Ceasefire in place, rather than return to the prewar boundaries. But yes, but for the fact that no war was ever declared there has been no approximation to a peace treaty.
The US forces are mainly there as a confidence building measure and as a deterrent to the DPRK WMDs. In pure military terms the South is easily able to defend itself.
Well Gen this is the point thanks.
But i think you will agree the world has changed since 1950. I don’t think the N/Korea dictator Kim so stupid to begin the new war. Niether USSR not China will not supported him as in 1950. Therefore i think he will force to find the compromise, perhaps i agree with you it US leave the Korea it could to help the peace process ( or may be even joining the both Koreas in perspective).
Another matter the US interests in South Asia. As it has mentioned the US “hold” the Japane and don’t let the China to forget who is “master of home”. From this point i can agree the US troops played the withstand role in region. ( althout IMO this point is based or race prejudises that “US need to rule and control this process”. I think in asia there is a lot of peoples who understand enought the situation. They itself could to create the peace in region).
Looking to the South Koreans who more resists the US presents in here from day to day i don’t think we need to ignore the its wishes.
Don’t forget the anti-americans feeling in all the word rise a lot mostly becouse of US military presents practically everywhere.
Cheers.
i.e. you agree the US troops really just protect its US interests ( i mean the limitation the China and Japane) but it’s primary task is not the defence of S.Koreans?
IMO the good armed S.Korean army could defend itself the Korea. And i’m sure the N/Korea in fear to be totally destructed will not use the nucler wearpon.
Cheers.
Sorry for GROSS Off Topic, General…
Can you provide info about WWII peace treaty? Was it ever signed?
Well, I don’t like both N and S Koreans… N/Koreans eats everything including
rats and cokroaches… But they have to, because their crazy leader fancy atomic weapons and Dubya in Washington is right that crazy boys in Israel and Pakistan can have toys … but crazy boy in Korea will be kicked out of Wall Mart. Sort of a dogma… Let him eat shit!
S/Koreans eats dogs… I definitely don’t like it!
I had auntie which ate doggie during Warsaw Uprising, but she was rather poor person, she had no idea how to build crappy, dangerous cars like KIA and very popular Hyundais. Sorry for spelling wrongly that lovely brand name…
Personally I think that S/Koreans cannot defend themselves without US presence… Anyone want to discuss it?
And how this stupid situation helps lovely Japan to expand?..
Cheers,
Lancer44
Sorry but I thought the unconditional surrender (-1 reservation by Japan) was enough. Surrender is peace. Ceasefire is different. The US had a couple of ceasefire’s during Vietnam that lasted for a bit but the war continued. Surrender is a Peace Treaty to me. Please feel free to correct!
A large part of the reason for keeping US troops in Korea is to maintain that fear in the North. The worry is that were they to leave, the DPRK might think they could get away with using Nukes against the south - after all they could claim they were merely “testing them on their own territory”. The fact that they regard the whole of Korea south of the Yalu as their own territory is entirely irrelevant, of course.
So long as the US remains in Korea, the DPRK can’t really use WMD without hitting US troops, which guarantees a US response. If the US troops aren’t there, the response is no longer guaranteed.
The bottom line is this:
North Korea is the only “rogue nation” with potential weapon systems that theoretically could reach US territory (Alaska and the west coast). That is the main reason why the US still stations a number of troops in South Korea…
But this fear could freeze the peace process. In fact the N.Korea consider the US presents as the enemy. They have very convincing reason to develop nuke wearpon for the “defence” from possible US attack.
This is exclusive circle - USA need to hold the war contingent to “protect” it form possible N/Korean , N/Korea developed the nuklear wearpon to “protect” themself form the US.
In fact today in this region many countries considered the US as alien side in this conflict. They don’t trust the US.
I think Instead of histerical world anti-N/Korean propoganda we could call the UN forces in this region. There a lot of states i think could send the the troops under UNN flag: China, Russia, Japane possible Australia and others - the all neighbouring states has the interest to hold teh peace in Korea.
So we will have manies pluses:
- The UN contingent will protect the S.Korea from the possible attack form North. If they will attack the international forces this lead them to the total war with all neighbours - when the N/Korea invetable will defeated. So the UN forces could be enough for the “hold the communists”.
- The UN force could be guarantee for the North Korea - they never attack the N/Korea first. This could be very importaint for the peace process. The dictator Kim could not any more use the inner anti-american propoganda for its own dirty political aims. (In fact he represent the N/Korea as victim of US imperialism and every day the N/Korean mass-media convinces the people in US “agreesion plans”.)
- The UNN participation could activate the the dialog in new conditions. The N/Korean dictatorship could be much hard to use “old cold war arguments”, they will forces to make soft the inner political dictature ( which mostly based on anty-americans slogans today) - this way of possible democratic transformation of N/Korean peoples - they could open the eyes to present conditions of its state.
In perspective - i don’t see the reasons why the N/Korea could not to use the Chinas way of transforming of society - from the ultra communist dictature to the market economy with good relations with West.
We just need to "unfreeze: this proces IMO.
Cheer.
One very, very big problem with that Chevan - the UN are exactly who the North Koreans were fighting during the war phase. South Korea was a UN ward at the time of the invasion, and with Stalin boycotting the UN nobody objected to secretary general Trygve Lie (UN Secretary General)'s statement that North Korea had declared war on the UN. All the forces on the South Korean side were fighting under a UN mandate. For all I know the US forces in South Korea may still be covered by that mandate.
On point 1, you’re having a laugh! Third world troops are virtually the only ones to be sent on UN peacekeeping missions, and they would most likely lose to the DPRK in short order. South Korea is massively more effective. The only way for them to be effective is to have large numbers of US troops under UN command - which is what they’ve got at the moment.
As for point 2, I think you’re being rather naive there. The DPRK have almost total control of information flows inside North Korea, and even if they told their people that the UN had replaced the US
On point 3, it would be nice if it worked. Similar things have been tried in the past - e.g. with the light water reactors supplied under the agreed framework. North Korea has failed to keep to these agreements, and has generally weaseled it’s way out of any restrictions placed on it by treaty.
North Korea could use the Chinese model very effectively - indeed, I would be surprised if the Chinese weren’t pressuring them to do so. The current leadership show no interest in doing so however.
No they could not be covered by UN today.
When the Korean war ended in 1953 the UN forces had come to home but the USA signed the two-side agreement with Sout Korean gov which let them to stay 35 000 garrison near N/Korea border. This is only US-S.Korea treaty which don’t touch the UNN.
On point 1, you’re having a laugh! Third world troops are virtually the only ones to be sent on UN peacekeeping missions, and they would most likely lose to the DPRK in short order. South Korea is massively more effective. The only way for them to be effective is to have large numbers of US troops under UN command - which is what they’ve got at the moment.
If China , Russia and Japan is the Third world for you 
…
Let me notice you that the “large numbers” of US troops in Korea is just 30 000( for the comparition the S/Korea army is about 600 000).
Indeed the US troops in there has a practically zero military meaning - its basic goal to be the polotical guaranty of involving the USA in the conflict. This is just the withstand factor.
But the considering the anti-americans feeling in BOTH (!!!) Koreas today the US troops
is far rather the irritating factor then the protecting.
I think the real UN forces of different sides ( not US troop which present in Korea is blamed by the N.Korea as the Cold war survival) could be much more interested in peace process.
As for point 2, I think you’re being rather naive there. The DPRK have almost total control of information flows inside North Korea, and even if they told their people that the UN had replaced the US
It seems you forgot that China and Vietnam had the simular communist dictatorship in nearest past and certainly they had total control of information inside. But as we know they chose the reform way ( thay had no any other way endeed) and today both states have a normal relations with West and USA particulary ( which was the mortal enemy for them not so long tome ago).
So i don’t think i have to be the naive to suggest this way for the China in 1980 when it began the reforms.
On point 3, it would be nice if it worked. Similar things have been tried in the past - e.g. with the light water reactors supplied under the agreed framework. North Korea has failed to keep to these agreements, and has generally weaseled it’s way out of any restrictions placed on it by treaty.
Actually in 1994 the Clinton gov had a good agreement with N/Korea. They offered the Koreans to build the light water reactor for the purely energy-prouction supplies . In the first moment it seems was all right. But later US decelerated and in 2002 totally refused this parthership. Hence the piese process was interrupted, inspite of the two leaders of both Korea had a meetehg in 2000 in Seul.
Well your point as i understood is to do nothing ,right?
Indeed last time i heared nothing except the anti-N/Korean demagogy. This look from the side like the US simply warming up the political opposition in South Asia -nothing more.
The dialog is frozen , the N.Korea rockets still fly in the sky(Last rocket fall down in the 150 killometres from the russian city of Vladivostok).
This is no ridiculous more.
We need to do something, the UN could be the compromise IMO . But who will do it?
Its seems the US administration has the only one way to solve all the problems - the little “victorious” war like in Iraq. And I don’t wish the repeeting this scenario in the Far East near the Rusian bother agains the nucler state.
Cheers.
OK, my bad. I didn’t bother to check if there was such a treaty.
If they got involved, I’ve got no problems (particularly China as the DPRK wouldn’t dare upset the Chinese). Problem is, the countries who normally get involved in UN Peacekeeping are places like Ghana and Bangladesh.
Big difference - the guy in charge of China (Deng Xiaoping) is on record as far back as the 1960s as saying “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice”, indicating at least some tolerance for differing economic measures. There is no sign of any such leeway in the DPRK.
All depends on your point of view. The US was pretty much bounced into that agreement by Jimmy Carter (he wasn’t far off negotiating it by himself and then announcing that the US had agreed to it without checking with the US!), and from their perspective the DPRK had thoroughly violated the agreement.
Hi!
I am watching the documentary on History channel about Nho Gun Ri massacer as I write. It is very disturbing.
They bombed refugies on purpose. I mean american soldiers were escorting korean refugies. Then ordered them to stop and left away. After short time airplane bombed the group people. Then american troops came back and ordered the survivers to stend up and go again.
One episode particulary struck my attention. First after the large group of refugies was shot upon several hundred survivors tried to hide under aa bridge for several days. The americans kept shooting at anything moving.
Among the hiding survivors was a father with a small baby whose mother was just killled before. The baby got to eat and so screamed. Every time baby scrimed the soldiers shot in to under the bridge. So other refugies complained about the babyt cruying because it could lead to more death. Darther could not feed the baby and saw that the chanses for his own sone were minimal. So he drowned his own son in a wather hole.
May be you just don’t wish to see those attempts of leeway in DPRK? 
In the compare with China in 1970-80 which was not in the isolation and economic blocade the N.Korea is. The problem is for them the world don’t let them to survive. The constant anti-Koreans hysteria in mass media, the blaming the N/Korea nuclear program as the main threat for the world peace( but by the strange way nobody worry about othe nuclear programs of states which more friendly for the US today (and while!!!) like Pakistan and Israel.
This look like as i said the close circle - the US threaten the N.Korea by the war , N.Korea threaten the world by its nucler wearpon. Who is ass is here?
And I don’t think the Koreans so stupid to kill each other for the power in the Korea - the TIME has already changed.
In 2000 the both leaders had a meeting in Seul. It was good begining for the brother-states on the sense.
All depends on your point of view. The US was pretty much bounced into that agreement by Jimmy Carter (he wasn’t far off negotiating it by himself and then announcing that the US had agreed to it without checking with the US!), and from their perspective the DPRK had thoroughly violated the agreement.
The fact that you admit the all depends on personal point proves you don’t know what is going on. And you don’t sure in your point.
You right from the US point the DPRK had thoroughly violated the agreement, but from the N.Koreans point the US had it. But the problem still is not solved - this prove the former US methods doesn’t work now. Hence we need to change the methods.
As for me the anti-Korean shit is intensify the problem. That’s IMHO.
P.S. It seems Bush has decided to increase the contingent in Iraq. Why he don’t use the 30 000 of american troops from the S.Korea?
Cheers.
Oh my god !!!
This resemble to me the SS- zondercommand behavior in the occuped USSR.
Those guys very liked to kill the children and its mams.
So maybe the Nho Gun Ri massacer was in the basis on the Picasso picture?
But what was in Shinchun then?
All what i found is just the “fifth column site”. Its stange but its seems in there were really terrible things - the official US sources ignore it , but the some so called “activist group” use it as anti-americans incident. What was in there?
Its hard to say what Picasso’s Picture is about … if anything???
However the No Gun Ri incident seems to have some clout! Here is what wiki had to say.
Yes Gen i’ve already read about No Gun Ri massacre in Wiki.
And may be no some incident was in the Picasso Picture , but the facts of mass killing of civilians was the reality.
More a case of I’m rather scared of the tendency in politicians to see such attempts when they aren’t there, and the possible (probable?) consequences. The DPRK are attempting to develop nuclear weapons (may even have one - the nuclear test they did would tend to suggest they don’t however), have in the past started an unprovoked war - which is technically still ongoing, do not appear susceptible to external pressure of any sort and do not appear to follow a chain of logic and reason that is recognisable and predictable from outside.
While I would love to see such a state changing - and I am very concious of the fact that Mao was very much in favour of nuking the whole world until he actually got nukes and realised what they could do to China - there are huge risks involved in what the change could cause in the transitional stage and how it could go wrong/be misinterpreted. That’s why I’m acting so cautiously about it all.
Oh, and apologies if this is a bit snappy - nothing personal, I’ve just had an awful weekend.
Maybe you should read what actually took place, put the historical event in its proper perspective and context, then make your judgement…
And avoid “activist groups” spewing exaggerations to get attention…
There were a series of articles in US newspapers on Nho Gun Ri in the late 1990s.
It was a case of poorly trained US troops hastily deployed, with obsolete equipment, and being defeated by a third world army when they were told to expect an easy victory. They were often retreating and cut off, and feared that partisans were moving with civilians into their rear-areas. this is the main reason why civilians were slaughtered.
But were those Korean’s lives worth more than the Afghan civilians that were slaughtered by the Red Army between 1979 and 1989?
Oh Nick i’ve begin to worry of your vanishing for a long time in forum.
Where were you ? It is all right?
Well Nick i would be very glad not read those “activist group site” but the all what i found about Shuncin massacre (which was mentioned in Wiki) were in there.
So i will not have nothing if you go on Wiki and repair the article as you wish. ( certainly i believe you have the obviouse evidence there were never massacre in Shuncin ).
But while i didn’t find any material about Chuncin in the official US sources. It’s strange if there were never be the massacre ,why the american “fifth column” used it in its sites, don’t you think?
Moreover some conclisions let us to admit that the Nho Gun Ri massacre was not the single massacre of sivilians in Korea ( it was only single which floated to the surface in western mass-media).
I have no intention to blame somebody but i just to wish to learn the true. I don’t think the UN forces make only atrocities in N/Korea, by how could we confirm or refused some events if instead of research of documents you prefer only advise to " put the historical event in its proper perspective and context, then make your judgement…"
How could we learn the true with such opponents.
I/m very thankful to the honest pdf and Sandworm for the information which they posted about problem. ( and the reasons anti-americanism in S/Korea particulary).
But if you have nothing to add on sense why you hope i will calm of your advises.
… and being defeated by a third world army when they were told to expect an easy victory. They were often retreating and cut off, and feared that partisans were moving with civilians into their rear-areas. this is the main reason why civilians were slaughtered.
May be you don’t know but this is exact situation of mass murdering of civilians in the occuped Ukraine , Belorussia and Russia by the Nazi in 1941-44.
Thay also was expected the easy victory above USSR and they also had a “fear of partisan”. Do you know why there were a lot of partisans - becouse the Germans behaved as the real occupants- they had began from the mass killing of civilians.
This was a close cirlcle - the violence generated the violence. And there was never the end.
But were those Korean’s lives worth more than the Afghan civilians that were slaughtered by the Red Army between 1979 and 1989?
Noway Nick. Certainly those Korean’s lives worth no more than the Afghan civilians. And the old mudak Breznev mush understood it in 1979 when he ( becouse of his senile marasmus) let the hight military command of USSR to send the troops in Afganistan( as it was said for the people for the “supporting of international duty”). It was the imperial policy which lead this old Politbureau to the catastrophe in 1991).
The 1979-1989 Afganistan war took away lives about 1 -1,5 millions of people ( mostly becouse of civil war). And this responsibility of soviet gov.
Now tell me please dear Nick how many people must kill the Washington’s mudaks befor they will stop?
Korea , Vietnam, Pamama, Somali, Laos, Iraq (1991) , Afganistan ( 2002), Iraq (2003)?
Now they plann to invade the Iran.
How many millions they kill befor they would stop to kill? Don’t you know?
Cheers.
Well, a Russian offered me glowing tea, so I ran.
Just kidding, I’ve been very busy with a recent partial move and basically have been living near two different cities about 700km apart. So things are hectic as I am surrounded by packed boxes as we speak.
My time is limited and I also Mod at another (Classic Van Halen) website and feel obligated to monitor for spam and trolls. Plus, there’s talk of a reunion, so I’ve been there a lot. Thanks for your concern though…
Well Nick i would be very glad not read those “activist group site” but the all what i found about Shuncin massacre (which was mentioned in Wiki) were in there.
So i will not have nothing if you go on Wiki and repair the article as you wish. ( certainly i believe you have the obviouse evidence there were never massacre in Shuncin
But while i didn’t find any material about Chuncin in the official US sources. It’s strange if there were never be the massacre ,why the american “fifth column” used it in its sites, don’t you think?
Here ya go buddy:
Letter on Korean War Massacre Reveals Plan to Shoot Refugees
Historian Discovers U.S. Envoy’s Writings Relating to No Gun Ri
By Charles J. Hanley and Martha Mendoza
Associated Press
Tuesday, May 30, 2006; A04
More than a half-century after hostilities ended in Korea, a document from the war’s chaotic early days has come to light – a letter from the U.S. ambassador to Seoul, informing the State Department that U.S. soldiers would shoot refugees approaching their lines.
The letter – dated the day of the Army’s mass killing of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri in 1950 – is the strongest indication yet that such a policy existed for all U.S. forces in Korea, and the first evidence that that policy was known to upper ranks of the U.S. government.
“If refugees do appear from north of US lines they will receive warning shots, and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot,” wrote Ambassador John J. Muccio, in his message to Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk.
The letter reported on decisions made at a high-level meeting in South Korea on July 25, 1950, the night before the 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment shot the refugees at No Gun Ri.
Estimates vary on the number of dead at No Gun Ri. U.S. soldiers’ estimates ranged from fewer than 100 to “hundreds” dead; Korean survivors say about 400, mostly women and children, were killed at the village 100 miles southeast of Seoul, the South Korean capital. Hundreds more refugees were killed in later, similar episodes, survivors say.
The No Gun Ri killings were documented in a Pulitzer Prize-winning story by the Associated Press in 1999, which prompted a 16-month Pentagon inquiry.
The Pentagon concluded that the No Gun Ri shootings, which lasted three days, were “an unfortunate tragedy” – “not a deliberate killing.” It suggested panicky soldiers, acting without orders, opened fire because they feared that an approaching line of families, baggage and farm animals concealed enemy troops.
But Muccio’s letter indicates the actions of the 7th Cavalry were consistent with policy, adopted because of concern that North Koreans would infiltrate via refugee columns. And in subsequent months, U.S. commanders repeatedly ordered refugees shot, documents show.
The Muccio letter, declassified in 1982, is discussed in a new book by American historian Sahr Conway-Lanz, who discovered the document at the National Archives, where the AP also has obtained a copy.
Conway-Lanz, a former Harvard historian and now an archivist of the National Archives’ Nixon collection, was awarded the Stuart L. Bernath Award of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations for the article on which the book is based.
“With this additional piece of evidence, the Pentagon report’s interpretation [of No Gun Ri] becomes difficult to sustain,” Conway-Lanz argues in his book, “Collateral Damage,” published this spring by Routledge.
The Army report’s own list of sources for the 1999-2001 investigation shows its researchers reviewed the microfilm containing the Muccio letter. But the 300-page report did not mention it.
Asked about this, Pentagon spokeswoman Betsy Weiner would say only that the Army inspector general’s report was “an accurate and objective portrayal of the available facts based on 13 months of work.”
Said Louis Caldera, who was Army secretary in 2001 and is now University of New Mexico president, “Millions of pages of files were reviewed, and it is certainly possible they may have simply missed it.”
Former Washington Post diplomatic correspondent Don Oberdorfer, a historian of Korea who served on a team of outside experts who reviewed the investigation, said he did not recall seeing the Muccio message. “I don’t know why, since the military claimed to have combed all records from any source.”
Muccio noted in his 1950 letter that U.S. commanders feared disguised North Korean soldiers were infiltrating American lines via refugee columns.
As a result, those meeting on the night of July 25, 1950 – top staff officers of the U.S. 8th Army, Muccio’s representative Harold J. Noble and South Korean officials – decided on a policy of air-dropping leaflets telling South Korean civilians not to head south toward U.S. defense lines and of shooting them if they did approach U.S. lines despite warning shots, the ambassador wrote to Rusk.
Rusk, Muccio and Noble, who was embassy first secretary, are all dead. It is not known what action, if any, Rusk and others in Washington may have taken as a result of the letter.
Muccio told Rusk, who was secretary of state during the Vietnam War, that he was writing him “in view of the possibility of repercussions in the United States” from such deadly U.S. tactics.
But the No Gun Ri killings – as well as others in the ensuing months – remained hidden from history until the AP report of 1999, in which soldiers who were at No Gun Ri corroborated the Korean survivors’ accounts.
Survivors said U.S. soldiers first forced them from nearby villages on July 25, 1950, and then stopped them in front of U.S. lines the next day, when they were attacked without warning by aircraft as hundreds sat atop a railroad embankment. Troops of the 7th Cavalry followed with ground fire as survivors took shelter under a railroad bridge.
The late Army Col. Robert M. Carroll, a lieutenant at No Gun Ri, said in a 1998 interview that he remembered the order radioed across the warfront on the morning of July 26 to stop refugees from crossing battle lines. “What do you do when you’re told nobody comes through? . . . We had to shoot them to hold them back.”
Other soldier witnesses attested to radioed orders to open fire at No Gun Ri.
Since that episode was confirmed in 1999, South Koreans have lodged complaints with the Seoul government about more than 60 other alleged large-scale killings of refugees by the U.S. military in the 1950-53 war.
The Army report of 2001 acknowledged that investigators learned of other, unspecified civilian killings, but said these would not be investigated.
AP research uncovered at least 19 declassified U.S. military documents showing commanders ordered or authorized such killings in 1950-51.
In a statement issued Monday in Seoul, a No Gun Ri survivors group called that episode “a clear war crime,” demanded an apology and compensation from the U.S. government, and said Congress and the United Nations should conduct investigations. The survivors also said they would file a lawsuit against the Pentagon for alleged manipulation of the earlier probe.
Gary Solis, a West Point expert on war crimes, said the policy described by Muccio clearly “deviates from typical wartime procedures. It’s an obvious violation of the bedrock core principle of the law of armed conflict – distinction.”
Solis said soldiers always have the right to defend themselves. But “noncombatants are not to be purposely targeted.”
But William Eckhardt, lead Army prosecutor in the My Lai atrocities case in Vietnam, sensed “angst, great angst” in the letter because officials worried about what might happen. “If a mob doesn’t stop when they’re coming at you, you fire over their heads. And if they still don’t stop, you fire at them. Standard procedure,” he said.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
The Associated Press ran a Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles on this in 1999, which is what I was thinking of.
Incidentally, some claim that the No Gun Ri massacre has been exaggerated. I do not know, but you can read the dissenting opinion here.