My partner and I are about to start a massive research project for history class. The topic has to be anything from 1945 to the present. We have already narrowed it down to two major events, the Vietnam war and the Korean war. However we do not know which one will be more interesting/easier to research. So, my question is, of the two topics, which is more interesting?
What is a more interesting topic? Korean war vs. Vietnam war?
WayneC
Member
Viet Nam by a long shot. It is THE myth factory of wars. There are plenty here that were ARVN and know WTF was going on. Plenty the grew up in the middle of it like the brunette next to me. Plenty of guys that were there in one of our uniforms that may be willing to talk to.
History Place Vietnam will get you a timeline from 45 - 75. VietQuoc will give you and expat point of view.
When the antics of John, The Liar, Kerry hit the Viet Language papers in 04 all hell broke loose in Little Siagons all over this rock. Thomas, that brunettes brother in law was ARVN from 1955 - 1975, he wanted me to help him take down Kerry so he could cut off his tiny little....you know what, stuff it in his mouth and watch him bleed to death. Does this sound crazy? Here it does, there it does not. IF that does not give you and idea of how many of them feel think about that brunette and a few of her girlfriends taking the short drive to The Peoples Republic of Berkeley to visit a display of photos on Cal...more or less praising Ho. They only went to spit on his pictures...5 or 6 over 50 women spitting on the photos and not one person made an attempt to stop them.
History Place Vietnam will get you a timeline from 45 - 75. VietQuoc will give you and expat point of view.
When the antics of John, The Liar, Kerry hit the Viet Language papers in 04 all hell broke loose in Little Siagons all over this rock. Thomas, that brunettes brother in law was ARVN from 1955 - 1975, he wanted me to help him take down Kerry so he could cut off his tiny little....you know what, stuff it in his mouth and watch him bleed to death. Does this sound crazy? Here it does, there it does not. IF that does not give you and idea of how many of them feel think about that brunette and a few of her girlfriends taking the short drive to The Peoples Republic of Berkeley to visit a display of photos on Cal...more or less praising Ho. They only went to spit on his pictures...5 or 6 over 50 women spitting on the photos and not one person made an attempt to stop them.
I would choose the Korean war. Not the fighting but the history that brought about the war.
I would start with the Japanese colonisation of Korea in 1905 and quickly move on to WW-2. Then I would look at the WW-2 agreements between Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and Chiang Kai Shek at conferences held at places like Cairo, Casablanca, Potsdam, Oslo etc.
US Actions --
Then I would look at what the US did in the southern zone of Korea with rearming the Japanese to maintain order. To use the Japanese Kempetei (Japanese equivalent of the Nazi Gestapo) as police along with giving jobs to Korean collaborators with the Japanese. The US also refused to allow local elections and also refused to hold nationwide elections in 1948 for the reunification of Korea but instead illegally created the "Republic of South Korea" and installed the right-wing military dictator, Syngham Rhee, as president who immediately started executing all dissident calling for a return to the WW-2 agreements with US soldier looking on at the mass executions,. The US also armed the new government and encouraged them to take the northern zone.
Soviet Actions --
Stripped the poor country of any machinery that was worth taking. Started executing Korean collaborators with the Japanese. Allowed local elections as was the Korean culture. Allowed provincial elections and held the nationwide elections in their northern zone. Four months after the US illegally created South Korea, the Soviets created "North Korea".
-------------
I would then look at the start of the war. I would look at "Who started the War?"
The commonly accepted version is that the North invaded the South in June 1950 BUT there is documentary evidence that shows that MAY BE wrong. Two Australian military personal, an Australian Army Major and a Lt. Com. of the Australian Navy who were attached to the UN DMZ Inspection Team along with a British Diplomat did an inspection tour of both sides of the DMZ in the week prior to hostilities. They found that there were troop movements and build-up in the south whilst the northern troops were in their barracks. The strange thing is that two of the three main South Korean Brigade Commanders were in Seoul when the fighting started instead of being with their troops.
The reports written by the diplomat and the Australians were never presented at the UN Security Council meeting although it is part of the British and Australian Archives and should also be part of the UN archives. I can understand why the Australian government would wish to suppress the information,. The Australian government at that time was the newly elected Liberal-Country Party Coalition government which were strongly anti-communist and wanted to please the US. The British government was the Labour Party with a slim majority in parliament and were relying on the US for aid.
I would also look at how, and why, the Soviet Delegation walked out of the UN Security Council meeting, therefore allowing a majority vote for military action.
----------
When I was writing an essay for first year "History of Asia" course, I read over 20 books, some on the United Nations, a lot of Korea and others on the war. I was surprised at a lot of the material that I found. Some of the books I read were very biased and pro-US while others were more accurately written and unbiased. Only two or three were biased in the pro-Soviet point of view.
I would start with the Japanese colonisation of Korea in 1905 and quickly move on to WW-2. Then I would look at the WW-2 agreements between Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and Chiang Kai Shek at conferences held at places like Cairo, Casablanca, Potsdam, Oslo etc.
US Actions --
Then I would look at what the US did in the southern zone of Korea with rearming the Japanese to maintain order. To use the Japanese Kempetei (Japanese equivalent of the Nazi Gestapo) as police along with giving jobs to Korean collaborators with the Japanese. The US also refused to allow local elections and also refused to hold nationwide elections in 1948 for the reunification of Korea but instead illegally created the "Republic of South Korea" and installed the right-wing military dictator, Syngham Rhee, as president who immediately started executing all dissident calling for a return to the WW-2 agreements with US soldier looking on at the mass executions,. The US also armed the new government and encouraged them to take the northern zone.
Soviet Actions --
Stripped the poor country of any machinery that was worth taking. Started executing Korean collaborators with the Japanese. Allowed local elections as was the Korean culture. Allowed provincial elections and held the nationwide elections in their northern zone. Four months after the US illegally created South Korea, the Soviets created "North Korea".
-------------
I would then look at the start of the war. I would look at "Who started the War?"
The commonly accepted version is that the North invaded the South in June 1950 BUT there is documentary evidence that shows that MAY BE wrong. Two Australian military personal, an Australian Army Major and a Lt. Com. of the Australian Navy who were attached to the UN DMZ Inspection Team along with a British Diplomat did an inspection tour of both sides of the DMZ in the week prior to hostilities. They found that there were troop movements and build-up in the south whilst the northern troops were in their barracks. The strange thing is that two of the three main South Korean Brigade Commanders were in Seoul when the fighting started instead of being with their troops.
The reports written by the diplomat and the Australians were never presented at the UN Security Council meeting although it is part of the British and Australian Archives and should also be part of the UN archives. I can understand why the Australian government would wish to suppress the information,. The Australian government at that time was the newly elected Liberal-Country Party Coalition government which were strongly anti-communist and wanted to please the US. The British government was the Labour Party with a slim majority in parliament and were relying on the US for aid.
I would also look at how, and why, the Soviet Delegation walked out of the UN Security Council meeting, therefore allowing a majority vote for military action.
----------
When I was writing an essay for first year "History of Asia" course, I read over 20 books, some on the United Nations, a lot of Korea and others on the war. I was surprised at a lot of the material that I found. Some of the books I read were very biased and pro-US while others were more accurately written and unbiased. Only two or three were biased in the pro-Soviet point of view.
KOREAN WAR. Koreans invade into south, international forces drive them back chinse drive international forces to the middle of Korea have more gun fight more NK's food lign is severely depleted. NK losing morale but still have big numbers. SK lost lots they decide for an armsted or something like that, that will again divide the two countries and stop further war until now. But you never know there could be another war. Theres some really good videos on youtube with this topic. This was just a little information.