many troops to send. IIRC (I don’t have the paperwork to hand) we sent something like 15,000 to 20,000 troops all in, including air and naval units. The RN contribution was pretty big, on the basis they couldn’t do a lot in Germany or Kenya.

#12

Really? No British Empire for a hundred years you say? The Indians must be gutted that they waited until 1948 to get their indepenance then.

If you must try to make funny remarks, at least make sure you have your facts right first.

#13

Actually, the vast majority of the Empire was dismantled in the years after WW2. India got independence in 1948 for instance, and most of the rest got independence in the 1950s and 1960s.
The real reason we sent so few troops to Korea was that we were busy fighting the Malayan Emergency. This consisted of a large number of Communist Rebels hiding in jungles and launching attacks on the civilian population, with a fair bit of support from China. Rather like Vietnam really, only we won. However, what with that, sorting out the Mau Mau in Kenya, deploying large numbers of troops to Germany to keep the Russians out and an economy that had collapsed once US aid was removed at the end of WW2 we really didn’t have many troops to send. IIRC (I don’t have the paperwork to hand) we sent something like 15,000 to 20,000 troops all in, including air and naval units. The RN contribution was pretty big, on the basis they couldn’t do a lot in Germany or Kenya.[/quote]

15,000 when the US sent 100 times that much? You have yet to explain why Britain sent a smattering of men to the most important conflict on the planet at the time. Please, do try.

#14

Really? No British Empire for a hundred years you say? The Indians must be gutted that they waited until 1948 to get their indepenance then.

If you must try to make funny remarks, at least make sure you have your facts right first.[/quote]

No answers eh? Well, it’s obvious why.

#15

You’ve been answered - we sent what we could afford to send, considering at the time we were also sorting out a Communist rebellion in Malaya and insurrection in Kenya, as well as garrisoning Germany and the still widespread British Empire.

#16

The Korean War
In June 1950, just five years after the end of the Second World War, war erupted in Korea. United Nations forces, led by the USA, intervened on the side of South Korea, while the (then) USSR and (later) China supported North Korea. Although British forces only made up a small proportion of the troops involved in this conflict, they were involved in heavy fighting. This gallery focuses on the Battle of Imjin River in April 1951.

North and south

Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910, and its inhabitants responded by demanding independence. With Japan’s defeat in the Second World War, Korea had been divided into two separate zones of occupation, the north controlled by the USSR and the south by the USA.

The United Nations (UN) attempted to hold elections in Korea in 1948, but the USSR instead established a Communist republic in the north known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Its leader was Kim Il-Sung. In the south, the American zone became the Republic of Korea (ROK) under Rhee Syngman. The dividing line between the two new countries followed the 38th parallel.

At 04:00 on 25 June 1950, North Korea, supported by the USSR, launched an invasion of the south. In response, the UN sent a mainly American force to help South Korea. The USA’s president Truman regarded this attack as a challenge to American interests in the Far East; Britain, by contrast, had no direct interest in Korea but became involved through its alliance with the USA.

The opposing forces

The Korean conflict would involve huge numbers of troops on both sides. Figures for North Korean and, later, Chinese forces vary, but in November 1950 it is estimated that some 150,000 North Korean and around 200,000 Chinese forces had been fielded. (By July 1953, combined Chinese and North Korean forces would be estimated at 1,200,000.)

The UN contingent included troops, not only from the USA and Britain, but also from Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Colombia, Turkey, the Philippines, France and many others. The USA made the largest contribution of troops and equipment; Britain the second. By Spring 1951, Britain’s contribution to the UN forces was 12,000 strong. In 1950, ROK forces numbered between 80,000 and 100,000, increasing, according to some estimates, to 240,000 by Spring 1951. (UN and ROK forces combined would number 932,000 by July 1953.

Source: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/battles/korea/

From a US perspective, it may have been the largest conflict. From the UK perspective, it was one of several.

Why did the US send so few troops to help us in the fight against communism in Malaya?

#17

Ahhh, you anti-American blatherer, you commie Freedom hater. How dare you suggest that anything other then American foreign policy should have any effect on the rest of the world. I’ve looked Malaya up (in the Call of Duty instruction book) and there’s no mention of it bang did it hurt when you shot youself in the foot by mentioning a war that never existed.

Here’s a source that proves you are all wrong - www.americanrightwinganti-europeanpropaganda.com

Educate yourself kiddo

Just a prediction there :wink:

#18

Ironman

Why don’t you visit this page

http://home.earthlink.net/~woll/Bills-Page.htm

This is a US site, so probably not part of the great anti-US propaganda service that Europe has (in your warped World view) so clearly become.

Just in case you can’t be bothered, I’ll post a bit for you:

Our United Nations Allies who fought at the side of the American and South Korean forces also deserve a vote of thanks for their contribution!
Australia: Two Infantry Battalions; Naval Forces; One Fighter Squadron

Belgium: One Infantry Battalion

Canada: Reinforced Infantry Brigade (Division); Naval Forces; One Squadron of Transport Aircraft

Columbia: One Infantry Battalion; One Naval Frigate

Ethiopia: One Infantry Battalion

France: One Reinforced Infantry Battalion

Great Britain: Two Infantry Brigades (Divisions); One Armored Regiment; Three Artillery and Combat Engineer Regiments; The British Far Eastern Fleet; Two Sunderland Air Squadrons

Greece: One Infantry Battalion; Transport Aircraft

Holland: One Infantry Battalion; Naval Forces

Luxembourg: One Infantry Company

New Zealand: One Artillery Regiment, Six Naval Frigates

Philippines: One Infantry Battalion; One Tank Company

South Africa: One Fighter Squadron

Thailand: One Infantry Battalion; Naval Forces; Air and Naval Transports

Turkey: One Fighting Infantry Brigade

Denmark, India, Italy, Norway, Sweden: Medical Services

I have emboldened the bit at the top. This is why we come and help you when you ask. We actually like the US as a country. We are grateful of your assistance in WW1 & WW2, and thus returned the favour when you needed it.

Unfortunately, there are some individuals in every country who should keep their mouths shut about things they don’t understand, like fighting wars.

Do I detect from quotes in another thread that, not only have you never “done your bit”, even in the NG (a fine body of troops let me add), you seem to despise those who have?

If your father carried a rifle in the USMC, then I take my hat off to him. Of all the US units I’ve ever worked alongside, they were the finest by far.

If he is still alive, please pass on my regards. If not, then I shall think of him at the next Remembrance Day parade we have (11th Nov).

If you don’t want to interrupt your career, why don’t you join the National Guard? Then at least you would be able to enter a discussion on what it’s actually like to wear the uniform of your country?

Kind regards, and greetings to Ironman Snr

Fluffy

#19

Oops - yet another barefaced lie from Ironman.
The US contributed 302,483 troops to Korea. The UK contributed 14,198 troops. (source wikipedia) That’s 20 times as many, not 100 times as many. Since the US had roughly 5 times the population, the UK economy was in an awful state due to the effects of fighting WW2 practically by ourselves for 2 years (we’d spend all our foreign currency reserves, for a start), and we were fighting multiple other wars (Malaya, Kenya, and the Canal Zone, in addition to garrisoning the Empire and Germany) then in relative terms the UK effort demanded more of the country than the US effort.

#20

Actually, the vast majority of the Empire was dismantled in the years after WW2. India got independence in 1948 for instance, and most of the rest got independence in the 1950s and 1960s.
The real reason we sent so few troops to Korea was that we were busy fighting the Malayan Emergency. This consisted of a large number of Communist Rebels hiding in jungles and launching attacks on the civilian population, with a fair bit of support from China. Rather like Vietnam really, only we won. However, what with that, sorting out the Mau Mau in Kenya, deploying large numbers of troops to Germany to keep the Russians out and an economy that had collapsed once US aid was removed at the end of WW2 we really didn’t have many troops to send. IIRC (I don’t have the paperwork to hand) we sent something like 15,000 to 20,000 troops all in, including air and naval units. The RN contribution was pretty big, on the basis they couldn’t do a lot in Germany or Kenya.[/quote]

15,000 when the US sent 100 times that much? You have yet to explain why Britain sent a smattering of men to the most important conflict on the planet at the time. Please, do try.[/quote]

I think you have the full answer. Why did you not include this in the Korean war topic? Its for the Korean war. Can a MOD please Merge them?