Originally Posted by FishingRod
This was more of a devilís advocate exercise. Was it worth it to the South Koreans? I seriously doubt there was much consultation with the people of the South and, while I certainly donít count the North Korean, Chinese or even the South Koreans losses on an equal basis to our own, they were actual human beings and do factor into the equation.
Not in my book. Not when the North Koreans were clearly the aggressors and when we didn't even expand the war into mainland China. All Chinese casualties were necessarily military casualties. All North Korean casualties were a result of their own aggression.
1 million, 10 or 20, I wouldn't care. Just like Germany. Or Japan. I feel badly for the civilians, but their government is to blame, 100%.
If we were morally right, and I think we were, to come to the aide of the South, was it a moral failure not to commit to our Chinese allies in their civil war against the communists? Now the conflict did lead to a massive rearming of the United States and in many ways set the tone for the cold war for decades to come but one can argue the plusses and minuses of that as well if you really want to.
No. For several reasons:
1. The Chinese civil war was entirely internal, not an invasion of one country by another.
2. We would have no "moral obligation" to send massive troops into foreign countries to support one government versus another, absent our own national interests. While "who lost China" was a Republican witchhunt for years, the fact is that it wasn't ours to lose, and that the corrupt and pathetic nationalist government was no more "save-able" than the South Vietnamese government. If we couldnt' save South Vietnam, a much smaller country, how the hell would we have saved the Chinese government of our choosing.