The UN-command campaign against North Korean just five years after WW2 is proof that crimes against humanity are nothing more than victors privilege.The widely accepted and clearest contradiction being the targeting of agricultural and aqua infrastructure that lead to mass starvation. Based on the war record approximately 90 days after the North Korean invasion the UN granted unlimited legal permission to bomb any target and disregard all civilian life. Despite this the Korean war was much deadlier for US personnel than Vietnam. The US airforce commander effectively admitted they had run out of things to bomb and aimed to force food scarcity. Despite all of that the war was considered a stalemate up until the 1952 operation pressure pump, the largest saturation bombing campaign in the war of which over 1300 bombers hit Pyangyong, which had absolutely no effect on the stalemate whatsoever. The armistice treaty negotiations were already under way and Beijing did not care about losses. This may make you think Korea was an air war and the US did retain total air and sea dominance for the entire war, but it was much closer to WW1 style combat. Based on US infantry deaths and injuries the fighting in Korea was more intense than Vietnam. The American soldiers were poorly trained compared to their Vietnam contemporaries and the Officers themselves complained about it. Blood transfusions were new and they were initially out numbered and outgunned. The Soviets had ofcourse given them weapons, T-34s and detailed invasion plans. Many Korean veterans admit the same thing: 'we could not tell who was a man or a woman or a child so we shot everyone'. It was a war of annihilation. During the war the South Koreans themselves purged 100-200k of their own civilians in mass executions.In 2024 it was calculated that the Korean War cost the US 1.2 trillion USD. Vietnam cost 2 trillion. 3.2 trillion across two wars.
>>540475531The Korean War being brutal doesn't somehow prove that "crimes against humanity are just victor's privilege." North Korea invaded the South first, with Stalin's approval, Soviet weapons, tanks and military planning. The UN intervention wasn't simply America deciding to bomb Korea for fun. It was an international coalition intervening to stop a communist regime from conquering the South by force.You can absolutely condemn American bombing, civilian deaths and South Korean massacres while still recognizing who started the war. Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Western war crimes don't retroactively turn North Korea's invasion into self-defense and the "war of annihilation" framing is doing a lot of work here. The UN's eventual objective wasn't to exterminate North Koreans. Once it became clear that reunification by force wasn't realistic, the war ended in an armistice that essentially restored the prewar division. That's containment, not genocide.The Soviet and Chinese roles also matter. If we're going to discuss Korea as an example of Western brutality, then we should also discuss the communist bloc supplying North Korea and China eventually sending hundreds of thousands of troops into the war.Basically, "the UN committed atrocities" is a valid historical argument. "Therefore crimes against humanity are merely victor's privilege" doesn't follow from it. If anything, the Korean War shows that you can condemn atrocities committed by the side you support without pretending the original communist aggression never happened.
>>540475919It is widely accepted that the use of starvation by the USA was a crime against humanity. The fact you defaulted to the bombing of cities, which has been thoroughly debated and found to be acceptable shows your limited understanding of the Korean War. Please stop.
Go home chang, MacArthur should’ve used cobalt
Hitler would have prevented this entire war
>>540475531why are mutts starting wars across the globe
>>540475531I only watch Korean war films made in Korea so therefore my knowledge on the Korean War means I'm right and you're wrong, sorry chud.
>>540475531>and Beijing did not care about lossesThe war was in fact a major strain on China's resources and China was really poor back then and had great difficulty feeding and equipping troops.
>>540475989You're conflating two different arguments. I never said bombing cities and starvation were identical. But that still doesn't prove your original claim that crimes against humanity are simply "victor's privilege." North Korea invaded the South with Stalin's approval and Soviet weapons and the UN intervened to stop that conquest. American war crimes don't erase the fact that communist aggression started the war.You can condemn both without pretending one cancels out the other.
>>540476209It is accepted by your historians, civilian and military alike, that the bombings after the negotiations of 1951 had no impact on Beijing. The second part of the war continued while the two sides debated over PoWs.
>>540476296If you read the OP post you will see that I stated, explicitly, that the North Koreans invaded first. You will also see that I did not condemn anybody. You have invented an argument that does not exist.
>>540476368Then you're arguing against your own conclusion. You explicitly acknowledge North Korea invaded first, while also using the war to argue that crimes against humanity are merely "victor's privilege." My point is simply that acknowledging the invasion doesn't establish that claim.If your argument is specifically that the US/UN committed crimes against humanity and those crimes were later treated differently because they won, then argue that directly. But that's different from implying the Korean War somehow demonstrates that the communist and UN sides were morally or historically equivalent.
>>540475531>The American soldiers were poorly trained compared to their Vietnam contemporaries and the Officers themselves complained about itThis books goes over how failure to prepare troops and budget cuts during peacetime left them unprepared for frontline combat.
>>540476449I am not using the war as anything. You are clearly mistaken and have obviously taken this personally. I am stating the historic record as it currently exists and is accepted. You have invented an argument in my post that does not exist, and countered the invented argument by telling me 'two wrongs make a right' across almost two thousand characters. Please stop.
>>540476559I'm not inventing the argument. Your very first sentence says the UN campaign in Korea is "proof that crimes against humanity are nothing more than victors privilege." You then spend the rest of the post presenting the bombing, starvation, civilian massacres and atrocities as evidence for that claim. So yes, you explicitly acknowledged that North Korea invaded first. I never disputed that. The point you're avoiding is that your post uses the subsequent conduct of the UN/US as evidence for a broader claim about victor's justice.If you're only presenting historical facts and making no argument from them then the opening sentence is doing an awful lot of argumentative work for a statement you're supposedly not arguing.>>540476479Good Book
>>540475531>Peasant meat wavesUh
>>540476707Telford Taylor was the chief council at Nuremberg. He played a definitive role in the conviction of the Nazi high command and he said that:>Asian traditions and practices of warfare differed from Western ones, and that it was totally unrealistic to expect an individual South Korean soldier to follow our most elevated precepts of warfare.In summary, contradiction exists because Nuremberg established that extermination, inhuman acts against civilians, collective punishment, and wanton destruction could be crimes; Korea then revealed that the United States and its allies could inflict mass urban and agricultural devastation under a UN banner without facing a tribunal, because the new law lacked clear aerial-bombing rules and because enforcement remained controlled by great powers.Please stop. At least read a book first.
>>540477121What about the Soviet pilots
>>540477121I've read the argument. The problem isn't the historical facts you're citing, it's the conclusion you're drawing from them.Nuremberg establishing that extermination inhumane acts and wanton destruction can constitute crimes does not automatically establish that every instance of bombing or agricultural destruction in Korea met that legal threshold. That's exactly where the aerial-bombing question and the intent behind the attacks matter.And "they weren't prosecuted" doesn't itself prove victor's privilege, as were your words. Nuremberg was prosecuting specific defendants under a specific legal framework. The absence of a Korean tribunal doesn't establish that the same conduct was legally established as a crime but simply ignored because the perpetrators were powerful.If your claim is that Korea exposed a genuine gap in international humanitarian law and enforcement, that's a much more defensible argument. But that's considerably narrower than saying Korea proves crimes against humanity are merely "victor's privilege."
>>540477232It is victors privilege. I have stated the facts from a man who himself was part of Nuremberg. You have repeatedly stated that two wrongs make a right in various forms across thousands of characters. You have convinced nobody and repeated yourself four times.
>>540477363You're still misrepresenting my argument. I never said "two wrongs make a right." My point has consistently been that proving atrocities occurred does not, by itself prove that they were legally equivalent to the crimes prosecuted at Nuremberg or that the difference was simply "victor's privilege" as you called it.Telford Taylor being involved in Nuremberg gives his opinion historical weight but it doesn't make every conclusion drawn from his statements self-proving. You still have to establish that the Korean bombing and starvation campaigns met the relevant legal definitions and that the lack of prosecution was specifically because the perpetrators were the victors.You did not claim that enforcement of international law has historically been inconsistent and heavily influenced by great-power politics (You seem to want to change your argument to that now) But "therefore crimes against humanity are nothing more than victor's privilege" is a much stronger claim than the evidence you've presented.
>>540476044checked
>>540477496In reference to the US bombing of dams and irrigation systems that produced food for 75% of North Korea the US airforce stated that it meant:>“starvation and slow death.”The historic evidence supports that the starvation from the dam strikes was foreseeable and intended as a consequence of coercion. 75% of the population therefore makes it a collective punishment. It was intended to more a deal. You are ignoring reality.
>>540477900I'm not ignoring the evidence. I'm questioning the conclusion you're attaching to it.Even accepting that the attacks were intended to create food shortages and pressure North Korea, "this affected 75% of the population" does not by itself establish collective punishment. Collective punishment concerns the intentional punishment of protected persons for acts they did not personally commit. You still have to establish the legal intent and status of the targets and attacks.If the evidence shows the objective was deliberately starving civilians into submission, then that's a very serious allegation and potentially a war crime. But "potentially a war crime" and "proof that international law is merely victor's privilege" are still two different claims.
>>540478026I don't have to because it has already been done. I will paint the picture for you.A Historic study by the university of Wisconsin found that:>Nuremberg declined to prosecute cases involving air war on the part of Axis powers in recognition that Allied practice would be subject to precisely the same strictures They curated the law to avoid convicting themselves. This undermines the entire process.Bruce Cumings professor of history at the University of Chicago called the starvation of North Korean's>genocide Sahr Conway Lanz a historian of US foreign relations said that the USA had:>diverged from the customary practice of sparing civilians from the violence of warJordan Hall lead a University of Chicago legal-historical study that found:>bombing of irrigation dams constitute war crimes both in hindsight and at the time of the Korean War It went further and admit>the USA went to great lengths to justify the attacks and obfuscate their true goal of collective punishmentJu-Hyun Park published her work to great admiration which stated the USA actions>Undermined the potency of the legal concept of ‘genocide’ as its inconsistent application depending on the perpetrator of the violenceAll of this is accepted.
>>540475919Got it. Thanks for that lecture, ChatGPT's unofficial 4chan LLM spinoff version...
It was brootal as fuckhttps://youtu.be/lJx6M7SqkvI
>>540475531You lost tranny, lol
>>540475919Thanks ChatGuPTa
>>540475531We supplied a lot of military equipment and ammunition and vehicles for this war. Ishii Shiro especially did a fantastic job with germ bombs. I like how the extended Imperial Japan was still effortlessly capable to drive gooks to death millions.
The OP is a sad loser chink phoneposting from his uncle's restaurant in Melbourne anyway, so...
I seem to remember the UN was leaking US battle plans the the Norks.
>Chinese troops remained in the DPRK for the next several years after the armistice. In November 1957, Kim Il Sung met Mao Zedong in Moscow during the celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution and complained about the continued Chinese presence in the country. He protested that Chinese troops had abused the locals, even committed a number of rapes, and acted extremely arrogant and believed North Koreans were their colonial subjects. Mao apologized and assured him the troops would be removed from the DPRK promptly and anyone who abused civilians would be properly punished. The last PLA divisions left the DPRK a few months later.
A radioactive belt of FACT cobalt
There's a podcast called 'Blowback Season 3'.It details how United States wanted North Korea to invade the South through provocations like Bodo League and Jeju massacres.North Korea leader actually fought against the Japanese in Manchuria, whereas the South's was a college teacher in the United States.
>>540475919Except, you pilpulig clanker shit, "crimes against humanity are nothing more than victors privilege" clearly means that "crimes against humanity" is bullshit the victors use as an excuse to execute, imprison, and otherwise persecute the losers after the war, as opposed to the term being a legitimate legal category, which, by definition of such, would be applied to everyone more less equally. Who started what is entirely irrevant to the question.The US systamtically annihilated entire cities and deliberately went out of their way to bomb civilian infrastructre to dust everywhere in tha country, thus deliberately created conditions that were not fit for the survival of civilian populations. This is in the UN's textbook definition of genocide. Obviously, nobody was held accountable for this, which, as the OP states, is proof that "crimes against humanity" is the victor's privilege and not a legitimate legal category.
>>540478479I don't think the historical evidence you're citing is imaginary, and I haven't denied that serious historians and legal scholars have characterized the dam attacks as war crimes or even genocide.The problem is your use of "all of this is accepted" as though scholarly consensus automatically settles every legal and historical question. Those are scholarly arguments, not a tribunal verdict establishing criminal liability.The Wisconsin study's point about Nuremberg's selective enforcement is also a legitimate criticism of the postwar legal order. But that actually gets you closer to a narrower claim: that international humanitarian law was selectively developed and enforced by the great powers.That's very different from proving that every relevant act was legally established as a crime and simply ignored because the US won. If that's the argument, establish that specific causal link rather than repeatedly substituting "scholars have criticized this" for it.
>>540475531>Chinese Snow Ninjas
New IL-2 Korea is disappointing so I'm going back to 1946 mods!!!
>>540475919AI splitting hairs over muh precise definition cuz you can't argue on your ownVery sad
>>540475531>MemoryholedIt didn't even end.It's the longest armistice in human history.
>135k US military personnel killed/wounded/missing>700k Chinese military personnel killed/wounded/missing
>>540475531Our communist State Department would not fund or arm Chines nationalists or Korean non-Communists. Both US and Russia were courting Mao in China, and Russia was arming Korean commies.This proceeded until Korean commies and chinks pressed the civil war and 50k white American boys died in consequence. Read Iron Curtain Over America for the details.
>>540475531>>540475919>blahblahblahTotal War ended in September 1945.All 'wars' after that are by proxy, limited, glorified slapfighting of one variety or another.Nuclear weapons made total war obsolete.
>>540489423He means that during the Cold War era the US economy was heavily dependent on MIC spending.
>>540482743Also Dean Acheson, secretary of state, said what happened west of Japan and Philipines wasn't America's priority.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Acheson#Korean_War
