Showing posts with label major war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label major war. Show all posts

What had caused the World War II (Why Germany attacked Europe)

At the Reich Chancellery in November 1937, a very select group - Germany's war and foreign ministers and the three heads of the armed services - listened as Hitler expounded at enormous length his vision on the next five to eight years. But the basic message was straightforward. There was little time to lose, for across the world, he told them, 'the primitive urge to colonization' was visible once more. Economic need was the real driving force. It had recently pushed both Japan and Italy to expand, and Germany needed to follow suit. The Reich with its 'tightly packed racial core" could never be self-sufficient in basic raw materials or foodstuffs, and overcrowding was a real threat to the country's future. Raising its standard of living meant gaining access to other people's resources.

But participating in the world economy would make the country vulnerable to British pressure - neither he nor any of his listeners had forgotten the blockade in the Great War - and so the only safe outlet for Germany lay within Europe: 'If we accept the security of our food situation as the principal point at issue,' he said ,'the space needed to secure it can be sought only in Europe, not - as in the liberal-capitalist view - in the exploitation of colonies. It is not a matter of acquiring population but of gathering space for agricultural use. Moreover, areas producing raw materials can be more usefully sought in Europe, in immediate proximity to the Reich, than overseas.' He had Austria and Czechoslovakia in mind in the first instance, predicting that taking over them would improve the Reich's food supply - especially if, as he anticipated, Germany was able to force three million Czechs to emigrate. If they got the timing right, Britain and France would stand aside, and Germany would then emerge bolstered economically and in a strong position to expand further.

Hitler tended to think about economics in terms of how much coal, iron and steel, edible fats and grain he could extract from a given territory. He saw international economies as a zero-sum game, not one in which the fortunes of all were bound together through mutual interdependence. This was certainly how he viewed eastern Europe in particular. But after the fall of Europe, a much larger prospect suddenly opened up - that of continental hegemony. Economic policy experts, who were acutely aware of the strains upon the Germany economy since the early 1930s, were hugely relieved. 'Today we administer a territory from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea, from the Gulf of Finland to the Atlantic,' boasted the German minister of economics shortly after the invasion of USSR. 'Never before in the history of USSR in 1941 - 2 - offered a resource base superior in almost every respect to that available to Stalin: only in oil did the Soviet Union remain ahead.

Yet resources were not the whole story. Europe GDP was collectively larger than that of either the British empire or the USA (even before taking into account the potential contribution of French, Belgian and Dutch colonies) but its wealth was generated not so much through extraction as through the performance of sophisticated open and inter-connected financial markets. The inter war economic crisis had hit trade among countries within the continent and reduced their dealings with the rest of the world. Nevertheless, these networks and trade interactions remain crucial to European prosperity. The real challenge for the Germans, in other words, was less how to extract resources than how to manage them.

Adapted from: Hitler's Empire How the Nazis Ruled Europe by Mark Mazower (Pages 259-260)

Ngoh Zhi Lin 10S21

NATO – Republic of Korea cooperation

NATO and the Republic of Korea initiated contacts in 2005. At that time, the then Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki Moon addressed the North Atlantic Council. Since then, relations evolved through regular high-level talks with the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

As is the case with other partners across the globe, NATO and the Republic of Korea have established an annual work programme or Individual Tailored Cooperation Package (TCP) of activities. This provides the basis for practical cooperation with a primary focus on areas related to peace support operations.

The Republic of Korea has also contributed to stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. The country led the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in the Parwan province, including medical and engineering support. The military forces were withdrawn but a presence has been maintained with the dispatch of several medical personnel.

NATO-Pakistan relations

Since the Alliance’s relief-assistance operation in response to the devastating earthquake in Pakistan in 2005, NATO and Pakistan have significantly expanded political relations and practical cooperation. Political dialogue has been intensified, in particular with regard to the shared objective of bringing security and stability to Afghanistan.

In May 2007, during the first-ever visit by a NATO Secretary General to Pakistan, both sides agreed to hold regular high-level political exchanges, a further step towards broader cooperation.

How does cooperation work in practice?


While Afghanistan is a key focus of cooperation, NATO and Pakistan have developed regular exchanges at various levels, including visits by senior officials and opinion leaders, as well as participation by Pakistani military officials in NATO training programmes.


Cooperation on Afghanistan


Pakistan is a key neighbour of Afghanistan. Pakistan’s support for the efforts of NATO and the international community in Afghanistan remains crucial to the success of the Alliance’s mission there. At the same time instability, extremism and terrorism in Afghanistan pose a threat to Pakistan, as well as to the wider international community. As Pakistan’s Prime Minister put it during a visit to NATO on 30 January 2007, “Pakistan is committed to a strong, stable Afghanistan. The one country that will benefit the most, after Afghanistan itself, will be Pakistan.”

The growing NATO-Pakistan military-to-military cooperation in the context of Afghanistan is reflected in the work of the Tripartite Commission, a joint forum on military and security issues which brings together representatives from the NATO-led ISAF operation, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Tripartite Commission meets regularly at various levels and is used to exchange views, as well as to discuss security matters of mutual concern. Its four main areas of cooperation are intelligence sharing, border security, countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and initiatives relating to information operations. A joint Afghan, ISAF and Pakistani intelligence centre that was opened in Kabul in January 2007 improved coordination within the Tripartite Commission.

NATO welcomes Pakistan’s constructive approach towards security and stability in the region. The issues of increasing drug cultivation in Afghanistan and dealing with refugees from that country have also been raised during political high-level talks.

How did relations with Pakistan evolve?

After Pakistan was struck by a devastating earthquake in October 2005, NATO launched an airlift of urgently-needed supplies and deployed engineers, medical units and specialist equipment to the country. A massive air-bridge was established, and assets of the NATO Response Force (NRF) were used in the effort.

Following the end of the mission in February 2006, political dialogue between NATO and Pakistan intensified. The relationship has gradually been augmented by practical cooperation, starting with the opening of NATO training courses to Pakistani officers.

NATO’s relations with Tajikistan

NATO’s relations with Tajikistan should be viewed through the Partnership for Peace framework which the country joined in 2002. NATO and Tajikistan actively cooperate in the fight and against terrorism and have developed practical cooperation in many other areas. The Individual Partnership Programme (IPP) lays out the programme of cooperation between NATO and Tajikistan.

Framework for cooperation

Dialogue takes place within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). The NATO Secretary General’s Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, Ambassador Robert F. Simmons, conducts high-level political dialogue with Tajik authorities through regular visits to the country. The NATO Liaison Officer in Central Asia also visits Dushanbe regularly and reviews cooperation with the government.

NATO and Tajikistan are developing practical cooperation in a number of areas through the country’s Individual Partnership Programme (IPP), which is jointly agreed for a two-year period. Key areas include security and peacekeeping cooperation, especially counter-terrorism cooperation and border security, crisis management and civil emergency planning.

The Iran-Iraq War

The Iran-Iraq War

Causes of the War (1980-1988)
The war started because of various factors such as religious and political differences, border disputes. With the leaders of Iraq from the Sunni branch, and the Iranians, the Shiite. The ruling Ba'ath Party in Iraq was socialist and pro-Soviet, whereas the Iranian shah was anti-socialist (though certainly not democratic) and pro-Western. when Ayatollah Khomeini, who had spent part of his exile in Iraq, began encouraging his former colleagues to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq because his regime was anti-Islamic. This was part of Khomeini's broader strategy of spreading the Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East. Saddam responded as he did to any challenge by a ruthless crackdown on Shiite fundamentalists and by sending aid to Arab separatists in Iran.

Between June and September 1980, 193 clashes occurred along the Iran-Iraq border. On September 17, Iraq abrogated the 1975 treaty. As Iraq mobilized Arab allies, Iran warned the Gulf States they would be overthrown if they supported Saddam. Tensions built, until a series of clashes occurred in early September along the border near Qasr e-Shirin. Each nation blamed the other for the fighting. Saddam threatened to seize territory he said Iran was supposed to transfer to Iraq under an earlier agreement, but Khomeini refused to give up the disputed lands.
Effects of the war
The war lasted for eight years, from September 1980 until August 1988. It ended when Iran accepted United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a 20 August 1988 cease-fire. Casualty figures are highly uncertain, though estimates suggest more than one and a half million war and war-related casualties. Iran acknowledged that nearly 300,000 people died in the war while Iraq suffered an estimated 375,000 casualties.

A variety of unresolved humanitarian issues from the Iran-Iraq War include a failure to identify combatants killed in action and to exchange information on those killed or missing.

The Korean War

The Korean War

Causes of the Korean War

The Korean War took place between 2 opposing regimes in 1950: North Korea and South Korea. It started because of the ongoing Cold War between the USA and the USSR. The USA entered the war was to undermine Communism. President Truman believed that the capitalism was in the danger of being superseded.
Both the United States and the Soviet Union occupied the Korean peninsula. The United Nations to resolve the problems of the divided Korea, decided to hold elections. The North Korean Army invaded the South on June 25, 1950. China entered war because they wanted to use North Korea as a buffer zone against possible US invasion. The US wanted to stop the spread the communism whereas the Soviet Union wanted to spread communism to increase its dominating power. The armistice ended the war in Korea, it seemed that neither side wanted to give in. However, the conflict was not yet ended, despite border clashes

Effects of the war
The Korean War created many frictions between US and the Soviet Union. The war showed US determination to stop the spread of Communism by USSR. Families were forced to break up due to the cruelty of the war. Furthermore, South Korea became a strategic location for US military. However, the Korean War never ended because of the inability to resolve the differences between South Korea and North Korea. Korean War also brought social damage to Korea, “especially in the North, where three years of bombing left hardly a modern building standing. The war also reinforced the boundaries between the North and the South. North Korea remained a communist nation and South Korea became a free republic. This social difference still brings conflict even today.

Civil war in Tajikistan (1992-1997)

The civil war in Tajikistan began in May 1992 when ethnic groups from the Garm and Gorno-Badakhshan regions, which were underrepresented in the ruling elite, rose up against the national government of President Rahmon Nabiyev, in which people from the Leninabad and Kulyab regions dominated.

Politically, the discontented groups were represented by liberal democratic reformists and Islamists, who fought together and later organized under the banner of the United Tajik Opposition.

By June 1997 fifty to one hundred thousand people had been killed. President Rahmonov, UTO leader Sayid Abdulloh Nuri, and Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General Gerd Merrem signed the "General Agreement on the Establishment of Peace and National Accord in Tajikistan" and the "Moscow Protocol" on 27th June1997 in Moscow, Russia, ending the war.


Continued stalemate and peace

Other combatants and armed bands that flourished in this civil chaos simply reflected the breakdown of central authority rather than loyalty to a political faction. In response to the violence the United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan was deployed. Most fighting in the early part of the war occurred in the southern part of the country, but by 1996 the rebels were combating Russian troops in the capital city of Dushanbe. Islamic radicals from northern Afghanistan also began to fight Russian troops in the region. A UN-sponsored armistice finally ended the war in 1997. This was in part fostered by the Inter-Tajik Dialogue, a Track II diplomacy initiative in which the main players were brought together by international actors, namely the United States and Russia. The peace agreement completely eliminated Leninabad region (Khujand) from power. Presidential elections were held on November 6, 1999.

The UTO warned in letters to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and Tajik President Emomali Rahmonov on 23 June 1997 that it would not sign the proposed peace agreement on June 27 if prisoner exchanges and the allocation of jobs in the coalition government were not outlined in the agreement. Akbar Turajonzoda, second-in-command of the UTO, repeated this warning on 26 June, but said both sides were negotiating. President Rahmonov, UTO leader Sayid Abdulloh Nuri, and Russian President Boris Yeltsin met in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia on 26 June to finish negotiating the peace agreement. The Tajik government had previously pushed for settling these issues after the two sides signed the agreement, with the posts in the coalition government decided by a joint commission for national reconciliation and prisoner exchanges by a future set of negotiations. Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov met with the Foreign Ministers of Iran, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to discuss the proposed peace accord.

By the end of the war Tajikistan was in a state of complete devastation. The estimated dead numbered from 50,000 to as many as 100,000. Around 1.2 million people were refugees inside and outside of the country. Tajikistan's physical infrastructure, government services, and economy were in disarray and much of the population was surviving on subsistence hand outs from international aid organizations. The United Nations established a Mission of Observers in December 1994, maintaining peace negotiations until the warring sides signed a comprehensive peace agreement in 1997.

Journalists were particularly targeted for assassination and dozens of Tajik journalists died. Many more fled the country leading to a brain drain. Notable individuals killed include journalist and politician Otakhon Latifi, journalist and Jewish leader Meirkhaim Gavrielov, politician Safarali Kenjayev, and four members of the United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan: Yutaka Akino, a noted Japanese scholar of Central Asian history, Major Ryszard Szewczyk from Poland; Major Adolfo Scharpegge from Uruguay; and Jourajon Mahramov from Tajikistan; and documentary filmmaker Arcady Ruderman.

Indian and Pakistan Conflict

United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)

United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was set up in 1949 in January to supervise the ceasefire that was agreed upon by India and Pakistan in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. However, renewed hostilities had the UNMOGIP monitors the ceasefire called for by the United Nations Security Council.

Background Information of the Indian and Pakistan Conflict
When the British withdrew from the India after the World War Two, it was divided, primarily on religious grounds, into the two states of India and Pakistan. Kashmir was included in India, but the issue of which state it should belong to has been contested ever since, largely because Kashmir's population is predominantly Muslim.

UN’s Intervention

India and Pakistan declared independence on August 1947. Under the scheme of partition provided by the Indian Independence Act of 1947, Kashmir belonged to either India or Pakistan. This became a catalyst for the conflict between two countries and fighting ensued the next year.

In January, the Security Council established the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to mediate the dispute. In April 1948, the council decided to enlarge the membership of UNCIP to recommend more measures to stop the fighting. In July 1949, India and Pakistan signed the Karachi Agreement establishing a ceasefire line which is supervised. The Council decided that with the termination of the UNCIP, the UNMOGIP should continue with the supervision. Thee UNMOGIP’s functions were to observe, report and investigate complaints of ceasefire violations.

However, hostilities broke out again at the end of 1971. The ceasefire came into effect with a few positions on the 1949 ceasefire line changed. In July 1972, India and Pakistan signed an agreement defining the line of Control with slight deviations established in the Karachi Agreement in 1949. Pakistan, however, did not accept the new agreement.

Both countries had disagreements about the UNMOGIP’s mandate and functions. However, the agreement can only be terminated by the Security Council. The Pakistan Government has continuously lodged complaints about ceasefire violations whereas the Indian military had restricted the activities of UN observers in India. However, both countries have continued to provide accommodation, transport and other facilities to UNMOGIP.

India and Pakistan Relations today

Despite numerous territorial disputes and military conflicts, attempts to warm ties have been made. Agreements talks, confidence building measures and aid in times of disasters have eased strained political ties.
Firstly, India voiced increasing concern over Pakistan’s nuclear weapon programmes and Pakistani arm purchases. Thus, in the effort to curtail tensions, the two countries formed a joint commission to examine disputes. In December 1988, the prime ministers of both countries signed a pact to not attack each other’s nuclear facilities. Agreements on cultural exchanges and civil aviation were also initiated.
Secondly, In June 1997, the foreign secretaries identified eight "outstanding issues" around which continuing talks would be focused. The agreement talks broke down over the structure of how to deal with the issues of Kashmir, and peace and security.
Thirdly, India offered generous aid to Pakistan during the 2005 Earthquake. India pledged monetary and relief material to the victims of the earthquake. This generous gesture opened a channel for co-operation between both India and Pakistan.

Thai-Cambodian conflict enters 2nd week

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia (AP) — Thailand accused Cambodia of eyeing even more of its land and leaflets appeared in the Cambodian capital calling for a boycott of Thai goods, as a military standoff over disputed border territory entered a second week Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Cambodia asked the U.N. Security Council to intervene in the dispute over the 1.8 square miles of land near the ancient temple of Preah Vihear, warning that the two sides were at "an imminent state of war."

Cambodian Foreign Minister Hor Namhong said he had no choice but to appeal to the United Nations after discussions with Thailand on Monday failed to produce a breakthrough in the crisis.

He made a similar request to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, but the region's key bloc urged the two countries to continue bilateral negotiations.

In a countermove Wednesday, Thailand's ambassador to the United Nations, Don Pramudwinai, said Cambodia was bringing the quarrel before the Security Council because "the Cambodian target is not only Preah Vihear but the entire common border."

Don told Bangkok's Business Radio that Cambodia was trying to force Thailand to accept a French colonial map as the document that demarcates the border, stretches of which are disputed.

The French map generally favors Cambodia, and Thailand rejects it saying it was drawn up by a colonial power to its own advantage. Thailand relies on a different map drawn up later with American technical assistance, but accepts a ruling by the International Court of Justice that awarded the disputed temple to Cambodia in 1962.

The fight over the land near Preah Vihear escalated this month when UNESCO approved Cambodia's application to have the complex named a World Heritage Site.

Thailand sent troops to the border July 15 after anti-government demonstrators attacked Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej's government for supporting Cambodia's application to UNESCO. They claim the temple's new status will undermine Thailand's claim to land around the temple. Cambodia responded with its own deployment.

Both sides have pledged not to use force, although some 4,000 troops are now amassed in the area.

The standoff entered its second week as Cambodia prepared to hold national elections on July 27.

Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej said Wednesday Cambodia's stance on the issue may "weaken" after the polls.

"After the elections, it may be easier to talk," he said.

When asked about Thailand's response to Cambodia's recent diplomatic offensive, Samak said: "Let them show their position. There is no damage."

Thai academics have suggested that a solution may only emerge after the polls as politicians on both sides played to nationalist popular sentiment.

Cambodian's Information Minister Khieu Kanharith has earlier dismissed such suggestions, saying the problem was caused by Thailand and that the timing was irrelevant.

The dispute has also shaken Thailand's domestic political scene.

The National Counter Corruption Commission has begun to investigate Samak and his entire Cabinet over accusations that the government violated Thailand's Constitution by not consulting Parliament before supporting Cambodia's application.

The investigation could lead to the impeachment of all members of the government, although the process would be a long one, commission spokesman Klanarong Jantik said Wednesday.

Cambodian police were meanwhile investigating leaflets distributed in Phnom Penh that call for a boycott of Thai products and services.

"While the government is trying to solve the dispute with Thailand, we do not want to see any discrimination against Thai products, and people should not be aroused by such incitement," police chief Brig. Gen. Touch Naroth said.

The atmosphere remained calm among Cambodian and Thai troops at the hilltop Preah Vihear temple Wednesday, despite the intense diplomatic rhetoric by the respective governments.

Troops from both sides "continued interacting cordially," said Cambodian Brig. Gen. Chea Keo without elaborating.

(Ker Munthit, AP)

Singapore says Thai-Cambodia row not good for ASEAN

SINGAPORE - Singapore expressed concern Friday over the worsening diplomatic row between Thailand and Cambodia, saying "it is not good" for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

"Singapore is concerned about the deteriorating relationship between Thailand and Cambodia. It is not good for ASEAN," said a spokesman for Singapore's Foreign Affairs Ministry.

"We hope that both our friends will keep the larger interest of ASEAN in mind and find a way to resolve their differences quickly in a spirit of good neighbourliness."

Thailand on Friday threatened to close its border with Cambodia in a spiralling diplomatic row over Phnom Penh's naming of fugitive former Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra as an economic adviser.

The warning came a day after the two countries recalled their respective ambassadors due to the dispute over the appointment of Thaksin, who was ousted in a 2006 coup and lives abroad to avoid a jail term for corruption.

Cambodia, Singapore and Thailand are members of ASEAN along with Brunei, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines and Vietnam.

(Channelnewsasia.com)

Tamil Tigers 'finished', says former leader

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a rebel army that has fought a 25-year civil war against the Sri Lankan state, is "finished", having lost more than 90% of its fighters, the group's former military commander said yesterday.

In an interview with the Guardian, Colonel Karuna said around 1,500 surviving rebels, who have made their last stand on a sliver of the north-east coast, are surrounded by 65,000 troops of the Sri Lankan army, with no way out. At the height of their powers the Tigers could muster more than 15,000 men at arms.

"It is a do or die battle for the LTTE," said Karuna. "The battle is now street to street and door to door."

Karuna is the nom de guerre of Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan, who until 2004 was the Tigers' military commander. Many see his defection as a turning point for the LTTE. Not only was Karuna privy to all the Tiger's best-kept secrets, he also brought with him 6,000 battle hardened fighters.

The 45-year-old now describes his former leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, as "a mad man". "He wanted to be a king, a duke ... he had a totalitarian mindset. I told him the LTTE could never win. I had spent 22 years on the battlefield. But he did not listen."

Prabhakaran, he said, had made a series of tactical blunders in the war culminating in the suicide gamble of holding territory. "After he lost [the Tigers' capital] Kilinochi he knew he could not make a stand. But he thought the Tigers could survive among the people. Now the LTTE has trapped 100,000 people and [Prabhakaran] has gone to the jungles [preparing for] a guerrilla war."

Aid agencies have warned of a looming humanitarian catastrophe as the Sri Lankan army has pounded the Tiger positions, which have been placed amid the cornered population. The UN says that 2,800 civilians have been killed and more than 7,000 injured in the fighting.

Karuna says he has warned the country's president Mahinda Rajapaksa "this is a critical situation. They have listened. The army do not use sea or air power. I have told them be careful."

For as long as the Tigers exist, Karuna cannot live in the open - and his family remain in the UK. The Guardian met him after passing a line of armed guards at a secret location in Colombo.

Officials in Sri Lanka admit he has "blood on his hands" but say he should be forgiven because he renounced violence.

The LTTE's former military supremo says one of the reasons why the Sri Lankan army has been so successful is the new commando units that tracked the Tigers' through their phone calls - pinpointing their jungle lairs. "The LTTE can never be built up again. They can't use any communications. They are finished."

He admits a high regard for the Sri Lankan army commander, Sarath Foneska, who survived a Tiger suicide bombing in 2006. Karuna says he almost killed him on the battlefield. "We bombed him once during an operation, but he escaped. Lost a colonel and few others though. Now we meet frequently and talk about our past. He was a war hero. So was I. We appreciate each other."

Karuna was made Sri Lanka's minister for national integration this week - a remarkable transition for a man who as a teenager joined the Tigers' armed struggle in 1983, enraged by the killings of Tamils in Colombo and beguiled by the Tiger's "big propaganda". "We thought we could save our people ... but that I know now was not the way," he said.

Karuna said he fell out with Prabhakaran who called him a "traitor to his race" for signing an agreement with the Sri Lankan government during peace talks in Oslo in 2003.

Under the terms of the deal the rebels were to consider giving up the LTTE's cherished aim to carve out a separate nation for the island's 3m Tamils in return for the creation of a "federal government".

(Randeep Ramesh, Guardian)

Thailand and Cambodia teeter on edge of conflict at cliff-top temple

With its friezes of kings, gods and elephants, its ancient buildings and its location at the top of a beetling cliff, the temple of Preah Vihear is one of the most spectacular and historic sites in South-East Asia. Now it is threatening to make history for a different reason, as the first World Heritage Site to become a battleground.

Thai and Cambodian troops pulled guns on one another in a tense stand-off in the 1,100-year-old Hindu temple, after several days of increasing military tension. Stoked by a build-up of soldiers, accusations of corruption and a developing political crisis in Thailand, Preah Vihear has emerged as Asia’s newest flashpoint.

About 400 Thai and 200 Cambodian troops have moved into the temple area since Tuesday, after three Thai activists were detained briefly for entering the temple to assert Bangkok’s claim to the land. Yesterday a Cambodian general reported that soldiers from both sides levelled weapons at one another on Thursday night, after the Thais drove Cambodian forces out of one of the temple buildings. “We exercised patience to prevent weapons from being fired,” Brigadier-General Chea Keo said. He said that the Cambodian troops had been escorting monks and nuns, but withdrew after the encounter.

Perched on the top of a 1,600ft (488m) cliff, Preah Vihear is far more accessible from Thailand than from Cambodia. The territory was awarded to Cambodia in a ruling by the International Court of Justice in 1962, after legal arguments about the validity of maps produced during Cambodia’s French colonial period. Its inaccessible position made it a natural fortress — it was the last hold-out of the forces of the Lon Nol regime, driven out by the genocidal Khmer Rouge in 1975.

Even after their own defeat, Khmer Rouge forces held out in the temple until 1998.

Ill-feeling was defused because Thai locals and tourists were allowed to visit the temple freely from Thailand without a visa, and the dispute was largely forgotten until this month when the UN cultural organisation, Unesco, granted an application for Preah Vihear to receive World Heritage status. The decision would do much to promote tourism to Preah Vihear and bring business to both sides. When it turned out that the Thai Government had supported the application, there was an uproar in Bangkok.

Since its election victory last December, the Government of the Prime Minister, Samak Sundaravej, has been under increasing pressure from protesters who accuse it of being the puppet of the country’s deposed leader, Thaksin Shinawatra. The Preah Vihear debacle has enabled them to portray Mr Samak and his ministers as self-seeking cynics who have sold out Thai territory, allegedly in return for concessions for the tourist industry.

Thailand’s constitutional court ruled earlier this month that endorsing the Unesco application was illegal; Mr Samak’s foreign minister resigned as a result. It is unclear why Thai troops have entered the temple area. They may have gone at the behest of a government anxious to demonstrate its nationalist potential. Or they may have been sent at the initiative of military officers, as a warning to Mr Samak whose friend, Mr Thaksin, was himself ousted in a military coup.

(Richard Lloyd Parry, Times Online)

A Gaza War Full of Traps and Trickery

click: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/world/middleeast/11hamas.html?_r=2&ref=middleeast

The article was too long to be placed here. :)

Thailand steps back from Cambodia conflict

A day after Cambodia warned that Thai troops must withdraw from a disputed border area or risk a "large-scale armed conflict", the two countries appear to have stepped back from the brink – for now at least.

But the area around a 900-year-old temple, where both countries claim 1.8 square miles of territory, remains tense and the two sides continued to offer conflicting accounts of the situation on the ground.

On Monday, Hun Sen, the Cambodian prime minister, gave a 24 hour ultimatum for 80 Thai troops allegedly inside Cambodia to withdraw. On Tuesday morning, the Cambodian commander, General Yim Pim, claimed the soldiers had moved back inside Thailand.

"The tense situation has now eased," he said.

But Thailand, which had earlier insisted that its troops were in its own territory, denied any withdrawal.

"There has been no troop movement," said the Thai army spokesman Sansern Kaewkumnerd. "The army wants the two countries to continue with bilateral talks, but if the situation escalates, we are ready."

Hundreds of troops and artillery have been facing each other across the heavily mined frontier since the crisis erupted in July. Both sides insist they are ready for war to protect what each regards as their sovereign territory.

Observers fear that with the area so heavily militarised that the smallest misjudgment could trigger a conflict. One Cambodian and two Thai soldiers were injured in an exchange of fire on October 3.

At the centre of it all is Preah Vihear, the spectacular ruin of a Hindu temple which the International Court of Justice ruled belongs to Cambodia in 1962.

(Thomas Bell, Telegraph)

The Persian Gulf War (1990 –1991)

Iraq claimed Kuwait had been a part of the Ottoman Empire's province of Basra. Its ruling dynasty, the al-Sabah family, had concluded a protectorate agreement in 1899 that assigned responsibility for its foreign affairs to Britain. Britain drew the border between the two countries, and deliberately tried to limit Iraq's access to the ocean so that any future Iraqi government would be in no position to threaten Britain's domination of the Persian Gulf. Iraq refused to accept the border, and did not recognize the Kuwaiti government until 1963.

In early July, Iraq complained about Kuwait's behavior, such as not respecting their quota, and openly threatened to take military action. On the 23rd, the CIA reported that Iraq had moved 30,000 troops to the Iraq-Kuwait border, and the U.S. naval fleet in the Persian Gulf was placed on alert. On the 25th, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, an American ambassador, in Baghdad. At that meeting, Glaspie told the Iraqi delegation, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts." On the 31st, negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait in Jeddah failed violently. On August 2, 1990 Iraq launched an invasion with its warplanes, bombing Kuwait City, the Kuwaiti capital. The main thrust was conducted by commandos deployed by helicopters and boats to attack the city, while other divisions seized the airports and two airbases.
In spite of Iraqi sabre-rattling, Kuwait did not have its forces on alert, and was caught unaware. After two days of intense combat, most of the Kuwaiti Armed Forces were either overrun by the Iraqi Republican Guard, or had escaped to neighboring Saudi Arabia. After the decisive Iraqi victory, Saddam Hussein installed his cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid as the governor of Kuwait.

UN resolution
Within hours of the invasion, Kuwaiti and US delegations requested a meeting of the UN Security Council, which passed Resolution 660, condemning the invasion and demanding a withdrawal of Iraqi troops. On 3 August the Arab League passed its own resolution, which called for a solution to the conflict from within the League, and warned against outside intervention. On 6 August UN Resolution 661 placed economic sanctions on Iraq.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 665 followed soon after, which authorized a naval blockade to enforce the economic sanctions against Iraq. It said the “use of measures commensurate to the specific circumstances as may be necessary … to halt all inward and outward maritime shipping in order to inspect and verify their cargoes and destinations and to ensure strict implementation of resolution 661.”

Operation Desert Shield
One of the main concerns of the west was the significant threat Iraq posed to Saudi Arabia. Following the conquest of Kuwait, the Iraqi army was within easy striking distance of Saudi oil fields. Control of these fields, along with Kuwaiti and Iraqi reserves, would have given Hussein control over the majority of the world's oil reserves. Iraq also had a number of grievances with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis had lent Iraq some 26 billion dollars during its war with Iran. The Saudis backed Iraq, as they feared the influence of Shia Iran's Islamic revolution on its own Shia minority (most of the Saudi oil fields are in territory populated by Shias). After the war, Saddam felt he should not have to repay the loans due to the help he had given the Saudis by stopping Iran.
Soon after his conquest of Kuwait, Hussein began verbally attacking the Saudi kingdom. He argued that the US-supported Saudi state was an illegitimate and unworthy guardian of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. He combined the language of the Islamist groups that had recently fought in Afghanistan with the rhetoric Iran had long used to attack the Saudis.
Acting on the policy of the Carter Doctrine, and out of fear the Iraqi army could launch an invasion of Saudi Arabia, U.S. President George H. W. Bush quickly announced that the U.S. would launch a "wholly defensive" mission to prevent Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia under the codename Operation Desert Shield. "Operation Desert Shield" began on August 7, 1990 when U.S. troops were sent to Saudi Arabia due also to the request of its monarch, King Fahd who had earlier called for U.S. military assistance. This "wholly defensive" doctrine was quickly abandoned, as On August 8, Iraq declared Kuwait to be the 19th province of Iraq and Saddam Hussein named his cousin, Ali Hassan Al-Majid as its military-governor.
The US Navy mobilized two naval battle groups, the aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, USS Independence and their escorts, to the area, where they were ready by August 8. A total of 48 U.S. Air Force F-15s from the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, landed in Saudi Arabia, and immediately commenced round the clock air patrols of the Saudi–Kuwait–Iraq border areas to discourage further Iraqi military advances. The U.S. also sent the battleships USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin to the region. Military buildup continued from there, eventually reaching 543,000 troops, twice the number used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Much of the material was airlifted or carried to the staging areas via fast sealift ships, allowing a quick buildup.

The end of active hostilities
In Iraqi territory that was occupied by the coalition, a peace conference was held where a cease fire agreement was negotiated and signed by both sides. At the conference, Iraq was approved to fly armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian infrastructure. Soon after, these helicopters and much of the Iraqi armed forces were used to fight a Shi'ite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged by an airing of "The Voice of Free Iraq" on February 2, 1991, which was broadcast from a CIA run radio station out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large, and that they soon would be liberated from Saddam.
In the North, Kurdish leaders took American statements that they would support an uprising to heart, and began fighting, hoping to trigger a coup d'état. However, when no American support came, Iraqi generals remained loyal to Saddam and brutally crushed the Kurdish uprising. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These events later resulted in no-fly zones being established in both the North and the South of Iraq. In Kuwait, the Emir was restored, and suspected Iraqi collaborators were repressed. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country, including a large number of Palestinians (due to their support of, and collaboration with, Saddam).
There was some criticism of the Bush administration, as they chose to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power instead of pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance, and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point: “I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is: “How many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth?” The answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
Instead of a greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in an internal coup d'état. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.
On March 10, 1991, 540,000 American troops began to move out of the Persian Gulf.

WWII Asia-Japanese and pearl harbor

Events
1937 Japan goes to war with China
July 1939 Roosevelt announces that Treaty of Commerce and Navigation will not be renewed
July 2, 1940 U.S. Congress passes Export Control Act
August Japan declares greater East Asia co-prosperity sphere
September 27 Japan signs Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy
January 1941 Yamamoto prepares plan for attack on Pearl Harbor
July Japanese troops occupy Indochina
October Hirohito gives general approval for Pearl Harbor attack
November 8 Hirohito approves formal battle plan for attack in December
November 26 Japanese attack fleet sets sail from Japan
December 7 Japan launches surprise attack on Pearl Harbor
December 8 United States and Britain declare war on Japan
December 11 Germany declares war on United States
Key People
Franklin D. Roosevelt - 32nd U.S. president; implemented economic penalties that angered Japan; requested war declaration after Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941
Yamamoto Isoroku - Japanese admiral who planned surprise attack at Pearl Harbor
Hirohito - Japanese emperor; approved Pearl Harbor attack plan
Richmond K. Turner - U.S. Navy admiral; warned that navy be put on high alert status and security increased at Pearl Harbor, but recommendations were implemented only partly
Tensions in the Pacific
In the years prior to the outbreak of World War II in Europe, tensions were also escalating in the Pacific region. Japan, which had been at war with China since 1937, had declared openly its intent to take over as much of eastern Asia as it could. It also had serious ambitions toward taking territory in the Soviet Union. If Germany, which the Japanese government saw as a potential ally, would attack Russia from the west, Japanese military leaders felt that they stood a good chance of seizing Soviet-controlled territory in the east. The signing of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact in 1939 therefore caused a huge scandal in Japan, as it directly undermined Japan’s plans.
Japan and the United States

In the meantime, the United States was becoming more and more of a problem for Japan. Throughout the 1930s, the United States and many European nations, suffering from the Great Depression, enacted high protective tariffs. These tariffs greatly curbed Japanese exports and heightened the effects of their own economic depression. The poor economic conditions caused strong anti-Western sentiment in Japan and were a strong factor in forcing the Japanese invasion of China.
In July 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided not to renew the 1911 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, which was due to expire in January 1940. Then, on July 2, 1940, the U.S. Congress passed the Export Control Act. Together, these two actions effectively eliminated Japan’s primary source of oil, scrap metal, and other material resources needed for war.
These developments dealt not only a severe economic blow to Japan but also a humiliating slap in the face to Japan’s leaders, who felt that the United States had no right to pass judgment on them or to interfere in their affairs. Although Japan was still smarting from the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, the United States’ actions were enough to overcome this resentment, and on September 27, 1940, Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy. The pact made the three nations official allies.
Indochina

Indochina was a French-administered colony in Southeast Asia comprising the present-day nations Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. On July 20, 1941, Japanese troops entered the region and quickly occupied the entire area. Japan justified the occupation as necessary in order to deny resources to the Chinese resistance. However, Indochina also provided Japan with a convenient base for launching attacks against other countries and territories in the region, including Singapore and the Dutch East Indies. Both the United States and Britain saw this move as a threat and a clear indication of Japan’s intention to continue its expansion throughout the Pacific Rim. The two countries expressed their disapproval by freezing Japanese bank accounts.
The Japanese Attack Plan
As early as January 1941, Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku developed a plan for attacking the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor and carried out training exercises to prepare specifically for such an attack. In October, the Japanese emperor, Hirohito, gave his general approval for action against the United States and, on November 8, approved the specific Pearl Harbor attack plan.
On November 25–26, the Japanese fleet set sail from Japan, unseen by U.S. spies. Even then, however, some Japanese officials disapproved of the plan, and it continued to be debated heatedly. By December 1, all discussion had ended, and Hirohito ordered the plan to proceed. Japan’s goal was to make a permanent end to Western interference in its affairs by obliterating the U.S. and British military capabilities in the Pacific.


Pearl Harbor
On the morning of December 7, 1941, a fleet of six aircraft carriers, twenty-five submarines, and nearly three dozen additional support ships was sitting 200 miles north of the Hawaiian island of Oahu—in the open sea, far beyond the line of sight of any U.S. forces. The first wave of Japanese planes numbered more than 180. Although U.S. radar operators saw the massive formation nearly a full hour before the attack began, they raised no alarm, because they mistook the planes for a group of U.S. bombers expected to arrive from California around the same time. This mistake happened in spite of the fact that the planes seen on the radar were coming from the wrong direction and were much more numerous than the expected bomber fleet.
The first wave arrived at the U.S. Navy base at Pearl Harbor at 7:55 A.M. and achieved complete surprise; only nine Japanese planes were lost. The primary targets were major U.S. warships, most of which were docked close together in neat lines. These included eight of the nine battleships in the U.S. Pacific Fleet, along with several dozen other warships. The Japanese also targeted six nearby military airfields. A second attack wave of more than 160 planes followed just over an hour later. By this time, the Americans were well alerted and managed to bring down twenty Japanese planes.
In all, the attack on Pearl Harbor killed 2,402 Americans, destroyed five battleships completely, put three more out of commission, sank or seriously damaged at least eleven other warships, and destroyed nearly more than 180 aircraft on the ground. The only good luck the U.S. Navy had was that none of its aircraft carriers were in port at the time and that the Japanese bombers failed to hit the large fuel reserves in the area.
In addition to attacking Pearl Harbor that day, Japan also attacked the U.S. territories of Guam, the Philippines, Wake Island, and Midway Island, as well as British interests in Malaya and Hong Kong.
Declarations of War
The next day, December 8, Roosevelt went before both houses of the U.S. Congress to request a declaration of war against Japan; after a vote, the declaration was formalized just hours later. Britain declared war on Japan on the same day. Three days later, on December 11, Germany declared war on the United States. Thus, the United States was now at war with both Japan and Germany and able to enter fully into its alliance with Britain.
Reaction in the United States
The story of the attack on Pearl Harbor has become a part of American culture. For the American population, the event was a traumatic shock, as few regular Americans knew much about the events in Japan leading up to the war or about the level of hostility that Japan bore toward the United States. Officials in the U.S. government, however, could not claim such obliviousness. Uncomfortable questions were soon raised in Congress and on the streets about why the United States had been so poorly prepared and why the U.S. intelligence services had failed to see the attack coming or raise warnings earlier.
Over the years, historical analysis has shown that there were many warning signs in the months before the attack and that some U.S. military leaders, most notably Admiral Turner, had been concerned that the Pearl Harbor base was particularly vulnerable to attack. Furthermore, the United States was able to decode and read Japanese military communications until shortly before the attack, when Japan abruptly changed its military codes. By the evening of December 6, 1941, U.S. military and government officials, including President Roosevelt, were certain that Japan was planning a major action against U.S. interests. A meeting was even scheduled for 3:00 P.M. on December 7 to discuss the matter. Unfortunately, the target of the attack was unknown, and no one at Pearl Harbor was notified to be on alert.

Vietnam War

The First Indochina War
During World War II, when France was occupied by Nazi Germany, it lost its foothold in Vietnam, and Japan took control of the country. The Viet Minh resisted these Japanese oppressors and extended its power base throughout Vietnam. When Japan surrendered at the end of World War II in 1945, Ho Chi Minh’s forces took the capital of Hanoi and declared Vietnam to be an independent country, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
France refused to recognize Ho’s declaration and returned to Vietnam, driving Ho’s Communist forces into northern Vietnam. Ho appealed for aid from the United States, but because the United States was embroiled in the escalating Cold War with the Communist USSR, it distrusted Ho’s Communist leanings and aided the French instead. Fighting between Ho’s forces and the French continued in this First Indochina War until 1954, when a humiliating defeat at Dien Bien Phu prompted France to seek a peace settlement.
Divided Vietnam
The Geneva Accords of 1954 declared a cease-fire and divided Vietnam officially into North Vietnam (under Ho and his Communist forces) and South Vietnam (under a French-backed emperor). The dividing line was set at the 17th parallel and was surrounded by a demilitarized zone, or DMZ. The Geneva Accords stipulated that the divide was temporary and that Vietnam was to be reunified under free elections to be held in 1956.
The Cold War and the Domino Theory
At this point, the United States’ Cold War foreign policy began to play a major part in Vietnam. U.S. policy at the time was dominated by the domino theory, which believed that the “fall” of North Vietnam to Communism might trigger all of Southeast Asia to fall, setting off a sort of Communist chain reaction. Within a year of the Geneva Accords, the United States therefore began to offer support to the anti-Communist politician Ngo Dinh Diem. With U.S. assistance, Diem took control of the South Vietnamese government in 1955, declared the Republic of Vietnam, and promptly canceled the elections that had been scheduled for 1956.
The Diem Regime
Diem’s regime proved corrupt, oppressive, and extremely unpopular. Nonetheless, the United States continued to prop it up, fearful of the increasing Communist resistance activity it noted in South Vietnam. This resistance against Diem’s regime was organized by the Ho Chi Minh–backed National Liberation Front, which became more commonly known as the Viet Cong.
In 1962, U.S. president John F. Kennedy sent American “military advisors” to Vietnam to help train the South Vietnamese army, the ARVN, but quickly realized that the Diem regime was unsalvageable. Therefore, in 1963, the United States backed a coup that overthrew Diem and installed a new leader. The new U.S.-backed leaders proved just as corrupt and ineffective.
Johnson and U.S. Escalation
Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, pledged to honor Kennedy’s commitments but hoped to keep U.S. involvement in Vietnam to a minimum. After North Vietnamese forces allegedly attacked U.S. Navy ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, however, Johnson was given carte blanche in the form of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and began to send U.S. troops to Vietnam. Bombing campaigns such as 1965’s Operation Rolling Thunder ensued, and the conflict escalated. Johnson’s “Americanization” of the war led to a presence of nearly 400,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam by the end of 1966.
Quagmire and Attrition
As the United States became increasingly mired in Vietnam, it pursued a strategy of attrition, attempting to bury the Vietnamese Communist forces under an avalanche of casualties. However, the Viet Cong’s guerrilla tactics frustrated and demoralized U.S. troops, while its dispersed, largely rural presence left American bomber planes with few targets. The United States therefore used unconventional weapons such as napalm and the herbicide defoliant Agent Orange but still managed to make little headway.
The Tet Offensive
In 1968, the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong launched a massive campaign called the Tet Offensive, attacking nearly thirty U.S. targets and dozens of other cities in South Vietnam at once. Although the United States pushed back the offensive and won a tactical victory, American media coverage characterized the conflict as a defeat, and U.S. public support for the war plummeted. Morale among U.S. troops also hit an all-time low, manifesting itself tragically in the 1968 My Lai Massacre, in which frustrated U.S. soldiers killed hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians in a small village.
The Antiwar Movement
Meanwhile, the antiwar movement within the United States gained momentum as student protesters, countercultural hippies, and even many mainstream Americans denounced the war. Protests against the war and the military draft grew increasingly violent, resulting in police brutality outside the Democratic National Convention in 1968 and the deaths of four students at Kent State University in 1970 when Ohio National Guardsmen fired on a crowd. Despite the protests, Johnson’s successor, President Richard M. Nixon, declared that a “silent majority” of Americans still supported the war.
Vietnamization and U.S. Withdrawal
Nonetheless, Nixon promoted a policy of Vietnamization of the war, promising to withdraw U.S. troops gradually and hand over management of the war effort to the South Vietnamese. Although Nixon made good on his promise, he also illegally expanded the geographic scope of the war by authorizing the bombing of Viet Cong sites in the neutral nations of Cambodia and Laos, all without the knowledge or consent of the U.S. Congress. The revelation of these illegal actions, along with the publication of the secret Pentagon Papers in U.S. newspapers in 1971, caused an enormous scandal in the United States and forced Nixon to push for a peace settlement.
The Cease-fire and the Fall of Saigon
After secret negotiations between U.S. emissary Henry A. Kissinger and North Vietnamese representative Le Duc Tho in 1972, Nixon engaged in diplomatic maneuvering with China and the USSR—and stepped up bombing of North Vietnam—to pressure the North Vietnamese into a settlement. This cease-fire was finally signed in January 1973, and the last U.S. military personnel left Vietnam in March 1973.
The U.S. government continued to fund the South Vietnamese army, but this funding quickly dwindled. Meanwhile, as President Nixon became embroiled in the Watergate scandal that led to his resignation in August 1974, North Vietnamese forces stepped up their attacks on the South and finally launched an all-out offensive in the spring of 1975. On April 30, 1975, the South Vietnamese capital of Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese, who reunited the country under Communist rule as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, ending the Vietnam War.

Korean War

Korean War, conflict between Communist and non-Communist forces in Korea from June 25, 1950, to July 27, 1953. At the end of World War II, Korea was divided at the 38th parallel into Soviet (North Korean) and U.S. (South Korean) zones of occupation. In 1948 rival governments were established: The Republic of Korea was proclaimed in the South and the People's Democratic Republic of Korea in the North.
Relations between them became increasingly strained, and on June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. The United Nations quickly condemned the invasion as an act of aggression, demanded the withdrawal of North Korean troops from the South, and called upon its members to aid South Korea. On June 27, U.S. President Truman authorized the use of American land, sea, and air forces in Korea; a week later, the United Nations placed the forces of 15 other member nations under U.S. command, and Truman appointed Gen. Douglas MacArthur supreme commander.
In the first weeks of the conflict the North Korean forces met little resistance and advanced rapidly. By Sept. 10 they had driven the South Korean army and a small American force to the Busan (Pusan) area at the southeast tip of Korea. A counteroffensive began on Sept. 15, when UN forces made a daring landing at Incheon (Inchon) on the west coast. North Korean forces fell back and MacArthur received orders to pursue them into North Korea.
On Oct. 19, the North Korean capital of Pyongyang was captured; by Nov. 24, North Korean forces were driven by the 8th Army, under Gen. Walton Walker, and the X Corp, under Gen. Edward Almond, almost to the Yalu River, which marked the border of Communist China. As MacArthur prepared for a final offensive, the Chinese Communists joined with the North Koreans to launch (Nov. 26) a successful counterattack. The UN troops were forced back, and in Jan., 1951, the Communists again advanced into the South, recapturing Seoul, the South Korean capital.
After months of heavy fighting, the center of the conflict was returned to the 38th parallel, where it remained for the rest of the war. MacArthur, however, wished to mount another invasion of North Korea. When MacArthur persisted in publicly criticizing U.S. policy, Truman, on the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff removed (Apr. 10, 1951) him from command and installed Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway as commander in chief. Gen. James Van Fleet then took command of the 8th Army. Ridgway began (July 10, 1951) truce negotiations with the North Koreans and Chinese, while small unit actions, bitter but indecisive, continued. Gen. Van Fleet was denied permission to go on the offensive and end the “meat grinder” war.
The war's unpopularity played an important role in the presidential victory of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had pledged to go to Korea to end the war. Negotiations broke down four different times, but after much difficulty and nuclear threats by Eisenhower, an armistice agreement was signed (July 27, 1953). Casualties in the war were heavy. U.S. losses were placed at over 54,000 dead and 103,000 wounded, while Chinese and Korean casualties were each at least 10 times as high. Korean forces on both sides executed many alleged civilian enemy sympathizers, especially in the early months of the war.

China Civil War (1945-1949)

From 1937 to this day, the number of the dead in Chinese troop reached over one million, and over 10 million in civilian casualties. In Japan, only about 400 thousand troops died.

After the end of the War, Chang and Mao discussed national plans in Chongqing. The negotiations were slow. Especially the matters about unification of national troop, a local autonomy and establishment of constitution have not resolved. What was agreed was merely to avoid a civil war and establish new China of independent, liberated, and powerful. By that the CCP reduced the number of military hands, and made way toward its goal of avoiding a civil war

In January 1946, a military truce was arranged. An atmosphere for peace and unification was getting near. However, the Kuomintang didn't keep this truce, and started killing the opposition.

Start of Civil War

In the region of liberation under CCP, on the other hand, the people themselves blamed landowners who killed or oppressed the people during the past war and also put them on trial, sometimes executing them. Energy of the people was put to Land Reform. The progress of Land Reform made the people's eagerness for the revolution higher.

It also made the conflict with the Kuomintang, supported by landowners, even more critical. In danger of entering a civil war, the United States made an effort to intervene. But the intervention couldn't change Chang's will against crushing the CCP. At last a civil war started in July 1946.

Land Reform was promoted in countryside, while the confusion had already begun in cities. At the end of the war, soldiers and government officials came back to the cities. At first the people welcomed them enthusiastically. But the people were disappointed soon. The officials monopolized factories or stores Japanese people owned in the past.

Besides the government issued banknotes the moment the civil war started, so by the end of the war, inflation was getting out of control. Prices in 1947 were up to a hundred and fifty thousands times as much as that before civil war stated. The productivity decline more and more, and the number of people starving to death was over ten million just for one year in 1946.

China was in more chaos than in a time controlled by Japan and puppet regime. Disturbance and student movements occurred everywhere. Then the Kuomintang cracked down on the confusion, but at that time the people's trust for Kuomintang had been all but lost with their bad credibility.

Taiwan

Taiwan was made controlled under Japan for about fifty years from the Japanese victory in 1895. When the control of Japan was over with the end of the war, the people were all the more delighted. But Kuomintang act like a conqueror and had been oppressed the people. The people determined to fight against Kuomintang. They fought for human rights, but the Kuomintang arrested the leader and executed him. After that, Taiwan went under the control of the Kuomintang.

Victory of Communist

For the early one years of a civil war, the Kuomintang was dominant over the CCP. And Kuomintang occupied Yan'an, "capital" of CCP in March 1947. But it was just the consequence CCP predicted. The CCP had been prepared for a waiting game by getting the people's support. CCP had been able to find the people's favor by promoting Land Reform. The people supported the CCP. At last the People's Red Army began to counterattack Kuomintang scattered in various cities.

In January 1949 Chang resigned. In the negotiation for peace between the Kuomintang and CCP, CCP required Kuomintang to surrender unconditionally. But the Kuomintang refused to accept it. Taking this refusal, the People's Red Army started an all-out attack. They occupied big cities such as Nanjing or Shanghai, cornering Kuomintang in the south. And in December the People's Red Army occupied all main land except Taiwan. Chang fled into Taiwan with followed by five hundred thousand soldiers.

Finally CCP won a victory in the civil war by gaining the people's enthusiastic support.