The 21st Century Satan

[Redleg]

It isn't a generalisation. It seems to me that you don't get the relationship between a UNSC Resolution and a declaration of war. The two are not mutually exclusive. If the US government had wanted it could have sought an appropriately worded UNSC Resolution and declared war accordingly, but it refrained from doing either precisely to make clear its intention not to escalate the conflict.

As clearly stated in my response of --"One needs to delve deeper into the circumstances of the Korean conflict and how nations came involved in the fighting. " and "So worries about expanding the war did play a part in the decision making process during the fighting, but it would be incorrect to assume that it was initially the major reason."

Now what was Truman's initial concern? Was it to prevent another world war, to stop the conflict before it went farther, or was he concerned about preventing the conflict from escalating? Now if one reviews the documents of the time, items that can be found in historical documents if one bothers to actually look. From Truman's memior's of that day.

On the way there I was going over in my mind the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 . . . . And then I thought about Mussolini's entrance into Ethiopia and Haile Selassie's protest to the League of Nations on that invasion. I also thought about Hitler's march into the Saar Valley, which could have been stopped by the French and the British if they had acted in unison on the subject. Then Hitler's march into Austria and his overthrow of Czechoslovakia and Poland, and it occurred to me that if the Russian totalitarian state was intending to follow in the path of the dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini, they should be met head on in Korea . . . .

I was sure that they [the Russians] had trained the North Koreans in order to create a communist state in Korea as a whole and that their intention was to overthrow the Republic of Korea which had been set up by the United Nations with the Russians' approval. . . . The conclusion that I had come to was that force was the only language that the Russian dictatorship could understand. We had to meet them on that basis . . . .

President Harry S. Truman
Presidential memoirs interview, August 21, 1953
Papers of Harry S. Truman: Post-presidential Files

Doesn't sound like wanting to prevent an escalation but one of wanting the conflict to be halted in general, to stop the Soviet Union from expanding Communism. Which if one takes the time and read the comments of those involved in making US policy at the time would discover that the United States was not concerned about preventing an escalation but wanted to cause a halt to the conflict. From a copy of a memo concerning a meeting that happened in June of 1950 - preventing an escalation of war was far from the minds of those involved with policy - in fact it was geared towarded something else.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistle...1/elsy_5_1.htm

Then there is this statement to congress.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistle...2/kw_108_1.htm

Now you attempt to accuse me of not knowing the relationship between a UN Resolution and a declaration of war - I would say you don't understand why the President of the United States decided not to ask the United States Congress for a Declaration of War. Especially given that the United States does not require nor did it require in 1950 authorization from the United Nations to declare war. Nor do you realize the committment of armed force that the United States actually did to South Korea to halt the communist advance - the term police action comes into being for a specific reason which I havent said if I disagree with you concerning or not - only that your initial statement was a generalization and a false one at that. The initial response was to halt the war and take it to the Russians if necessary - when the fighting continued the desire to prevent escalation did indeed fall into the decision making process - hence the reason Truman decided to fire MacArthur was in part due to his aggresive desire to escalate the war.

To futher demonstrate the scope of your generalzation, North Korea believed something else entirely when it attack South Korea then betting that the United States wouldn't use nuclear weapons. Border conflicts began happening much earlier then the full scale attack, in fact both Korea's were preparing for war since about 1948 with North Korea being more aggresive in its preparation. So North Korea wasn't betting on no nuclear engagement by the United States it was betting on something else. So your generalization here as stated before is incorrect. Here is a historical document from the time from the United States and how they viewed the scenerio.

Intelligence Memorandum No. 302
July 8, 1950

Subject: Consequences of the Korean Incident

I. Soviet Purposes in Launching the Northern Korean Attack

A. Apart from immediate strategic advantages, the basic Soviet objectives in launching the Northern Korean attack probably were to: (1) test the strength of U.S. commitments implicit in the policy of containment of Communist expansion; and (2) gain political advantages for the further expansion of Communism in both Asia and Europe by undermining the confidence of non-Communist states in the value of U.S. support.

B. The Soviet estimate of the reaction to the North Korean attack was probably that: (1) U.N. action would be slow and cumbersome; (2) the U.S. would not intervene with its own forces; (3) South Korea would therefore collapse promptly, presenting the U.N. with a fait accompli; (4) the episode would therefore be completely localized; and (5) the fighting could be portrayed as U.S.-instigated South Korean aggression and the Northern Korean victory as a victory of Asiatic nationalism against Western colonialism.

The desire to halt the initial conflict was Truman's key concern. His secondary concern was to prevent what he deemed was an attempt by the Soviets to expand communism. As the war continued past the initial response he began to become concerned about preventing the escalation of the conflict. This is way your statement is a generalization - you left out the scope of the initial US response to the invasion of South Korea.

Now that is why the United States initially went to the United Nations to halt the war, and then used the United Nations to conduct the war. The reason he sacked MacArthur is because of the escalation of war and possible nuclear strikes by both sides if MacArthur had his way.

So I am not confused about the relationship between a United Nations resolution nor a declartion of war.

Or do you have a fundmental flaw in your ability to accurately review history?