Why has the Korean War become so forgotten?

Do not tempt fate!!!!!

Oh man was really looking forward to a nice discussion on ( armed ) Rhine barges vs tribal class destroyers. Really think Germans might have a chance !
Well, if the KM sorties its heavy units into the North Atlantic and the RN strips the Channel forces to send them out hunting with the Home Fleet, and if the Channel was like a mill pond, and there was fog that grounded the RAF but there was glorious sunshine for the Luftwaffe and then some other stuff happened = glorious teutonic victory.
 
Well, if the KM sorties its heavy units into the North Atlantic and the RN strips the Channel forces to send them out hunting with the Home Fleet, and if the Channel was like a mill pond, and there was fog that grounded the RAF but there was glorious sunshine for the Luftwaffe and then some other stuff happened = glorious teutonic victory.
Nah, Brits will just counter invade with Thames Barges. Western front re-established in 1940.
 
Well, if the KM sorties its heavy units into the North Atlantic and the RN strips the Channel forces to send them out hunting with the Home Fleet, and if the Channel was like a mill pond, and there was fog that grounded the RAF but there was glorious sunshine for the Luftwaffe and then some other stuff happened = glorious teutonic victory.
Nah No only way I see this possible is if Germans somehow get tactical nuclear weapons

But more to the point I offer my most humble and sincere apology for derailing this thread please have mercy
 
Oddly enough it's also largely forgotten by the public in Canada too, even though we didn't have anything like Vietnam to overshadow it.
That demonstrates the postwar prosperity effect was more significant than Vietnam. Canada did become a refuge point for draft dodgers, though.
 
That demonstrates the postwar prosperity effect was more significant than Vietnam. Canada did become a refuge point for draft dodgers, though.
There's also just the bit where very little of any part of Canada's history is represented in the media, owing to the small (to an extent even out of proportion with its population) domestic TV and film industries.
 
Your comment on the media is apt because even though the war became unpopular with time the war time press controls kept the media from pulling a Vietnam. The war became unpopular, but it didn’t deeply scar the American psyche.
Yet was Korea that unpopular? Between miltary censorship, controlling the physical access to the theatre, geographical distances and the slowness of the media [I think ~'52 is a bit too early for TV news dominance for the US, and certainly for the UK] there's a good chance few really had much a clue what was really happening 'out there'.

There's also the issue that a war may be unpopular, but also rated 'not that important'. With censorship keeping the 'true toll' from the eyes of the public, as long as the respective governments is not seen to be making any 'extra' demands on the nation.

From what I understand the US yanked up taxes and conscripted 1.5m to fight Korea. As WW2 vets were exempt, the whole weight would have been on the male 18-24 cohort; seems that this was about 6m at that point [so about 20% - 25% of male Americans born between '26 and '34 would have served].
 
Yet was Korea that unpopular? Between miltary censorship, controlling the physical access to the theatre, geographical distances and the slowness of the media [I think ~'52 is a bit too early for TV news dominance for the US, and certainly for the UK] there's a good chance few really had much a clue what was really happening 'out there'.

There's also the issue that a war may be unpopular, but also rated 'not that important'. With censorship keeping the 'true toll' from the eyes of the public, as long as the respective governments is not seen to be making any 'extra' demands on the nation.

From what I understand the US yanked up taxes and conscripted 1.5m to fight Korea. As WW2 vets were exempt, the whole weight would have been on the male 18-24 cohort; seems that this was about 6m at that point [so about 20% - 25% of male Americans born between '26 and '34 would have served].

Don’t tell my grandfather that WW2 vets were exempt. Americans wanted to win it and didn’t want to hear from Truman it’s a police action or that is a stalemate. Which was a different kind of unpopular then Nam at least by the end.
 
Last edited:
Don’t tell my grandfather that WW2 vets were exempt. Americans wanted to win it and didn’t want to hear from Truman it’s a police action or that is a stalemate.

Which was a different kind of unpopular then Nam.

Yeah while I think technically the majority of those involved from the US might not have been WW2 vets a hell of a lot were yanked. I think less by "The Draft" and more by so many WW2 vets being members of the "Inactive Reserve" or at least for the airforce the NG I think. Most of those when they got demobbed at the end of WW2 were placed in the "Inactive reserve" which to them at the time meant nothing with at least by appearance no real chance of ever getting activated again. Then the Korean War hit and the US activated a lot of them.
 
There's also just the bit where very little of any part of Canada's history is represented in the media, owing to the small (to an extent even out of proportion with its population) domestic TV and film industries.
I dunno if I'd call the Canadian TV/film industry is really all that small proportionally. I mean for a country of 30 million people Canada manages to successfully export a number of TV shows and such. Though in terms of money, numbers, and the like the "foreign film/TV show filmed in Canada for tax reasons" probably significantly outweighs it's domestic industries. I mean a big part of it not being bigger is probably a combination of A) Having access to/being directly connected to a much more heavily populated country that's culturally very similar, mostly speaks the same language, and has the world's most widespread Film/TV industries. Probably also a big contributing factor is that since (at least Anglo) Canadians are so culturally similar to Americans and can more often then not pass as American without a lot of effort and can easily travel south so many Canadian comedians, actors, and the like that want to really make it big head to NYC (For Broadway) or to a much larger extent Hollywood.
 
I dunno if I'd call the Canadian TV/film industry is really all that small proportionally. I mean for a country of 30 million people Canada manages to successfully export a number of TV shows and such.
I would. Canada has over half the population of the UK, yet its domestic film industry (as opposed to the branch plant system Hollywood has in Toronto and Vancouver)* is absolutely microscopic in comparison. Heck, we have a larger population than Australia, but they have Mad Max while we have... Nothing of the sort...

Canada's domestic television series have had more success, but I don't think there's really been any international sensations out of Canada.

*it's always funny to see the Vancouver SkyTrain in "New York" or a TTC street car in "Chicago"

Though in terms of money, numbers, and the like the "foreign film/TV show filmed in Canada for tax reasons" probably significantly outweighs it's domestic industries. I mean a big part of it not being bigger is probably a combination of A) Having access to/being directly connected to a much more heavily populated country that's culturally very similar, mostly speaks the same language, and has the world's most widespread Film/TV industries. Probably also a big contributing factor is that since (at least Anglo) Canadians are so culturally similar to Americans and can more often then not pass as American without a lot of effort and can easily travel south so many Canadian comedians, actors, and the like that want to really make it big head to NYC (For Broadway) or to a much larger extent Hollywood.
Bingo, Canada's best talents either beeline south or work for the local branches of the Hollywood Studios. There are some genuine talents who have tied their careers to Canadian companies, but all too often it's just a matter of padding the resume before pursuing a career with an American studio.
 
The Korean War of 1950-53 was basically an extension of WWII, except with jet fighters and other improved technology from that war, and being waged under a limited police action rather than a total war like WWII.
 
The Korean War of 1950-53 was basically an extension of WWII, except with jet fighters and other improved technology from that war, and being waged under a limited police action rather than a total war like WWII.
Yep and consider the U.S. Armed Forces looked to demobilized millions of it's servicemen after WWII. So the periods between 1946-1950 was the time major budget cuts occurred and millions of veterans went back to civilian life. I do recall seeing historical photos of P-38s and leftover Shermans and Stuarts in the Philippines that were hastily dumped in Manila Bay or the waters surrounding the islands as the U.S. could not longer afford to maintain them. A handful were sold to allies as surplus.
 
Don’t tell my grandfather that WW2 vets were exempt. Americans wanted to win it and didn’t want to hear from Truman it’s a police action or that is a stalemate.

Which was a different kind of unpopular then Nam.
WW2 vets were exempt from being drafted. If they were still in the 'active reserves' [National Guard etc] I imagine they'd have been re-activated, and naturally re-elistment was an option [of the 1.3m who did join up, I can imagine a lot were WW2 veterans, which would have been very welcome to add some vital combat experience to what is raw levies using mainly old WW2 kit to boot. WW2 NCO vets would have been greeted with open arms.]

WW2 conscription in the US covered those born between '05 and '27, and Korea's pool was '21 to '34. What's more, there was also a deferment for married men* [which would have snagged more of the WW2-age than the teens]. If we consider this, Korea was fought [by the Americans, and I suspect the other Anglos] by generally speaking the 'kid brothers' of the WW2 veterans.

Ones who had [generally] been gangly teens who'd watched their 'big brothers' come back in 1945 with medals and victory parades. Now, it's time to show that you can do that stuff too... and all you can score is a damn draw**. Bet this generated a few slightly dismissive sneers from the 'Greatest Generation'. Or worse, figurative 'there there, you tried you best' condescending head-pats from said 'big brothers'*** So you keep your head down and mouth zipped.

* I suspect this added to the American 'Baby Boom'. Twentysomethings quickly marrying to avoid the draft, but not knowedgeable about contraception...

** The fact that 'victory' in this case was impossible is beside the point. They managed it, so why can't you?

*** Anyone who's got older siblings knows this feeling. Esp if they're considerably older than you.
 
America’s greatest victory was World War II - a resounding win over two evil empires that the US and the Allies remade in their own image. To this day and into the future, if you want an American to feel some patriotic sentiment, remembering the Allies kicking Nazi ass is a good way to get it.

By contrast, Vietnam was our worst defeat. A bunch of ragtag bastards in the jungles of some South Asian country most Americans couldn’t find on a goddamn map kicked the shit out of the most powerful military in the world.

Korea was squished in between those two, and it was more of a draw - the South is still around to make cool TVs and cell phones and export K-pop, but there’s still a North that makes hell look like a tropical vacation by comparison. The conflict is still technically going on, and people know it now for Kim Jong Asshole being a passive-aggressive little fuck who starves and tortures his own citizens like the insecure asshole he is. The stuff that happened during the war is a lot less memorable when NK is still acting like pricks today.
 
Col Z: Take down the profanity level please. Whether you are right or not it does detract from what you are trying to say (please).

NK's level of governance at Korean war might not have been very well known. But everybody could see that the Sygman Ree's dictatorship and corruption was totally against anything the US forces should defend.

Vast difference to WWII - The Nazi Germany was pure evil and the coalition of US/UK was democracy in action. Far more black/white.

Korea (whether North or South) might also have had some recognition after having just got out of Japanese occupation. And that occupation was by all accounts barbaric in the extreme.

Maybe also a lot of US would like to 'forget' about Korean war as fighting for one dictatorship against another dictatorship (where the differnce might be rather small) is not something worth remembering.
 
But what was (is) the impact from an Asian perspective?
In the PRC, it was the war that everyone remembered for the longest time, being the first war (since the Chinese civil war) that the country fought and actually did well in (i.e. not being kicked around like a punching bag like the century before). Numerous parallels were drawn comparing the UN forces to the 8 nation alliance and how by not losing they have avenged the shame of the century of humiliation (as comical as it sounds to the average westerner, they take it rather seriously).

No wonder all their Korean war vets (or at least a significant number of them) had all their medical costs covered for life...
 
Top