N. Korea and Germany 1939?

[mattbiernat]

reading the news it is starting to look more and more like pre WWII time when Nazi Germany was arming itself while the world was trying to appease its dictator.

Washington’s recent pledge to defend South Korea was tantamount to “asking for the calamitous situation of having a fire shower of nuclear retaliation all over South Korea.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/world ... lobal-home
if it wasn't for current situation in Iraq, I would say lets strike them now and take out the guy before it's too late. really too bad that we are in Iraq now.

[killer]

Good point, although the result of gunboat diplomacy has always been doubtful.

If you block up their bogs, put a powder in their water to make them defacate, and cut off their supply of bog roll, then they will come screaming to the negotiating table.

We should have done the same with Hitler in 1938. It really does save an awful kerfuffle.

[ajkula66]

Barking dogs don't bite...leave that psycho be, and his people will eventually take care of him...

My $0.02 only...

[qviri]

I don't think the analogy quite works in this case. At least in retrospect, the military power of Nazi Germany was obvious. I am not convinced North Korea could sustain, let alone win, a prolonged armed conflict.

The concern in this case is the North Korean leadership turning the crazy knob just a bit further, and deciding to nuke a couple of places with no regard to what happens after. I'd like to think no one is crazy enough, but then again, developing nuclear technology and testing cruise missiles when your population is starving as badly as North Korea's doesn't exactly seem sane either.

[mattbiernat]

At least in retrospect, the military power of Nazi Germany was obvious. I am not convinced North Korea could sustain, let alone win, a prolonged armed conflict.

actual in 1939 Nazi germany did not have a strong army. remember that during invasion of poland there were only ~4 german division facing 55 french divisions and there were no tanks and virtually no planes on the french border. the problem could have been taken care of right then. had the french attacked they would have been in berlin within 2 weeks.
before 1939 the Nazi problem could have been taken care of with a small scale conflict.
the question is where are we at right now with north korea and how much longer until they nuke their southern neighbor or hawaii.

[Kyocera]

I agree with George, leave him be.

You can't be serious about going after this guy. I mean what exactly do you mean? Have Delta Force go and assasinate him, or blow up his evil compound. Send some troops to some place, to do something to get someone and then get him. Ummmm, you do know that North Korean troops are quite apt at warfare, quite different than Iraq or afghanistan, yes? You do realize this. This would be a big mistake militarily, I don't even care about the politics of it. Tell me that those who advocate going after him have actually been in the military of their respective countries, know the smell of blood and won many many medals and and maybe even served in wartime?, or maybe even known someone who had a brother who went? Saw a good documentry on war? Played WOW, that equates, Right?.

If you're talking about maybe some other country like england or austraila or canada, ireland, iceland, going after him I'm all for it, please do, go for it, by all means. I think these countries are much better than the U.S. and are at a better place morally to do this.

[tomh009]

If you're talking about maybe some other country like england or austraila or canada, ireland, iceland, going after him I'm all for it, please do, go for it, by all means. I think these countries are much better than the U.S. and are at a better place morally to do this.

I think our helicopter needs new spark plugs. But maybe one or the other of our tanks is still working?

OK, so not quite that bad. But Canada isn't much more set up for offensive operations than Ireland or Iceland ...

[ajkula66]

mattbiernat wrote:

actual in 1939 Nazi germany did not have a strong army. remember that during invasion of poland there were only ~4 german division facing 55 french divisions and there were no tanks and virtually no planes on the french border. the problem could have been taken care of right then. had the french attacked they would have been in berlin within 2 weeks.
before 1939 the Nazi problem could have been taken care of with a small scale conflict.
the question is where are we at right now with north korea and how much longer until they nuke their southern neighbor or hawaii.

Mhhhm...no. You're mixing apples and oranges here.

Germany had hundreds of years of Prussian military experience in 1939. North Korea is nowhere near that point.

Germany had many other paramilitary (as per Versailles Treaty) forces that would not be seen as "army" as such but were quite capable of fighting...

Now, the only reason there were no planes involved in 1939 was because Goering (who was a highly decorated WW I fighter pilot) figured he would not need them, and he was right. Luftwaffe had Messerschmitts 109 which would make life miserable for many British pilots only a year later...as well as Junkers JU87 aka Stuka dozens of which destroyed numerous cities, large and small, all over Europe...German pilots fought undercover on Franco's side during Spanish Civil War as well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87

And I'd tend to think that your numbers are dead wrong. When Von Paulus surrendered by Stalingrad, his troops had over 700,000 dead at that point ...and that was only four years later...

[mattbiernat]

north Korea had experience of the first Korean war. maybe not the same military tradition as the prussia but still they could be a formidable force to face with in the jungle.

and regarding my numbers they are actually very much so correct, i am using same source, wikipedia

The German-French border saw only a few minor skirmishes, although the majority of German forces, including eighty-five percent of their armoured forces, were engaged in Poland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)

german army during invasion of poland was still small and would not be able to stustain fight against both the poles and the french at the same time.

during 1939 the german army had 1.5 million men and could recruit up to 2.5 million.
the polish army mobalized about 1 million men
the french could recruit up to 5 milllion men.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWgermanA.htm

Now, the only reason there were no planes involved in 1939

actually in 1939 the entire idea of blizkierg was using combined air, ground and sea attack. germans etensively used planes during the entire Fall Weiss (polish) campaign.

i am not sure why are trying to compare German military force in Stalingrad and the one in Poland. that was 4 years later and had nothing to do with invasion of Poland.

[ajkula66]

mattbiernat wrote:

north Korea had experience of the first Korean war. maybe not the same military tradition as the prussia but still they could be a formidable force to face with in the jungle.

If we're discussing them firing a nuclear missile on another country, there would be no jungle to fight face to face in. There would be no North Korea.

i am using same source, wikipedia

The only thing I used wikipedia for were quick links describing two Luftwaffe planes. I do not hold that source of information in high regard, since it's way too often incorrect.

germans etensively used planes during the entire Fall Weiss (polish) campaign.

I guess that depends on how one understands the term "extensively" when it comes to use of air force. I'd beg to differ. In my book, The Battle Of Britain and bombing of Dresden would be examples of "extensive" use of air force. Let's face it, none of the countries that Germany attacked prior to UK resisted long enough to warrant serious destruction from air...

Germans were preparing for the war for well over a decade, cooking the books when it came to military equipment and many other things. Not that anyone really cared, either. And their overall moral was beyond high until they got stuck in USSR...had Hitler stayed away from that nonsense, the world would likely look very different today...

As for Poland, the saddest part-I would imagine-was that Hitler let Stalin do his dirty work and that most certainly was no picnic, not for Polish population anyway...

The French got away fairly easy...because Hitler didn't want France destroyed.

The rest of the Europe had no serious military power to speak of, apart from Britons, and even their power at the start of the war was quite debatable....

And then the little man got greedy and made the same mistake as another little man before him...sending his troops to freeze to death in Russia...

[mattbiernat]

The rest of the Europe had no serious military power to speak of

i need to see sources for this because it was actually the other way around. The french, the british and the russian had enormous military power. didn't i mention that the french were able to recruit 5 million men? they had over 1 millon men at the border ready to invade the germany. the british actually had one of the smaller armies during 1939. something around 400,000 men, they mainly relied on the navy to protect their coast.

the germans did however use new military tactics, more modern airplanes and diplomatic deception.
and regarding the air war over poland, does 120,000 dead civilians due to bombardment sound like extensive use of air power? not to mention that germany lost ~350 out of 2500 bombers just in 5 weeks.

here are some comparisons of german vs polish armies and respected german losses

polish
1,000,000 soliders
900 tanks
4300 artilery
435 ariplanes

germany
1,800,000 soliders
3100 tanks
10,000 artilery
2085 airplanes

german losses
10,000 killed
30,000 wounded
1,000 armoed vehicles
370 artilery
697 airplanes
2 destroyers
2 mine vessels

as you can see german army was not by any means huge.

[ajkula66]

Ufff...USSR and Germany were allies at the time Poland and France fell...so why you're bringing up Russian military potential is beyond me...Polish people had an excellent opportunity to see that military in action against them in 1939...as they had many times before...

Yes, French could have mobilized five million people. They were smart enough not to...

When I talk about "rest of the Europe"...I'm referring to all the countries that surrendered in less than two weeks, being well aware that resistance was futile...

Brits were the one who took the worst beating...and would've gone down fighting had Hitler been wise enough not to touch USSR...

Where does 120,000 casualties due to air-bombardment figure come from, since I haven't been able to find that particular piece of information anywhere? Not that it's unbelievable...as many have died in Dresden within less than 24 hours...

Numbers partially different from what you quote:

http://war.wikia.com/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)

And back to the most important (my opinion only) factor: German army was prepared for this, while Polish was not. Germans were bent on revenge for humiliation of the Versailles treaty, and Poland was an appetizer for what was about to unravel...

But back to our friend in Korea...do you really think that he's the most dangerous person in possession of nuclear weapons? Honestly, I could think of at least three other countries that have no business being nuclear powers in my opinion, but they are...

[mattbiernat]

the 120,000 casulites number, I read it long time ago. the truth is that warsaw looked just liked Dresden and Hiroshima after WWII. And honestly I don't think that Britain took the worst beating in WWII. Germany was by much the most destroyed country, Poland lost the biggest percentage of its population. 6million of its citizens (3millon jewish citizens and 3 million catholic) out of its original population of 24 million died. That's 25% of her population. Russia sustained the biggest number of casulites, 20 million people.
regarding france, they could have invaded germany with their 55 divisions and overrun the 4 german divisions at the border and finish the war in 2 weeks.
But that's all besides the subject. I think that the Korean leader should be taken seriously. His threats and hate towards united states is obvious and he is building a means to hurt us or our allies. The question is whether N.Korean attack on S.Korea and Japan is inevitable or can be avoided. If it is inevitable like in the case of Germany in WWII it would be much better option to attack N.Korea before they use their nuclear weapons. Bring them back stone age by air bombardment. But of course our current military, economic and moral situation is not so good. That's where I have stared to wonder whether we have made a huge mistake invading Iraq.

[tomh009]

north Korea had experience of the first Korean war. maybe not the same military tradition as the prussia but still they could be a formidable force to face with in the jungle.

What jungle? The Korean peninsula is in the temperate zone, and in the border region they see pretty severe winters (yes, with snow). From a climate point of view, Korea is nothing like Vietnam.

[Kyocera]

Bring them back stone age by air bombardment. But of course our current military, economic and moral situation is not so good. That's where I have stared to wonder whether we have made a huge mistake invading Iraq.

Personally, I only need to be reminded twice each day of why we are in Iraq and why we are in Afghanistan it happens at precisely 9:11 am/pm. It pisses me off still, every single day.
If you question Iraq, then why the chest pounding about Korea, they have done nothing to you.

I have had friends and some neighbors (still live about 13 mi from Ft Bragg, where I landed as a 17 yr old 82d paratrooper), some of who have gone the way of MacArthur (just faded away one day) who had been in Korea and Vietnam, Korea was absolutely as horrible as any war that the United States ever fought, they thought the scroched earth theory would work back then too, it did not.

I say let Obama worry about it, our devine saviour and rational leader. He'll come up with something, have faith in him as our new world leader, anyone who has the willpower to quit smoking can surely save us from another global conflict, I guess.

Edit: I know I am not as smart as 90% of the people on this forum but, I'm puzzled why the comparison to Germany, it's not a comparison, maybe more of an emotional stimulant for a debate, than later or earlier comparisons. We got our [censored] kicked in Korea in the 50's, and you can wikipidia and google that all day long. Korea is the forgotten war, even in the Special Ops Museum in Fayetteville there is little mention of it.

[killer]

The Korean War was fought by the UN ... not just by the USA. Troops from many nations took part.

Source here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... y_01.shtml

[Kyocera]

The Korean War was fought by the UN ... not just by the USA. Troops from many nations took part.

I didn't say it was, and that is not the point anyway. The UN was as much a joke back then as it is today.

The point is, it is not a desert storm type operation, was not then and won't be tomorrrow or the next day. I think matt is joking around with that concept, or overgeneralizing. ROK soldiers are among the best in the world.

I'm beginning to think this is more of a battle of search engines than a substantive discussion. You can pretty much find anything you want to back a point via a search engine nowdays, and because it apears in text and is on the internet we accept it for pure fact. I do this too, so spare me the outrage. Search engines are great but I tend to believe the older soldiers I have served with in the past, the older guys who were not slick sleeves like me when I enlisted. These guys were in Korea, Vietnam, POW's, these guys were my commanders, my platoon sergeants, squad leaders etc. The younger guys listened and learned from them and respected them, so that we might at least keep ourselves alive.

I've said my peace here, so please continue the battle of "blue links"".

[beGi]

The UN was as much a joke back then as it is today.

My thoughts exactly...

On topic:

[dr_st]

Personally, I only need to be reminded twice each day of why we are in Iraq and why we are in Afghanistan it happens at precisely 9:11 am/pm. It pisses me off still, every single day.
If you question Iraq, then why the chest pounding about Korea, they have done nothing to you.

And what exactly have Afghanistan and Iraq done? If Afghani connections to 9/11 can be somehow traced through Al Qaeda, the connection of Iraq is moot to me. Most of the terrorists on those planes were Saudi. And yet somehow the US considers Saudi Arabia to be an ally.

[killer]

@kyocera: I wasn't attacking your view. My contribution was not meant to be eristic, merely to point out a reliable source of historical evidence as opposed to Wikipedia. Perhaps the fact that the Korean War was a UN war might explain the lack of commemoration?

@beGi: The UN has been more effective than the League of Nations. Maybe it is imperfect, but what is perfect? What would you suggest?

@dr-st: Good points. Could the answer be oil?

@ajkula66: You really know your history. British military aeroplanes in the early part of the second world war were far behind the German Focke-Wulfe and Meschermitt aircraft. Most of this was due to appeasement ... a policy that only bought time.

One question to investigate is the reason the US didn't get involved until the end of 1941?

So to answer the question of the OP, always maintain your guard. There is no difference between the Nazis in the 1930s and the North Koreans now. The requirement is to be ready and able to respond.

[dsvochak]

One question to investigate is the reason the US didn't get involved until the end of 1941?

While the obvious answer is Pearl Harbor, involved is a relative term. Lend-Lease was a pretty significant involvement.

[Marin85]

The question is whether N.Korean attack on S.Korea and Japan is inevitable or can be avoided.

I don´t believe there is any country on the globe that would exert a nuclear attack on its neighbors... And I don´t believe NK would exert nuclear attack on Japan since Russia and China would be affected as well...

[mattbiernat]

I don´t believe there is any country on the globe that would exert a nuclear attack on its neighbors...

you just need a dictator who is completely crazy.... there are plenty of those around the world. try giving away nuclear weapons to leaders in Africa or some in middle east. you will see how much they hate their neighbors.

And I don´t believe NK would exert nuclear attack on Japan since Russia and China would be affected as well...

you do have a good point.


I don't seem to find connection between Iraq and 911. if there is some I would like to read it. So far president's Bush explanation for the invasion of Iraq was WMD. I fail to understand thou why did we have to send ground troops? I mean U.S. has the most powerful air force in the world, couldn't we simply bomb their entire infrastructure? N. Korea has already built nuclear weapons. Their intentions towards United States are clear, they will be firing missile aimed at Hawaii. To me it looks like an act of war.

[ajkula66]

mattbiernat wrote:

Their intentions towards United States are clear, they will be firing missile aimed at Hawaii. To me it looks like an act of war.

I seriously doubt that that's going to happen, in fact I'm willing to bet ALL of my ThinkPads that it won't. Not in our lifetime.

Now, if I end up losing my collection, it will be the first time in history (at least to my knowledge) that an entire nation committed a collective suicide...

[t140568]

...in fact I'm willing to bet ALL of my ThinkPads that it won't...

That's the sound of a man with a great deal of certainty!

[dsvochak]

For those who haven't heard:
Cyberattacks Hit US and S. Korean Web Sites