1-15 Feb 1942
On 1 Feb 1942, the Japanese reached Singapore island after overrunning British, Australian, and Indian troops. On 5 Feb, down to 18 tanks and lacked ammunition and food, the smaller force commanded of Yamashita attacked the island of Pulau Ubin on the east, creating a bluff that another Japanese force was attacking from the east. This deceived Percival, who moved his major ammunitions stores to the east when the actual Japanese attack came down from the northwest. On 8 Feb, the actual attack on Singapore started with landing of troops on Singapore's northwest coast. Australian troops fought off initial landing attempts while inflicting enormous casualties on the part of the Japanese. However, the Australian troops retreated unnecessarily amidst the confusion of battle, allowing Japanese troops to gain a strong foothold at the shore defense installations. Subsequent landings would be unopposed.
From very early on, British commander Percival had his troops destroy docks and fuel dumps to prevent enemy capture. While it indeed took away Japan's ability to have readily available infrastructure and various resources, the early destruction of such facilities further destroyed defender morale. Such moves instilled the soldiers with the notion that the battle had already been lost.
On 10 Feb, the Japanese 5th and 18th Divisions routed the 22nd Australian Brigade, who retreated further into the city and turned on its citizens, pillaging the city of its food and liquor. By this time, Japanese tanks were also in Singapore in force, first routing Indian troops at the hills of Bukit Timah then denying a successful counterattack by British Brigadier Coates. While RAF fighter pilots bravely downed several Japanese bombers early in the assault, most of them were picked off one by one in dogfights by the superior Zero fighters. Singapore citizens continued to evacuate the city as they had done earlier, though at this stage many boats out of the city faced strafing by Japanese fighters. On 13 Feb, Japanese troops would seize or damage most city reservoirs, attempting to cause chaos by drying up the city. "While there's water," Lieutenant General Arthur Percival says, "We fight on."
On 14 Feb, Japanese troops closed into the city, and atrocities ensued. Lt. Western, a British medical officer, surrendered with a white flag but was bayoneted to death. Then, the Japanese troops entered the Alexandra Hospital, killing over 300 doctors, nurses, and patients, most by bayonets. When Yamashita heard about the incident, he had the Japanese soldiers responsible for the attack executed at the hospital.
Other reports of atrocities including gruesome accounts where Japanese troops emasculated captured British soldiers and sewed their penises to their lips before hanging them in trees where Allied patrols would find them; signs on their necks read "he took a long time to die". Such displays were meant to, and were successful to a certain degree, to demoralize Allied soldiers.
At 1400 hours on Sunday, 15 Feb, Percival decided that he only had enough supplies for two more days of fighting, and surrendered. Yamashita asked Percival, who wore the baggy British tropical uniform shorts that date, "do you wish to surrender unconditionally?", and Percival answered "Yes we do", and that marked the fall of the "Impregnable Fortress" of Singapore to Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita. Yamashita's troops had only enough ammunitions to fight a few more days, but Percival did not have that intelligence. Singapore, the Gibraltar of the East, would remain under Japanese control until the end of the war. Until the last moment of battle, the British shore batteries of 15" and 19" guns pointed southward, waiting for the naval assault expected but never came.
Done by: Lucas Ng, 10S25
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Famous War: Napoleanic War
Belligerents (Famous ones)
• France
• Ottoman Empire
• Denmark-Norway
• Holland
• Batavian Empire
• Italy
• Confederation of the Rhine
• Duchy of Warsaw (Poland)
• Naples
• United Kingdom
• Prussia
• Austrian Empire
• Spain
• Russian Empire
• Portugal
• Sicily
• Sweden
• United Netherlands
History
The Napoleonic Wars revolved around one person, Napoleon Bonaparte. The extent of
his conquest reached Egypt, and even part of South America was involved in this
war. Although there is no exact date to which the Napoleonic Wars started, however
, it is agreed that the war ended at the Battle of Waterloo (present day Belgium),
which was "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life,” according to the
Duke of Wellington (United Kingdom).
Some Outstanding Battles
• Battle of Austerlitz (~160,000) – French victory over Austria and Russia
• Battle of Bautzen (~211,000) – French victory over Prussia and Russia
• Battle of Berezina (~195,000) – Russian victory over France
• Battle of Bidassoa (~151,000) – Allied victory(United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain) over France
• Battle of Borodino (~250,000) – French victory over the Russian Empire
• Siege of Brugos – French victory over Portugal and United Kingdom, with 2,000 French against a 35,000 strong army
• Battle of Dresden (~349,000) – Decisive French victory over Prussia, Russia and Austria
• Battle of Friedland (~140,000) – Decisive French victory over Russia
• Battle of Großbeeren (~140,000) – Allied victory(Prussia, Sweden) over France
• Battle of Heilsberg (~140,000) – Inconclusive between Russia and France
• Battle of Haslach-Jungingen (~30,000) – French victory (5,000) over Austria (25,000)
• Battle of Hanau (~60,000) – French victory (17,000) over Bavaria and Austria (43,000)
• Battle of Jena and Auerstedt (~322,000) – French victory over Prussia and Saxony
• Battle of Katzbach (~216,000) – Coalition victory (Russia and Prussia) over France
• Battle of Kulm – Coalition victory (Russia, Prussia, Austria) over France, after receiving a 60,000 strong reinforcement on the 2nd day of battle
• Battle of La Rotheiere (~150,000) – Prussian victory over the French
• Raid at Altenburg – Decisive Coalition victory (Saxony, Russia)(1,500) over the French (6,500)
• Battle of Ligny (~152,000) – French victory over Prussia
• Batle of Lutzen (~193,000) – French victory over Prussia and Russia
• Battle of Paris – Coalition victory (Russia, Prussia, Austria) over French. France: 50,000. Coalition: 100,000.
• Battle of Abensberg (~170,000) – French, Bavarian and Wurttemberg victory over Austria
• Battle of Ulm (222,000) - Decisive French victory (150,000), with 30,000 Austrians captured.
• Battle of Toulouse – Indecisive. France: 42,430 strong. Allied forces: 49,446 strong.
• Battle of Smolensk – French victory over Russia. Although both sides employed 200,000 men each, only around 50,000 French and 30,000 Russians were engaged.
• Battle of Leipzig (~625,000, 2220 guns) – Decisive Coalition victory (Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, Saxony) over the French, Italian, Polish and Naples Army
• Battle of Waterloo – Decisive coalition victory (United Kingdom and Prussia), which signalled the end of the Napoleonic Wars. France: 72,000 French. Coalition : 68,000 Anglo-allied, 50,000 Prussians
The battles in the Napoleonic Wars are many, impossible to list all the details in this document. Therefore I included the link to the source of the battles during the war if you are interested to know more about the details. =)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_of_the_Napoleonic_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Napoleonic_battles
Casualties
France and allies:
• 371,000 killed in action
• ~400,000 killed by disease
• Total: 1,000,000 French and allies (mostly Germans and Poles) dead in action, disease and missing
Enemies of France
• 400,000 Russian dead or missing
• 200,000 Prussian dead or missing
• ~300,000 Austrian dead or missing
• ~300,000 Spanish dead or missing
• 311,806 British dead or missing
Total dead or missing
• ~2,500,000 military personnel in Europe
• ~1,000,000 civilians were killed in Europe and in rebellious French overseas colonies
Common estimates of more than 500,000 French dead in Russia in 1812 and
250,000-300,000 French dead in Iberia between 1808 and 1814 give a total of at
least 750,000, and to this must be added hundreds of thousands of more French
dead in other campaigns - probably around 150,000 to 200,000 French dead in the
German campaign of 1813. Thus the above estimates are highly conservative.
Whilst military deaths are invariably put at between 2.5 million and 3.5 million,
civilian death tolls vary from 750,000 to 3 million. Thus estimates of total dead,
both military and civilian, can reasonably range from 3,250,000 to 6,500,000.
Extent of the First French Empire
By: Mervin Yap, 10S25
• France
• Ottoman Empire
• Denmark-Norway
• Holland
• Batavian Empire
• Italy
• Confederation of the Rhine
• Duchy of Warsaw (Poland)
• Naples
• United Kingdom
• Prussia
• Austrian Empire
• Spain
• Russian Empire
• Portugal
• Sicily
• Sweden
• United Netherlands
History
The Napoleonic Wars revolved around one person, Napoleon Bonaparte. The extent of
his conquest reached Egypt, and even part of South America was involved in this
war. Although there is no exact date to which the Napoleonic Wars started, however
, it is agreed that the war ended at the Battle of Waterloo (present day Belgium),
which was "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life,” according to the
Duke of Wellington (United Kingdom).
Some Outstanding Battles
• Battle of Austerlitz (~160,000) – French victory over Austria and Russia
• Battle of Bautzen (~211,000) – French victory over Prussia and Russia
• Battle of Berezina (~195,000) – Russian victory over France
• Battle of Bidassoa (~151,000) – Allied victory(United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain) over France
• Battle of Borodino (~250,000) – French victory over the Russian Empire
• Siege of Brugos – French victory over Portugal and United Kingdom, with 2,000 French against a 35,000 strong army
• Battle of Dresden (~349,000) – Decisive French victory over Prussia, Russia and Austria
• Battle of Friedland (~140,000) – Decisive French victory over Russia
• Battle of Großbeeren (~140,000) – Allied victory(Prussia, Sweden) over France
• Battle of Heilsberg (~140,000) – Inconclusive between Russia and France
• Battle of Haslach-Jungingen (~30,000) – French victory (5,000) over Austria (25,000)
• Battle of Hanau (~60,000) – French victory (17,000) over Bavaria and Austria (43,000)
• Battle of Jena and Auerstedt (~322,000) – French victory over Prussia and Saxony
• Battle of Katzbach (~216,000) – Coalition victory (Russia and Prussia) over France
• Battle of Kulm – Coalition victory (Russia, Prussia, Austria) over France, after receiving a 60,000 strong reinforcement on the 2nd day of battle
• Battle of La Rotheiere (~150,000) – Prussian victory over the French
• Raid at Altenburg – Decisive Coalition victory (Saxony, Russia)(1,500) over the French (6,500)
• Battle of Ligny (~152,000) – French victory over Prussia
• Batle of Lutzen (~193,000) – French victory over Prussia and Russia
• Battle of Paris – Coalition victory (Russia, Prussia, Austria) over French. France: 50,000. Coalition: 100,000.
• Battle of Abensberg (~170,000) – French, Bavarian and Wurttemberg victory over Austria
• Battle of Ulm (222,000) - Decisive French victory (150,000), with 30,000 Austrians captured.
• Battle of Toulouse – Indecisive. France: 42,430 strong. Allied forces: 49,446 strong.
• Battle of Smolensk – French victory over Russia. Although both sides employed 200,000 men each, only around 50,000 French and 30,000 Russians were engaged.
• Battle of Leipzig (~625,000, 2220 guns) – Decisive Coalition victory (Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, Saxony) over the French, Italian, Polish and Naples Army
• Battle of Waterloo – Decisive coalition victory (United Kingdom and Prussia), which signalled the end of the Napoleonic Wars. France: 72,000 French. Coalition : 68,000 Anglo-allied, 50,000 Prussians
The battles in the Napoleonic Wars are many, impossible to list all the details in this document. Therefore I included the link to the source of the battles during the war if you are interested to know more about the details. =)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_of_the_Napoleonic_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Napoleonic_battles
Casualties
France and allies:
• 371,000 killed in action
• ~400,000 killed by disease
• Total: 1,000,000 French and allies (mostly Germans and Poles) dead in action, disease and missing
Enemies of France
• 400,000 Russian dead or missing
• 200,000 Prussian dead or missing
• ~300,000 Austrian dead or missing
• ~300,000 Spanish dead or missing
• 311,806 British dead or missing
Total dead or missing
• ~2,500,000 military personnel in Europe
• ~1,000,000 civilians were killed in Europe and in rebellious French overseas colonies
Common estimates of more than 500,000 French dead in Russia in 1812 and
250,000-300,000 French dead in Iberia between 1808 and 1814 give a total of at
least 750,000, and to this must be added hundreds of thousands of more French
dead in other campaigns - probably around 150,000 to 200,000 French dead in the
German campaign of 1813. Thus the above estimates are highly conservative.
Whilst military deaths are invariably put at between 2.5 million and 3.5 million,
civilian death tolls vary from 750,000 to 3 million. Thus estimates of total dead,
both military and civilian, can reasonably range from 3,250,000 to 6,500,000.
Extent of the First French Empire
By: Mervin Yap, 10S25
Famous War: American Civil War
What?
The American Civil War, also known as the War Between the States, was a
civil war that happened in the United States of America during the time
period 1861–1865 that resulted in the deaths of 620,000 soldiers and an
undetermined number of civilian casualties.
What caused the war to happen?
The states in the United States of America had split into two main groups
the Union (led by Abraham Lincoln) and the confederacy (led by Jefferson
Davis) which comprises mainly of slave states.
There are many reasons that led to the separation of the United States of
America but the main one would be because of slavery, as when during the
presidential election, Abraham Lincoln had campaigned against the expansion
of slavery. As the southern states comprises mostly of slave states, this
meant that the Southern would have a loss of economy through slavery and
also fears of racial equality with the African race who they regard as an
inferior and dependent race. The Southern leaders also feared that Lincoln
would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward
extinction. Hence, the slave states, which had already become a minority
in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual
minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly
powerful North.
Resulting in the formation of the Confederacy and Separation of the United
States of America.
Aftermath of the War
Northern leaders agreed that victory would require more than the end of
fighting. It had to encompass the two war goals: secession had to be
repudiated and all forms of slavery had to be eliminated. They disagreed
sharply on the criteria for these goals. They also disagreed on the degree
of federal control that should be imposed on the South, and the process by
which Southern states should be reintegrated into the Union.
Reconstruction, which began early in the war and ended in 1877, involved a
complex and rapidly changing series of federal and state policies. The
long-term result came in the three Reconstruction Amendments to the
Constitution: the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery; the
Fourteenth Amendment, which extended federal legal protections equally to
citizens regardless of race; and the Fifteenth Amendment, which abolished
racial restrictions on voting. Reconstruction ended in the different states
at different times, the last three by the Compromise of 1877.
By: Darren Pang, 10S25
The American Civil War, also known as the War Between the States, was a
civil war that happened in the United States of America during the time
period 1861–1865 that resulted in the deaths of 620,000 soldiers and an
undetermined number of civilian casualties.
What caused the war to happen?
The states in the United States of America had split into two main groups
the Union (led by Abraham Lincoln) and the confederacy (led by Jefferson
Davis) which comprises mainly of slave states.
There are many reasons that led to the separation of the United States of
America but the main one would be because of slavery, as when during the
presidential election, Abraham Lincoln had campaigned against the expansion
of slavery. As the southern states comprises mostly of slave states, this
meant that the Southern would have a loss of economy through slavery and
also fears of racial equality with the African race who they regard as an
inferior and dependent race. The Southern leaders also feared that Lincoln
would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward
extinction. Hence, the slave states, which had already become a minority
in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual
minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly
powerful North.
Resulting in the formation of the Confederacy and Separation of the United
States of America.
Aftermath of the War
Northern leaders agreed that victory would require more than the end of
fighting. It had to encompass the two war goals: secession had to be
repudiated and all forms of slavery had to be eliminated. They disagreed
sharply on the criteria for these goals. They also disagreed on the degree
of federal control that should be imposed on the South, and the process by
which Southern states should be reintegrated into the Union.
Reconstruction, which began early in the war and ended in 1877, involved a
complex and rapidly changing series of federal and state policies. The
long-term result came in the three Reconstruction Amendments to the
Constitution: the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery; the
Fourteenth Amendment, which extended federal legal protections equally to
citizens regardless of race; and the Fifteenth Amendment, which abolished
racial restrictions on voting. Reconstruction ended in the different states
at different times, the last three by the Compromise of 1877.
By: Darren Pang, 10S25
Famous War: Sino-Japanese War
WHAT?
The Sino-Japanese War, which is also known as "Jiawu War"(in Chinese as it occurred in the Chinese year) occurred primarily over control of Korea. It happened during 1894 and 1895 and about 60000 soldiers were lost from both side.
WHY?
Korea had traditionally been a tributary state to China. In 1875, Japan was allowed by China to recognise Korea as an independent state. However, China continued to try to assert influence over Korea, and public opinion in Korea split, with conservatives wanting to retain a close relationship with China while reformists wanted Korea to modernize and to have a closer relationship with Japan.
After the assassination of a pro-Japanese reformist in 1894, the Tonghak Peasant Revolution was formed and thus, the Korean government requested from China help in suppressing it.
War between Japan and China was officially declared on August 1, 1894, though some naval fighting had already taken place.The more modern Japanese army defeated the Chinese in a series of battles and by November 21 the Japanese had taken Port Arthur (now known as Lushun).
Although foreign observers had predicted an easy victory for the more massive Chinese forces, as the amount of China's soldier was 10 times the Japanese's, the Japanese had done a more successful job of modernizing, and they were better equipped and prepared. Japanese troops scored quick and overwhelming victories on both land and sea.
AFTERMATH
Faced with these repeated defeats China signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki in April 1895.In this treaty, China recognized the independence of Korea and ceded Taiwan, the adjoining Pescadores, and the Liaotung Peninsula in Manchuria.
The defeat of China at the hands of Japan highlighted the failure of the Chinese army to modernize adequately, and resulted in increased calls within China for accelerated modernization and reform. China also agreed to pay a large indemnity and to give Japan trading privileges on Chinese territory. This treaty was later somewhat modified by Russian fears of Japanese expansion. China's defeat encouraged the Western powers to make further demands of the Chinese government. In China itself, the war triggered a reform movement that attempted to renovate the government, resulting in the beginnings of revolutionary activity against the Manchu rulers of China.
By: Rozanna Abdul Razak, 10S25
The Sino-Japanese War, which is also known as "Jiawu War"(in Chinese as it occurred in the Chinese year) occurred primarily over control of Korea. It happened during 1894 and 1895 and about 60000 soldiers were lost from both side.
WHY?
Korea had traditionally been a tributary state to China. In 1875, Japan was allowed by China to recognise Korea as an independent state. However, China continued to try to assert influence over Korea, and public opinion in Korea split, with conservatives wanting to retain a close relationship with China while reformists wanted Korea to modernize and to have a closer relationship with Japan.
After the assassination of a pro-Japanese reformist in 1894, the Tonghak Peasant Revolution was formed and thus, the Korean government requested from China help in suppressing it.
War between Japan and China was officially declared on August 1, 1894, though some naval fighting had already taken place.The more modern Japanese army defeated the Chinese in a series of battles and by November 21 the Japanese had taken Port Arthur (now known as Lushun).
Although foreign observers had predicted an easy victory for the more massive Chinese forces, as the amount of China's soldier was 10 times the Japanese's, the Japanese had done a more successful job of modernizing, and they were better equipped and prepared. Japanese troops scored quick and overwhelming victories on both land and sea.
AFTERMATH
Faced with these repeated defeats China signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki in April 1895.In this treaty, China recognized the independence of Korea and ceded Taiwan, the adjoining Pescadores, and the Liaotung Peninsula in Manchuria.
The defeat of China at the hands of Japan highlighted the failure of the Chinese army to modernize adequately, and resulted in increased calls within China for accelerated modernization and reform. China also agreed to pay a large indemnity and to give Japan trading privileges on Chinese territory. This treaty was later somewhat modified by Russian fears of Japanese expansion. China's defeat encouraged the Western powers to make further demands of the Chinese government. In China itself, the war triggered a reform movement that attempted to renovate the government, resulting in the beginnings of revolutionary activity against the Manchu rulers of China.
By: Rozanna Abdul Razak, 10S25
Weapons of War: the present & future
Since the dawn of mankind, weapon technology has evolved radically. From the utilization of blades and swords, to the invention of gunpowder, weapons has been made more deadly, with greater killing efficiency and accuracy. In the 21st century, new weapons of war has been created, radically changing how wars are fought. Wars in this century has been characterised by rapid deployments and projections of force, combined with superior firepower and technology to achieve devastating effects on the enemy.
As of today, many weapons systems are highly advanced, using state-of-the-art optics and tracking systems. An example of such is the Patriot Missile system which is able to destroy ballistic missiles and aircraft. It has been deployed during the Iraq Offensive, shooting down SCUD missiles, achieving astonishing results, and preventing many deaths. In addition, advanced armored vehicles has been making their debut around the world, such as the Leopard and the Abrams tanks. These tanks are the result of years of research & development. The Abrams tank had gone through a baptism of fire, and it proves highly effective in destroying enemy vehicles.
Several breakthroughs has been made in the field of airbourne weapons. Since the invention of the airplane, it has been used to wreak havoc & destruction on enemies below. However, the always face the threat of being detected and shot down by anti-aircraft weapons systems. This has changed since, with the invention of stealth technology. It has been successfully adapted to two separate airframes. First, the F-117 Nighthawk, also known as the 'Stealth Fighter' has a small radar cross section, which allows it to be virtually undetectable by enemy radar systems. This allows it to sneak behind enemy lines to disrupt/destroy command and control infrastructure. However, the best known of all is probably the B-2 Spirit 'Stealth Bomber'. This plane has a radical shape, making it look like a 'flying wing'. With a higher payload capacity than the F-117 Nighthawk, this aircraft can also carry nuclear weapons, serving as a nuclear deterrent.
So, with all these technology already in place, what does the future of warfare herald?
Research has already been made into the automation and computerization of weapon systems. For example, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle has already made its debut, helping armies around the world to gather information without putting a human pilot at risk. "Fire & forget' weapons are also on the drawing boards, with missiles that only require a human operator to launch it, and it would autonomously track and destroy its target with bone-chilling efficiency and accuracy. In addition, advanced personal armour has been created, known as the 'Dragon Skin' it allows its wearer to be almost impenetrable to convention rounds.
With all these new developments and research taking place, it will only be a matter of time when a new weapons system would revolutionize modern warfare.
Done by:
Ler Yi Poh
10A05
As of today, many weapons systems are highly advanced, using state-of-the-art optics and tracking systems. An example of such is the Patriot Missile system which is able to destroy ballistic missiles and aircraft. It has been deployed during the Iraq Offensive, shooting down SCUD missiles, achieving astonishing results, and preventing many deaths. In addition, advanced armored vehicles has been making their debut around the world, such as the Leopard and the Abrams tanks. These tanks are the result of years of research & development. The Abrams tank had gone through a baptism of fire, and it proves highly effective in destroying enemy vehicles.
Several breakthroughs has been made in the field of airbourne weapons. Since the invention of the airplane, it has been used to wreak havoc & destruction on enemies below. However, the always face the threat of being detected and shot down by anti-aircraft weapons systems. This has changed since, with the invention of stealth technology. It has been successfully adapted to two separate airframes. First, the F-117 Nighthawk, also known as the 'Stealth Fighter' has a small radar cross section, which allows it to be virtually undetectable by enemy radar systems. This allows it to sneak behind enemy lines to disrupt/destroy command and control infrastructure. However, the best known of all is probably the B-2 Spirit 'Stealth Bomber'. This plane has a radical shape, making it look like a 'flying wing'. With a higher payload capacity than the F-117 Nighthawk, this aircraft can also carry nuclear weapons, serving as a nuclear deterrent.
So, with all these technology already in place, what does the future of warfare herald?
Research has already been made into the automation and computerization of weapon systems. For example, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle has already made its debut, helping armies around the world to gather information without putting a human pilot at risk. "Fire & forget' weapons are also on the drawing boards, with missiles that only require a human operator to launch it, and it would autonomously track and destroy its target with bone-chilling efficiency and accuracy. In addition, advanced personal armour has been created, known as the 'Dragon Skin' it allows its wearer to be almost impenetrable to convention rounds.
With all these new developments and research taking place, it will only be a matter of time when a new weapons system would revolutionize modern warfare.
Done by:
Ler Yi Poh
10A05
Vietnam War of Weapons
Background information
The most commonly used dates for the conflict are 1959-1975. This period begins with North Vietnam's first guerilla attacks against the South and ends with the fall of Saigon. American ground forces were directly involved in the war between 1965 and 1973.
In August 1964, a US warship was attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. Following this attack, Congress passed the Southeast Asia Resolution which allowed President Lyndon Johnson to conduct military operations in the region without a declaration of war. On March 2, 1965, US aircraft began bombing targets in Vietnam and the first troops arrived. Commanded by General William Westmoreland, US troops won victories over Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces around Chu Lai and in the Ia Drang Valley that summer. Americanization of the Vietnam War
Following these defeats, the North Vietnamese avoided fighting conventional battles and focused on engaging US troops in small unit actions in the sweltering jungles of South Vietnam. In January 1968, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong launched the massive Tet Offensive. Beginning with an assault on US Marines at Khe Sanh, the offensive included attacks by the Viet Cong on cities throughout South Vietnam. Though the North Vietnamese were beaten back with heavy casualties, Tet shook the confidence of the American people and media who had thought the war was going well.
The Tet Offensive
As a result of Tet, President Lyndon Johnson opted not to run for reelection and was succeeded by Richard Nixon. Nixon's plan for ending US involvement was to build up the ARVN so that they could fight the war themselves. As this process of “Vietnamization” began, US troops started to return home. The mistrust of the government that had begun after Tet worsened with the release of news about US soldiers massacring civilians at My Lai (1969), the invasion of Cambodia (1970), and the leaking of the Pentagon Papers (1971). Vietnamization of the Vietnam War
The withdrawal of US troops continued and more responsibility was passed to the ARVN, which continued to prove ineffective in combat, often relying on American support to stave off defeat. On January 27, 1974, a peace accord was signed in Paris ending the conflict. By March of that year, American combat troops had left the country. After a brief period of peace, North Vietnam recommenced hostilities in late 1974. Pushing through ARVN forces with ease, they captured the Saigon on April 30, 1975, forcing South Vietnam’s surrender and reuniting the country. The End of the Vietnam War
United States: 58,119 killed, 153,303 wounded, 1,948 missing in action
South Vietnam 230,000 killed and 1,169,763 wounded (estimated)
North Vietnam 1,100,000 killed in action (estimated) and an unknown number of wounded
Summary
The Vietnam War first began in 1959, five years after the division of the country by the Geneva Accords. Vietnam had been split into two, with a communist government in the north under Ho Chi Minh and a democratic government in the south under Ngo Dinh Diem. Ho launched a guerilla campaign in South Vietnam, led by Viet Cong units, with the goal of uniting the country under communist rule. The United States, seeking to stop the spread of communism, trained the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and provided military advisors to help combat the guerillas. These resulted in a war, known generally as the Vietnam War.
Evaluation
While differences in political views may result in conflicts, it is still now the case of many disagreements in many countries. One example would be in Korea, where there is a division of the North and South korea with different political stand. Efforts have been made in recent years to bridge the gap between the 2 countries, but with little results. The two countries even had to have a third party(other countries) to help them settle the differences between them.
The differences in political views can be traced back to the history of the respective region. The history of the country determines the way the country is governed today. However, given if the government/ruler decides to change the way he runs the country, it can still be made to work, together with the support of the citizens. One example is in Singapore, where she changes her government ruling system ever since she gained independence
All in all, despite the differences that exist between the 2 countries, we must always note that we cannot afford to have war and conflicts all the time. Living in such a small world, where all of us are interconnected and largely dependent on one another, it is important to maintain stability and peace. I this way, we can focus more on dealing with climatic issues and economic development, which are now the more crucial issue in a modern world.
The most commonly used dates for the conflict are 1959-1975. This period begins with North Vietnam's first guerilla attacks against the South and ends with the fall of Saigon. American ground forces were directly involved in the war between 1965 and 1973.
In August 1964, a US warship was attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. Following this attack, Congress passed the Southeast Asia Resolution which allowed President Lyndon Johnson to conduct military operations in the region without a declaration of war. On March 2, 1965, US aircraft began bombing targets in Vietnam and the first troops arrived. Commanded by General William Westmoreland, US troops won victories over Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces around Chu Lai and in the Ia Drang Valley that summer. Americanization of the Vietnam War
Following these defeats, the North Vietnamese avoided fighting conventional battles and focused on engaging US troops in small unit actions in the sweltering jungles of South Vietnam. In January 1968, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong launched the massive Tet Offensive. Beginning with an assault on US Marines at Khe Sanh, the offensive included attacks by the Viet Cong on cities throughout South Vietnam. Though the North Vietnamese were beaten back with heavy casualties, Tet shook the confidence of the American people and media who had thought the war was going well.
The Tet Offensive
As a result of Tet, President Lyndon Johnson opted not to run for reelection and was succeeded by Richard Nixon. Nixon's plan for ending US involvement was to build up the ARVN so that they could fight the war themselves. As this process of “Vietnamization” began, US troops started to return home. The mistrust of the government that had begun after Tet worsened with the release of news about US soldiers massacring civilians at My Lai (1969), the invasion of Cambodia (1970), and the leaking of the Pentagon Papers (1971). Vietnamization of the Vietnam War
The withdrawal of US troops continued and more responsibility was passed to the ARVN, which continued to prove ineffective in combat, often relying on American support to stave off defeat. On January 27, 1974, a peace accord was signed in Paris ending the conflict. By March of that year, American combat troops had left the country. After a brief period of peace, North Vietnam recommenced hostilities in late 1974. Pushing through ARVN forces with ease, they captured the Saigon on April 30, 1975, forcing South Vietnam’s surrender and reuniting the country. The End of the Vietnam War
United States: 58,119 killed, 153,303 wounded, 1,948 missing in action
South Vietnam 230,000 killed and 1,169,763 wounded (estimated)
North Vietnam 1,100,000 killed in action (estimated) and an unknown number of wounded
Summary
The Vietnam War first began in 1959, five years after the division of the country by the Geneva Accords. Vietnam had been split into two, with a communist government in the north under Ho Chi Minh and a democratic government in the south under Ngo Dinh Diem. Ho launched a guerilla campaign in South Vietnam, led by Viet Cong units, with the goal of uniting the country under communist rule. The United States, seeking to stop the spread of communism, trained the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and provided military advisors to help combat the guerillas. These resulted in a war, known generally as the Vietnam War.
Evaluation
While differences in political views may result in conflicts, it is still now the case of many disagreements in many countries. One example would be in Korea, where there is a division of the North and South korea with different political stand. Efforts have been made in recent years to bridge the gap between the 2 countries, but with little results. The two countries even had to have a third party(other countries) to help them settle the differences between them.
The differences in political views can be traced back to the history of the respective region. The history of the country determines the way the country is governed today. However, given if the government/ruler decides to change the way he runs the country, it can still be made to work, together with the support of the citizens. One example is in Singapore, where she changes her government ruling system ever since she gained independence
All in all, despite the differences that exist between the 2 countries, we must always note that we cannot afford to have war and conflicts all the time. Living in such a small world, where all of us are interconnected and largely dependent on one another, it is important to maintain stability and peace. I this way, we can focus more on dealing with climatic issues and economic development, which are now the more crucial issue in a modern world.
Weapons of War: Kamikaze pilots
Kamikaze (神風, common translation: "divine wind")refers to the suicide attacks by military aviators from the Empire of Japan against Allied naval vessels in the closing stages of the Pacific campaign of World War II, designed to destroy as many warships as possible.
Kamikaze pilots would attempt to intentionally crash their aircraft – often laden with explosives, bombs, torpedoes and full fuel tanks – into Allied ships. The aircraft's normal functions, to deliver torpedoes or bombs or shoot down other aircraft, were put aside, and the planes were converted to what were essentially manned missiles, in a desperate attempt to reap the benefits of greatly increased accuracy and payload over that of normal bombs. The goal of crippling as many Allied capital ships as possible was considered critical enough to warrant the sacrifice of aviators and aircraft.
The Kamikaze attack tactic was first suggested by vice-Admiral Onishi of the Japanese Navy, when he was assigned to command the air attacks against the huge American invasion fleet off the Philippines. He realized that he had less than 100 operational aircraft for this task. Since there was no way to sink or even severely damage the American fleet in any conventional tactic, the Admiral sought to find a way to get a significantly greater striking power from a given force.
The solution was obvious. Guided weapons provide dramatically greater accuracy and lethality than unguided weapons. Such weapons already existed and were operational for over a year then, but not in Japan. Therefore Admiral Onishi suggested that volunteer pilots guide their bomb-carrying aircraft all the way to an explosive suicide collision with their American warship targets, acting as a living guidance system, literally becoming "smart bombs".
The new tactic was adopted immediately. Large numbers of pilots initially qualified and experienced pilots and later air cadets with minimal training who were asked to volunteer, were assigned to "Special Attack" air wings, the official name of the Kamikaze units. Their goal and motto was "One man - one ship".
A total of about 5000 Kamikaze pilots were launched, mostly in the Battle of Okinawa, consuming much of the remaining human and material resources of Japanese air power. The result of their effort was 36 sunk American ships and landing craft, and 368 damaged. The ferocity of watching wave after wave of Kamikaze pilots hurtling down through a dense hail of anti-aircraft fire, and the enormous fiery explosions which followed, terrorized the Americans, but the Kamikaze campaign failed to achieve its strategic goal of stopping the American advance, and American air attacks were launched against the Kamikaze air bases in southern Japan in order to reduce their numbers. Japan lost its last battle despite the enormous sacrifice of its fanatic warriors, and lost the war.
Kamikaze pilots would attempt to intentionally crash their aircraft – often laden with explosives, bombs, torpedoes and full fuel tanks – into Allied ships. The aircraft's normal functions, to deliver torpedoes or bombs or shoot down other aircraft, were put aside, and the planes were converted to what were essentially manned missiles, in a desperate attempt to reap the benefits of greatly increased accuracy and payload over that of normal bombs. The goal of crippling as many Allied capital ships as possible was considered critical enough to warrant the sacrifice of aviators and aircraft.
The Kamikaze attack tactic was first suggested by vice-Admiral Onishi of the Japanese Navy, when he was assigned to command the air attacks against the huge American invasion fleet off the Philippines. He realized that he had less than 100 operational aircraft for this task. Since there was no way to sink or even severely damage the American fleet in any conventional tactic, the Admiral sought to find a way to get a significantly greater striking power from a given force.
The solution was obvious. Guided weapons provide dramatically greater accuracy and lethality than unguided weapons. Such weapons already existed and were operational for over a year then, but not in Japan. Therefore Admiral Onishi suggested that volunteer pilots guide their bomb-carrying aircraft all the way to an explosive suicide collision with their American warship targets, acting as a living guidance system, literally becoming "smart bombs".
The new tactic was adopted immediately. Large numbers of pilots initially qualified and experienced pilots and later air cadets with minimal training who were asked to volunteer, were assigned to "Special Attack" air wings, the official name of the Kamikaze units. Their goal and motto was "One man - one ship".
A total of about 5000 Kamikaze pilots were launched, mostly in the Battle of Okinawa, consuming much of the remaining human and material resources of Japanese air power. The result of their effort was 36 sunk American ships and landing craft, and 368 damaged. The ferocity of watching wave after wave of Kamikaze pilots hurtling down through a dense hail of anti-aircraft fire, and the enormous fiery explosions which followed, terrorized the Americans, but the Kamikaze campaign failed to achieve its strategic goal of stopping the American advance, and American air attacks were launched against the Kamikaze air bases in southern Japan in order to reduce their numbers. Japan lost its last battle despite the enormous sacrifice of its fanatic warriors, and lost the war.
World War II: Japanese chemical warfare
One of weapons of war the Japanese used in World War II is the use of chemical warfare. The example of the Changde chemical weapon attack had the use of chemical and biological weapons by Japan during the Battle of Changde in the Chinese Province of Hunan in April and May, 1943. In the intense fighting around Changde, Japanese forces could not push through the heavy Chinese resistance, and decided to launch poison gas artillery shells into the city, which possibly contained mustard gas or lewisite. This action was undertaken by Unit 516 of the Japanese Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War. This and other units used assorted types of chemicals in liquid or gaseous form, including mustard gas, lewisite, cyanic acid gas and phosgene in experimental and some operational uses during hostile actions against China. This was effective in spreading fear, terror and death to devastating effect against both humans and livestock.
Furthermore, the Imperial Japanese Army had tested cyanide gas on Australian and Dutch East Indies prisoners of war in 1944 in Indonesia's Kai Islands. A document found in the Australian national archives in Canberra details Japan's experiments on an Australian POW. The Japanese army's Unit 731 is widely known for experimenting on Chinese in north-eastern China with germs and chemical weapons during World War II. According to the document, a lieutenant in charge of poison gas at the No. 5 Division of the army threw bottles of cyanide gas on an Australian air force captain and a sergeant of the Dutch East Indies air force. The gas was designed for antitank warfare. The division's lieutenant colonel had ordered the lieutenant to test the effectiveness of the gas. After the POWs collapsed, Japanese military police stabbed them to death with bayonets. The lieutenant and the lieutenant colonel were sentenced to death by hanging by the military tribunal, according to the document.
The Japanese army had secretly engaged in chemical warfare -- banned under international law -- in China since shortly after the war there started in 1937. In July 1944, the General Staff Office of the Japanese army, responding to a warning from U.S. authorities for a reprisal, issued an order for banning the use of poison gas by the army. But the disclosed records show that such orders were not heeded among officers on the battle fronts facing the prospect of imminent enemy offensives.
Furthermore, the Imperial Japanese Army had tested cyanide gas on Australian and Dutch East Indies prisoners of war in 1944 in Indonesia's Kai Islands. A document found in the Australian national archives in Canberra details Japan's experiments on an Australian POW. The Japanese army's Unit 731 is widely known for experimenting on Chinese in north-eastern China with germs and chemical weapons during World War II. According to the document, a lieutenant in charge of poison gas at the No. 5 Division of the army threw bottles of cyanide gas on an Australian air force captain and a sergeant of the Dutch East Indies air force. The gas was designed for antitank warfare. The division's lieutenant colonel had ordered the lieutenant to test the effectiveness of the gas. After the POWs collapsed, Japanese military police stabbed them to death with bayonets. The lieutenant and the lieutenant colonel were sentenced to death by hanging by the military tribunal, according to the document.
The Japanese army had secretly engaged in chemical warfare -- banned under international law -- in China since shortly after the war there started in 1937. In July 1944, the General Staff Office of the Japanese army, responding to a warning from U.S. authorities for a reprisal, issued an order for banning the use of poison gas by the army. But the disclosed records show that such orders were not heeded among officers on the battle fronts facing the prospect of imminent enemy offensives.
Weapons of War: Child Soldiers
Although this problem is most critical in Africa, where children as young as nine have been involved in armed conflicts, children are also used as soldiers in various Asian countries and in parts of Latin America, Europe and the Middle East. The majority of the world's child soldiers are involved in a variety of armed political groups. These include government-backed paramilitary groups, militias and self-defence units operating in many conflict zones. Others include armed groups opposed to central government rule, groups composed of ethnic religious and other minorities and clan-based or factional groups fighting governments and each other to defend territory and resources. Most child soldiers are aged between 14 and 18.
While many enlist “voluntarily", research shows that such adolescents see few alternatives to involvement in armed conflict. Some enlist as a means of survival in war-torn regions after family, social and economic structures collapse or after seeing family members tortured or killed by government forces or armed groups. Others join up because of poverty and lack of work or educational opportunities. Many girls have reported enlisting to escape domestic servitude, violence and sexual abuse. Forcible abductions, sometimes of large numbers of children, continue to occur in some countries. Children as young as nine have been abducted and used in combat.
Demobilization, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) programs specifically aimed at child soldiers have been established in many countries, both during and after armed conflict and have assisted former child soldiers to acquire new skills and return to their communities. However, the programs lack funds and adequate resources. Sustained long-term investment is needed if they are to be effective. Despite growing recognition of girls' involvement in armed conflict, girls are often deliberately or inadvertently excluded from DDR programs. Girl soldiers are frequently subjected to rape and other forms of sexual violence as well as being involved in combat and other roles. In some cases they are stigmatized by their home communities when they return. DDR programs should be sensitively constructed and designed to respond to the needs of girl soldiers.
While many enlist “voluntarily", research shows that such adolescents see few alternatives to involvement in armed conflict. Some enlist as a means of survival in war-torn regions after family, social and economic structures collapse or after seeing family members tortured or killed by government forces or armed groups. Others join up because of poverty and lack of work or educational opportunities. Many girls have reported enlisting to escape domestic servitude, violence and sexual abuse. Forcible abductions, sometimes of large numbers of children, continue to occur in some countries. Children as young as nine have been abducted and used in combat.
Demobilization, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) programs specifically aimed at child soldiers have been established in many countries, both during and after armed conflict and have assisted former child soldiers to acquire new skills and return to their communities. However, the programs lack funds and adequate resources. Sustained long-term investment is needed if they are to be effective. Despite growing recognition of girls' involvement in armed conflict, girls are often deliberately or inadvertently excluded from DDR programs. Girl soldiers are frequently subjected to rape and other forms of sexual violence as well as being involved in combat and other roles. In some cases they are stigmatized by their home communities when they return. DDR programs should be sensitively constructed and designed to respond to the needs of girl soldiers.
EU takes over Bosnian peacekeeping role from Nato
The European Union has taken over control of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina today (December 2), the largest mission the Union has ever embarked upon.
A ceremony in Sarajevo marked the historic conclusion of the Nato-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR) mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the launch of the European Union’s follow-on, EUFOR.
SFOR has been brought to a successful end almost exactly nine years since Nato deployed forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995, in what was the Alliance’s first peacekeeping operation.
The decision reflects the improved security situation in the country.
“Today is truly a day for celebration – for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and also for the wider international community,” said Nato Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer at the handover ceremony.
He said the progress the country had made was unimaginable in the early 1990s. People no longer lived in fear, state institutions had been established and there was respect for human rights.
The successful end of SFOR does not spell the end of Nato’s engagement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, however. While the European Union assumes responsibility for peacekeeping operations, Nato will maintain a headquarters in Sarajevo to assist the country with defence reform.
It will also carry out some operational tasks, in co-ordination with the European Union, including counter-terrorism and assistance in apprehending persons indicted for war crimes.
The handover was also proof of the “developing cooperation between Nato and the European Union,” Mr. De Hoop Scheffer said.
The 7,000-strong EUFOR mission will be led by Britain and supported by Nato under the so-called ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements, which provide a framework for Nato-EU cooperation.
In reality the handover will mean little change on the ground, as some 80% of the troops currently serving under Nato's banner will simply swap their badges for those of EUFOR.
The ceremony, held at SFOR Headquarters, saw the mission’s flag replaced by the flag of EUFOR and the formal establishment of Nato’s new headquarters in Sarajevo.
A ceremony in Sarajevo marked the historic conclusion of the Nato-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR) mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the launch of the European Union’s follow-on, EUFOR.
SFOR has been brought to a successful end almost exactly nine years since Nato deployed forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995, in what was the Alliance’s first peacekeeping operation.
The decision reflects the improved security situation in the country.
“Today is truly a day for celebration – for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and also for the wider international community,” said Nato Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer at the handover ceremony.
He said the progress the country had made was unimaginable in the early 1990s. People no longer lived in fear, state institutions had been established and there was respect for human rights.
The successful end of SFOR does not spell the end of Nato’s engagement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, however. While the European Union assumes responsibility for peacekeeping operations, Nato will maintain a headquarters in Sarajevo to assist the country with defence reform.
It will also carry out some operational tasks, in co-ordination with the European Union, including counter-terrorism and assistance in apprehending persons indicted for war crimes.
The handover was also proof of the “developing cooperation between Nato and the European Union,” Mr. De Hoop Scheffer said.
The 7,000-strong EUFOR mission will be led by Britain and supported by Nato under the so-called ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements, which provide a framework for Nato-EU cooperation.
In reality the handover will mean little change on the ground, as some 80% of the troops currently serving under Nato's banner will simply swap their badges for those of EUFOR.
The ceremony, held at SFOR Headquarters, saw the mission’s flag replaced by the flag of EUFOR and the formal establishment of Nato’s new headquarters in Sarajevo.
EU begins its first peacekeeping role
The European Union takes a small but significant step on to the world security stage today when it begins its maiden peacekeeping operation in the Balkans.
Sending a police mission to Bosnia to take over from the existing UN force is its first action under the the slowly evolving common policy for security and defence: areas zealously guarded by nation states.
It may also herald a more intense EU military involvement in Europe's turbulent "near abroad".
The 500 officers, commanded by a Danish police commissioner, will add blue berets and EU armbands to their national uniforms. Their task will be to train and monitor professional multi-ethnic local police forces in Bosnia, which is still struggling to rebuild its society after its 42-month war.
Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy and security chief, said the deployment was "a strong symbol of the collective will of Europeans to act jointly in this key task of consolidating stability and security in our continent".
Officials in Brussels say the importance of the mission lies in the way its work is integrated into a wider approach to the Balkans, the one part of the world where the EU has developed an effective common foreign policy.
Organised crime has been identified as the single biggest threat to progress in the region, involving shadowy alliances between drug smugglers, corrupt politicians and extreme nationalist groups.
Under the stability pact for south-east Europe created after the Kosovan war in 1999, Balkan countries have been encouraged to reform with a view to forging a closer relationship with the EU.
Slovenia, the wealthiest of the former Yugoslav republics, is joining the union in 2004. Bulgaria and Romania are expected to join in 2007. Croatia said last week that it wanted to make a formal application to join.
The police mission could lead to far greater European military and security activity in the region. An agreement with Nato last month allows it to send peacekeeping troops to Macedonia, probably next spring.
Even more ambitiously, it has suggested that it might take over from Nato the command of the 12,000 peacekeepers in Bosnia.
Planners in Brussels are desperate to find missions for the EU's fledgling rapid reaction force, a unit of 60,000 soldiers designed for peacekeeping and humanitarian duties where Nato is not involved.
Sending a police mission to Bosnia to take over from the existing UN force is its first action under the the slowly evolving common policy for security and defence: areas zealously guarded by nation states.
It may also herald a more intense EU military involvement in Europe's turbulent "near abroad".
The 500 officers, commanded by a Danish police commissioner, will add blue berets and EU armbands to their national uniforms. Their task will be to train and monitor professional multi-ethnic local police forces in Bosnia, which is still struggling to rebuild its society after its 42-month war.
Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy and security chief, said the deployment was "a strong symbol of the collective will of Europeans to act jointly in this key task of consolidating stability and security in our continent".
Officials in Brussels say the importance of the mission lies in the way its work is integrated into a wider approach to the Balkans, the one part of the world where the EU has developed an effective common foreign policy.
Organised crime has been identified as the single biggest threat to progress in the region, involving shadowy alliances between drug smugglers, corrupt politicians and extreme nationalist groups.
Under the stability pact for south-east Europe created after the Kosovan war in 1999, Balkan countries have been encouraged to reform with a view to forging a closer relationship with the EU.
Slovenia, the wealthiest of the former Yugoslav republics, is joining the union in 2004. Bulgaria and Romania are expected to join in 2007. Croatia said last week that it wanted to make a formal application to join.
The police mission could lead to far greater European military and security activity in the region. An agreement with Nato last month allows it to send peacekeeping troops to Macedonia, probably next spring.
Even more ambitiously, it has suggested that it might take over from Nato the command of the 12,000 peacekeepers in Bosnia.
Planners in Brussels are desperate to find missions for the EU's fledgling rapid reaction force, a unit of 60,000 soldiers designed for peacekeeping and humanitarian duties where Nato is not involved.
"Appeasement" in North Korea
North Korea has again played its nuclear card, after weeks of conciliatory gestures amid international sanctions against the North. North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency reported on September 4th that the North’s ambassador to the United Nations Sin Son-ho sent a letter describing the North’s nuclear activities to the chairman of the U.N. Security Council on September 3rd. According to the report, Pyongyang has reached the final stage of uranium enrichment and extracted plutonium is being weaponized. The North also threatened to further strengthen its nuclear deterrent if international sanctions continue. Dr. Jeon Seong-hun from the Korea Institute for National Unification speculates that North Korea is spurring efforts to secure a new source of nuclear fuel.
North Korea had previously vehemently denied the existence of a uranium enrichment program. But through the recent letter sent to the U.N. Security Council, the North officially revealed it was operating such a program. Uranium enrichment does not require large-scale facilities, like the Yongbyon Complex. I suspect North Korea has completed experimental uranium enrichment and entered a phase in which the nation can start developing nuclear weapons. Currently, the nuclear weapons North Korea possesses are made from plutonium. If the North succeeds in nuclear development through uranium enrichment, it will be able to secure nuclear warheads in another form. This will give more room for the communist country to strengthen its nuclear capability.
The letter written by the top North Korean envoy at the United Nations says that Pyongyang does not feel any need to respond to the request made by the U.N. Security Council’s sanctions committee. Experts interpret this as a response to a “request for a clarification” from the sanctions committee, with regard to the seizure of a North Korean ship by the United Arab Emirates in August. North Korea’s Foreign Ministry announced the nation’s nuclear arms plan in June, but the experts note that the recent letter implies more progress in the nation’s nuclear development. They are also wondering why the North suddenly took out its nuclear card again, after weeks of appeasement efforts. Here again is Dr. Jeon.
Looking back North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, the North had always been focused on nuclear armament, while making conciliatory gestures to the United States or South Korea. So, Pyongyang’s secret nuclear development isn’t surprising. But it’s still disturbing that North Korea has unexpectedly revealed its intention to resume provocative action by officially disclosing its uranium enrichment program, even while making a peace offensive toward the U.S. and South Korea. At present, Pyongyang is subject to U.N. sanctions, which delay dialogue between North Korea and the U.S. against the North’s will. Therefore, the North seems to be attempting to pressure the U.S. by using what it believes is another negotiation card.
In another notable part of the letter, North Korea declares completion of uranium enrichment and plutonium weaponization, while also expressing a will to engage in dialogue. The North stresses that it is opposed to the structure of six-party nuclear talks that have been exploited to violate North Korea’s sovereignty but that the nation has never denied denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the rest of the world. The North also says it is prepared for both dialogue and sanctions, indicating it will employ the two-pronged tactic of appeasement and threat. Regarding the North’s attitude, some speculate that the regime, which had declared a permanent boycott of the six-party talks, has now taken a step back from its previous position. But Dr. Jeon predicts it won’t be easy for North Korea to actually return to the multilateral negotiations.
When referring to denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, North Korea is trying to change the security landscape in the region to its own advantage through nuclear arms reductions talks with the United States. Therefore, even if negotiations between the North and the U.S. begin, South Korea must carefully watch how the negotiations may evolve. North Korea wasn’t very enthusiastic about the six-party talks from the beginning. Pyongyang’s No.2 man Kim Yong-nam even declared a permanent end to the six-way talks. So, I don’t think the North is willing to return to the negotiations anytime soon. But North Korea is also well aware that both China and the United States remain firm in their positions about the six-party talks. Therefore, the basic frame of the six-party talks could be maintained, while actual negotiations are held between the North and the U.S. This variant form of the six-party talks, if possible, will be another option.
Meanwhile, U.S. special envoy for North Korea policy Stephen Bosworth, who recently wrapped up an Asian tour, says there’s no fundamental change in the North’s tactic. He also stresses that the U.S. will face North Korea within the framework of six-way talks or to facilitate the negotiations, although Pyongyang doggedly insists on bilateral dialogue with the U.S. A high-ranking official in South Korea says Seoul and Washington have shared the view on employing both dialogue and sanctions when dealing with Pyongyang. Experts predict that sanctions against the North will continue for the time being, and a cooling-off period will be needed before effectuating dialogue with North Korea.
As a matter of fact, the Obama administration hopes to initiate dialogue with North Korea, but it’s hard to do so right now because of North Korea’s series of aggressive measures. I imagine the current deadlock will continue until the year’s end, at least. We inevitably co-exist with nuclear-armed North Korea, whether we want it or not. At this point in time, it’s necessary to devise a broad strategy aimed at convincing North Korea that the possession of nuclear weapons won’t serve its own interests and inducing the country to give up its nuclear programs.
North Korea is using the “two-track” tactic, in which it plays the “pressure” card when it comes to the nuclear issue and the “appeasement” card in other matters. The international community is wondering how the North’s multi-dimensional move will affect the nuclear standoff. In collaboration with the international community, South Korea should seek a way to solve the nuclear issue through dialogue, not by further aggravating regional conflict.
North Korea had previously vehemently denied the existence of a uranium enrichment program. But through the recent letter sent to the U.N. Security Council, the North officially revealed it was operating such a program. Uranium enrichment does not require large-scale facilities, like the Yongbyon Complex. I suspect North Korea has completed experimental uranium enrichment and entered a phase in which the nation can start developing nuclear weapons. Currently, the nuclear weapons North Korea possesses are made from plutonium. If the North succeeds in nuclear development through uranium enrichment, it will be able to secure nuclear warheads in another form. This will give more room for the communist country to strengthen its nuclear capability.
The letter written by the top North Korean envoy at the United Nations says that Pyongyang does not feel any need to respond to the request made by the U.N. Security Council’s sanctions committee. Experts interpret this as a response to a “request for a clarification” from the sanctions committee, with regard to the seizure of a North Korean ship by the United Arab Emirates in August. North Korea’s Foreign Ministry announced the nation’s nuclear arms plan in June, but the experts note that the recent letter implies more progress in the nation’s nuclear development. They are also wondering why the North suddenly took out its nuclear card again, after weeks of appeasement efforts. Here again is Dr. Jeon.
Looking back North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, the North had always been focused on nuclear armament, while making conciliatory gestures to the United States or South Korea. So, Pyongyang’s secret nuclear development isn’t surprising. But it’s still disturbing that North Korea has unexpectedly revealed its intention to resume provocative action by officially disclosing its uranium enrichment program, even while making a peace offensive toward the U.S. and South Korea. At present, Pyongyang is subject to U.N. sanctions, which delay dialogue between North Korea and the U.S. against the North’s will. Therefore, the North seems to be attempting to pressure the U.S. by using what it believes is another negotiation card.
In another notable part of the letter, North Korea declares completion of uranium enrichment and plutonium weaponization, while also expressing a will to engage in dialogue. The North stresses that it is opposed to the structure of six-party nuclear talks that have been exploited to violate North Korea’s sovereignty but that the nation has never denied denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the rest of the world. The North also says it is prepared for both dialogue and sanctions, indicating it will employ the two-pronged tactic of appeasement and threat. Regarding the North’s attitude, some speculate that the regime, which had declared a permanent boycott of the six-party talks, has now taken a step back from its previous position. But Dr. Jeon predicts it won’t be easy for North Korea to actually return to the multilateral negotiations.
When referring to denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, North Korea is trying to change the security landscape in the region to its own advantage through nuclear arms reductions talks with the United States. Therefore, even if negotiations between the North and the U.S. begin, South Korea must carefully watch how the negotiations may evolve. North Korea wasn’t very enthusiastic about the six-party talks from the beginning. Pyongyang’s No.2 man Kim Yong-nam even declared a permanent end to the six-way talks. So, I don’t think the North is willing to return to the negotiations anytime soon. But North Korea is also well aware that both China and the United States remain firm in their positions about the six-party talks. Therefore, the basic frame of the six-party talks could be maintained, while actual negotiations are held between the North and the U.S. This variant form of the six-party talks, if possible, will be another option.
Meanwhile, U.S. special envoy for North Korea policy Stephen Bosworth, who recently wrapped up an Asian tour, says there’s no fundamental change in the North’s tactic. He also stresses that the U.S. will face North Korea within the framework of six-way talks or to facilitate the negotiations, although Pyongyang doggedly insists on bilateral dialogue with the U.S. A high-ranking official in South Korea says Seoul and Washington have shared the view on employing both dialogue and sanctions when dealing with Pyongyang. Experts predict that sanctions against the North will continue for the time being, and a cooling-off period will be needed before effectuating dialogue with North Korea.
As a matter of fact, the Obama administration hopes to initiate dialogue with North Korea, but it’s hard to do so right now because of North Korea’s series of aggressive measures. I imagine the current deadlock will continue until the year’s end, at least. We inevitably co-exist with nuclear-armed North Korea, whether we want it or not. At this point in time, it’s necessary to devise a broad strategy aimed at convincing North Korea that the possession of nuclear weapons won’t serve its own interests and inducing the country to give up its nuclear programs.
North Korea is using the “two-track” tactic, in which it plays the “pressure” card when it comes to the nuclear issue and the “appeasement” card in other matters. The international community is wondering how the North’s multi-dimensional move will affect the nuclear standoff. In collaboration with the international community, South Korea should seek a way to solve the nuclear issue through dialogue, not by further aggravating regional conflict.
Appeasement efforts will only strengthen terrorism
Does the United States have the power to eliminate terrorists and the states that support them? In terms of capacity, as opposed to will, the answer is a clear yes.
Think about it. Currently, the United States has an arsenal of 18 Ohio class submarines. Just one submarine is loaded with 24 Trident nuclear missiles. Each Trident missile has eight nuclear warheads capable of being independently targeted. That means the United States alone has the capacity to wipe out Iran, Syria or any other state that supports terrorist groups or engages in terrorism — without risking the life of a single soldier.
Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we'll never use it. Today's Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.
Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears during World War II when we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan. The loss of lives through saturation bombing far exceeded those lost through the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After the battle of Midway, and the long string of Japanese defeats in the Pacific, including Guam, Okinawa and the Philippines, had today's Americans been around, they'd be willing to negotiate with Japan for peace, pointing to the additional loss of lives if we continued the war. More than likely they would have made the same argument in 1945, when German defeat was imminent. Of course, had there been a peace agreement with Japan and Germany, all it would have achieved would have been to give them time to recoup their losses and resume their aggression at a later time, possibly equipped with nuclear weapons.
We might also note that the occupation of Germany and Japan didn't pose the occupation problems we face in Iraq. The reason is we completely demoralized our enemies, leaving them with neither the will nor the means to resist.
Our adversaries in the Middle East have advantages that the axis powers didn't have — the western press and public opinion. We've seen widespread condemnation of alleged atrocities and prisoner mistreatment by the United States, but how much media condemnation have you seen of beheadings and other gross atrocities by Islamists?
Terrorists must be pleased by statements of some members of Congress, such as those by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who recently said, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah." Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is responsible for the 1983 bombing of Beirut barracks killing 241 U.S. service members.
I'm not suggesting that we rush to use our nuclear capacity to crush states that support terrorism. I'm sure there are other less drastic military options. What I am suggesting is that I know of no instances where appeasement, such as the current western modus operandi, has borne fruit.
What Europeans say about what should be done about terrorist states should fall on deaf ears. Their history of weakness and cowardice during the 1930s goes a long way toward accounting for the 60 million lives lost during World War II. During the mid- '30s, when Hitler started violating the arms limitations of the Versailles Treaty, France and Britain alone could have handily defeated him, but they pursued the appeasement route.
Anyone who thinks current western appeasement efforts will get Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and end its desire to eliminate Israel is dumber than dumb. Appeasement will strengthen Iran's hand, and it looks as if the West, including the United States, is willing to be complicit in that strengthening.
Think about it. Currently, the United States has an arsenal of 18 Ohio class submarines. Just one submarine is loaded with 24 Trident nuclear missiles. Each Trident missile has eight nuclear warheads capable of being independently targeted. That means the United States alone has the capacity to wipe out Iran, Syria or any other state that supports terrorist groups or engages in terrorism — without risking the life of a single soldier.
Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we'll never use it. Today's Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.
Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears during World War II when we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan. The loss of lives through saturation bombing far exceeded those lost through the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After the battle of Midway, and the long string of Japanese defeats in the Pacific, including Guam, Okinawa and the Philippines, had today's Americans been around, they'd be willing to negotiate with Japan for peace, pointing to the additional loss of lives if we continued the war. More than likely they would have made the same argument in 1945, when German defeat was imminent. Of course, had there been a peace agreement with Japan and Germany, all it would have achieved would have been to give them time to recoup their losses and resume their aggression at a later time, possibly equipped with nuclear weapons.
We might also note that the occupation of Germany and Japan didn't pose the occupation problems we face in Iraq. The reason is we completely demoralized our enemies, leaving them with neither the will nor the means to resist.
Our adversaries in the Middle East have advantages that the axis powers didn't have — the western press and public opinion. We've seen widespread condemnation of alleged atrocities and prisoner mistreatment by the United States, but how much media condemnation have you seen of beheadings and other gross atrocities by Islamists?
Terrorists must be pleased by statements of some members of Congress, such as those by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who recently said, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah." Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is responsible for the 1983 bombing of Beirut barracks killing 241 U.S. service members.
I'm not suggesting that we rush to use our nuclear capacity to crush states that support terrorism. I'm sure there are other less drastic military options. What I am suggesting is that I know of no instances where appeasement, such as the current western modus operandi, has borne fruit.
What Europeans say about what should be done about terrorist states should fall on deaf ears. Their history of weakness and cowardice during the 1930s goes a long way toward accounting for the 60 million lives lost during World War II. During the mid- '30s, when Hitler started violating the arms limitations of the Versailles Treaty, France and Britain alone could have handily defeated him, but they pursued the appeasement route.
Anyone who thinks current western appeasement efforts will get Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and end its desire to eliminate Israel is dumber than dumb. Appeasement will strengthen Iran's hand, and it looks as if the West, including the United States, is willing to be complicit in that strengthening.
NATO cooperation with Japan
NATO has its longest-standing Asian relationship with Japan. A strategic dialogue is ongoing since the early nineties: it involves high level discussions held alternatively in Japan or at NATO Headquarters in Brussels.
Both sides benefit from a regular, informal exchange of views. The more structured contacts were initiated at the first NATO-Japan exchange in 1990, on the Belgian coast. Biannual meetings have taken place since then. NATO’s Secretary General visited Tokyo in April 2005 and again in December 2007. The then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also adressed the North Atlantic Council in January 2007.
Political dialogue is gradually being complemented by practical cooperation. Japan’s support for peace and security-orientated operations in Afghanistan are valued by the Allies. The Japanese government has also committed several million Yen (over 3,800,000 million US dollars) in support of basic human needs projects in various regions of Afghanistan. The selection of projects is facilitated by NATO, with the identification of projects through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Japan recently appointed some liaison officers to a number of PRTs to support this programme. The country donated three million euros to the NATO Trust Fund Ammunition Stockpile.
In the 1990s, Japan also played a welcome role in stabilizing the Balkans, where NATO has led several peace-support operations since the mid-1990s. Japan’s contribution as a major donor nation has played an important part in the successful recovery of the Balkans region, as well as its reintegration into the European mainstream.
Practical cooperation focuses on various areas of common interest, including civil emergency planning, terrorism, non-proliferation and crisis management as well as participation in military activities. Since 2007, as is the case with other partners across the globe, NATO and Japan have established an annual work programme or Individual Tailored Cooperation Package (TCP) of activities which provides the basis for practical cooperation.
Both sides benefit from a regular, informal exchange of views. The more structured contacts were initiated at the first NATO-Japan exchange in 1990, on the Belgian coast. Biannual meetings have taken place since then. NATO’s Secretary General visited Tokyo in April 2005 and again in December 2007. The then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also adressed the North Atlantic Council in January 2007.
Political dialogue is gradually being complemented by practical cooperation. Japan’s support for peace and security-orientated operations in Afghanistan are valued by the Allies. The Japanese government has also committed several million Yen (over 3,800,000 million US dollars) in support of basic human needs projects in various regions of Afghanistan. The selection of projects is facilitated by NATO, with the identification of projects through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Japan recently appointed some liaison officers to a number of PRTs to support this programme. The country donated three million euros to the NATO Trust Fund Ammunition Stockpile.
In the 1990s, Japan also played a welcome role in stabilizing the Balkans, where NATO has led several peace-support operations since the mid-1990s. Japan’s contribution as a major donor nation has played an important part in the successful recovery of the Balkans region, as well as its reintegration into the European mainstream.
Practical cooperation focuses on various areas of common interest, including civil emergency planning, terrorism, non-proliferation and crisis management as well as participation in military activities. Since 2007, as is the case with other partners across the globe, NATO and Japan have established an annual work programme or Individual Tailored Cooperation Package (TCP) of activities which provides the basis for practical cooperation.
The Philippine-American Weapons of War
Background information
The Philippine-American War was a war between the armed forces of the United States and the Philippines from 1899 through 1913.
This conflict is also known as the Philippine Insurrection. This name was historically the most commonly used in the U.S., but Filipinos and an increasing number of American historians refer to these hostilities as the Philippine-American War, and in 1999 the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its references to use this term.
Origins of the War
In December 1898, the U.S. purchased the Philippines from Spain at the Treaty of Paris for the sum of 20 million United States dollars, after the U.S. defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. The U.S. government made plans to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for their independence from Spain since 1896, had already declared their independence on June 12. On August 14, 11,000 ground troops were sent to occupy the Philippines. On January 1, 1899, Emilio Aguinaldo was declared the first President. He later organized a Congress at Malolos, Bulacan to draft a constitution.
The start of the War
Tensions between the Filipinos and the American soldiers on the islands existed because of the conflicting movements for independence and colonization, aggravated by the feelings of betrayal on the part of the Filipinos by their former allies, the Americans. Hostilities started on February 4, 1899 when an American soldier shot a Filipino soldier who was crossing a bridge into American-occupied territory in San Juan del Monte, an incident historians now consider to be the start of the war. U.S. President William McKinley later told reporters "that the insurgents had attacked Manila" in justifying war on the Philippines.
Note: Recent evidence from the National Historial institute of the Philippines say that the Filipino soldier shot by the (said drunk) American soldiers is not in San Juan del Monte, but in present-day Sociego Street in Manila. The National Historical Institute put a marker there.
The administration of US President McKinley subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an "outlaw bandit", and no formal declaration of war was ever issued. Two reasons have been given for this. One is that calling the war the Philippine Insurrection made it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government, although the only part of the Philippines under American control was Manila. The other was to enable the American government to avoid liability to claims by veterans of the action.
American Escalation
A large American military force (126,000 soldiers) was needed to occupy the country, and would be regularly engaged in war against Filipino forces for another decade. Also, Macabebe Filipinos were recruited by the United States Army.
By the end of February, the Americans had prevailed in the struggle for Manila, and the Philippine Army of Liberation was forced to retreat north. Hard-fought American victories followed at Quingua (April), Zapote Bridge (June), and Tirad Pass (December). With the June assassination of General Antonio Luna and the death of Brigadier General Gregorio del Pilar at Tirad Pass, the Filipinos' ability to fight a conventional war was rapidly diminishing. As of 1900, therefore, Aguinaldo ordered his army to engage in guerilla warfare, a means of operation which better suited them and made American occupation of the archipelago all the more difficult over the next few years. Subsequent American defeats at Pulang Lupa, Mabitac and Balangiga were not, however, sufficient to turn the tide of the struggle.
In March 1901, Aguinaldo was captured by the Macabebe Scouts, under the command of Brigadier General Frederick Funston in Palanan, Isabela. On July 4, 1902 President Theodore Roosevelt declared the war was over. The Americans gradually succeeded in taking control of urban and coastal areas by the end of 1903. In 1907, Macario Sacay, one of the last remaining Filipino generals fighting against the Americans, was captured and hanged.
While some measures to allow partial self-government were implemented earlier, the guerrilla war did not subside until 1913 when US President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a change in policy that would, after a transitional period, grant the Philippines full independence. In the south, Muslim Filipinos resisted until 1916—the so-called Moro rebellion. The fierceness of the resistance forced the American development and deployment of the Colt .45 pistol, which had a large enough caliber round to knock back a charging enemy.
Consequences
During the war, 4,234 American soldiers were killed and 2,818 were wounded. Philippine military deaths are estimated at 20,000 while civilian deaths numbered in 250,000 to 1,000,000 Filipinos. In 1908, Manuel Arellano Remondo, in a book entitled General Geography of the Philippine Islands, wrote: "The population decreased due to the wars, in the five-year period from 1895 to 1900, since, at the start of the first insurrection, the population was estimated at 9,000,000, and at present (1908), the inhabitants of the Archipelago do not exceed 8,000,000 in number."
U.S. attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture (water cure) and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones". Many of these civilian casualties resulted from disease and famine. Reports of the execution of U.S. soldiers taken prisoner by the Filipinos led to disproportionate reprisals by American forces. Many American officers and soldiers called war a "nigger killing business". During the U.S. occupation, English was declared the official language, although the languages of the Philippine people were Spanish, Visayan, Tagalog, Ilocano and other native languages. Six hundred American teachers were imported aboard the USS Thomas. Also, the Catholic Church was disestablished, and a considerable amount of church land was purchased and redistributed.
In 1914, Dean C. Worcester, U.S. Secretary of the Interior for the Philippines (1901-1913) described "the regime of civilization and improvement which started with American occupation and resulted in developing naked savages into cultivated and educated men."
In recognition of United States military service, during the Philippine-American War, the United States military created two service decorations which were known as the Philippine Campaign Medal and the Philippine Congressional Medal.
Summary
This article talks about different governing views from the Philippines and Americans. In 1898, the U.S. purchased the Philippines from Spain after the U.S. defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. The U.S. government made plans to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for their independence from Spain since 1896, had already declared their independence on June 12. On August 14, 11,000 ground troops were sent to occupy the Philippines. Tensions began to rise between the Philippines and Americans. One incident, the killing of a Pilipino soldier by an American soldier, eventually led to riot and the rise of War.
Evaluation
Such war is similar to the Maria-Hertogh riot which occurred in Singapore. An incident which happened on the road, resulted in tension between the two opposing parties, which resulted in a conflict. In this case, the problem lies in the hunger for power. The Americans wanted to conquer Philippine for their advantage, without considering the needs and wants of the Philippines. It is also disheartening to note that many innocent lives were lost.
The main reason why I think America wanted to do so was because she wanted to spread the idea of democracy to all regions, since she herself is a democratic country. By reigning over an Asian country like Philippine, she would then be able to slowly spread democracy to all parts of the world.
However, I think it is wrong for the Americans to reign over Philippine at the state when she is still struggling to gain independence. This gives a double blow to the Philippines.
All in all, Man is greedy. That’s a fact! However, we should not let that Greediness in us to go to the extent of affecting others. We must always know the consequences of our actions, before doing so. This War has taught us to be satisfied with what we have, and don’t be greedy for what you already has. If not, you will be suffering at the losing end.
The Philippine-American War was a war between the armed forces of the United States and the Philippines from 1899 through 1913.
This conflict is also known as the Philippine Insurrection. This name was historically the most commonly used in the U.S., but Filipinos and an increasing number of American historians refer to these hostilities as the Philippine-American War, and in 1999 the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its references to use this term.
Origins of the War
In December 1898, the U.S. purchased the Philippines from Spain at the Treaty of Paris for the sum of 20 million United States dollars, after the U.S. defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. The U.S. government made plans to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for their independence from Spain since 1896, had already declared their independence on June 12. On August 14, 11,000 ground troops were sent to occupy the Philippines. On January 1, 1899, Emilio Aguinaldo was declared the first President. He later organized a Congress at Malolos, Bulacan to draft a constitution.
The start of the War
Tensions between the Filipinos and the American soldiers on the islands existed because of the conflicting movements for independence and colonization, aggravated by the feelings of betrayal on the part of the Filipinos by their former allies, the Americans. Hostilities started on February 4, 1899 when an American soldier shot a Filipino soldier who was crossing a bridge into American-occupied territory in San Juan del Monte, an incident historians now consider to be the start of the war. U.S. President William McKinley later told reporters "that the insurgents had attacked Manila" in justifying war on the Philippines.
Note: Recent evidence from the National Historial institute of the Philippines say that the Filipino soldier shot by the (said drunk) American soldiers is not in San Juan del Monte, but in present-day Sociego Street in Manila. The National Historical Institute put a marker there.
The administration of US President McKinley subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an "outlaw bandit", and no formal declaration of war was ever issued. Two reasons have been given for this. One is that calling the war the Philippine Insurrection made it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government, although the only part of the Philippines under American control was Manila. The other was to enable the American government to avoid liability to claims by veterans of the action.
American Escalation
A large American military force (126,000 soldiers) was needed to occupy the country, and would be regularly engaged in war against Filipino forces for another decade. Also, Macabebe Filipinos were recruited by the United States Army.
By the end of February, the Americans had prevailed in the struggle for Manila, and the Philippine Army of Liberation was forced to retreat north. Hard-fought American victories followed at Quingua (April), Zapote Bridge (June), and Tirad Pass (December). With the June assassination of General Antonio Luna and the death of Brigadier General Gregorio del Pilar at Tirad Pass, the Filipinos' ability to fight a conventional war was rapidly diminishing. As of 1900, therefore, Aguinaldo ordered his army to engage in guerilla warfare, a means of operation which better suited them and made American occupation of the archipelago all the more difficult over the next few years. Subsequent American defeats at Pulang Lupa, Mabitac and Balangiga were not, however, sufficient to turn the tide of the struggle.
In March 1901, Aguinaldo was captured by the Macabebe Scouts, under the command of Brigadier General Frederick Funston in Palanan, Isabela. On July 4, 1902 President Theodore Roosevelt declared the war was over. The Americans gradually succeeded in taking control of urban and coastal areas by the end of 1903. In 1907, Macario Sacay, one of the last remaining Filipino generals fighting against the Americans, was captured and hanged.
While some measures to allow partial self-government were implemented earlier, the guerrilla war did not subside until 1913 when US President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a change in policy that would, after a transitional period, grant the Philippines full independence. In the south, Muslim Filipinos resisted until 1916—the so-called Moro rebellion. The fierceness of the resistance forced the American development and deployment of the Colt .45 pistol, which had a large enough caliber round to knock back a charging enemy.
Consequences
During the war, 4,234 American soldiers were killed and 2,818 were wounded. Philippine military deaths are estimated at 20,000 while civilian deaths numbered in 250,000 to 1,000,000 Filipinos. In 1908, Manuel Arellano Remondo, in a book entitled General Geography of the Philippine Islands, wrote: "The population decreased due to the wars, in the five-year period from 1895 to 1900, since, at the start of the first insurrection, the population was estimated at 9,000,000, and at present (1908), the inhabitants of the Archipelago do not exceed 8,000,000 in number."
U.S. attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture (water cure) and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones". Many of these civilian casualties resulted from disease and famine. Reports of the execution of U.S. soldiers taken prisoner by the Filipinos led to disproportionate reprisals by American forces. Many American officers and soldiers called war a "nigger killing business". During the U.S. occupation, English was declared the official language, although the languages of the Philippine people were Spanish, Visayan, Tagalog, Ilocano and other native languages. Six hundred American teachers were imported aboard the USS Thomas. Also, the Catholic Church was disestablished, and a considerable amount of church land was purchased and redistributed.
In 1914, Dean C. Worcester, U.S. Secretary of the Interior for the Philippines (1901-1913) described "the regime of civilization and improvement which started with American occupation and resulted in developing naked savages into cultivated and educated men."
In recognition of United States military service, during the Philippine-American War, the United States military created two service decorations which were known as the Philippine Campaign Medal and the Philippine Congressional Medal.
Summary
This article talks about different governing views from the Philippines and Americans. In 1898, the U.S. purchased the Philippines from Spain after the U.S. defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. The U.S. government made plans to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for their independence from Spain since 1896, had already declared their independence on June 12. On August 14, 11,000 ground troops were sent to occupy the Philippines. Tensions began to rise between the Philippines and Americans. One incident, the killing of a Pilipino soldier by an American soldier, eventually led to riot and the rise of War.
Evaluation
Such war is similar to the Maria-Hertogh riot which occurred in Singapore. An incident which happened on the road, resulted in tension between the two opposing parties, which resulted in a conflict. In this case, the problem lies in the hunger for power. The Americans wanted to conquer Philippine for their advantage, without considering the needs and wants of the Philippines. It is also disheartening to note that many innocent lives were lost.
The main reason why I think America wanted to do so was because she wanted to spread the idea of democracy to all regions, since she herself is a democratic country. By reigning over an Asian country like Philippine, she would then be able to slowly spread democracy to all parts of the world.
However, I think it is wrong for the Americans to reign over Philippine at the state when she is still struggling to gain independence. This gives a double blow to the Philippines.
All in all, Man is greedy. That’s a fact! However, we should not let that Greediness in us to go to the extent of affecting others. We must always know the consequences of our actions, before doing so. This War has taught us to be satisfied with what we have, and don’t be greedy for what you already has. If not, you will be suffering at the losing end.
The French-Thai War of Weapons
Background information
Negotiations with France shortly before World War II had shown that the French government was willing to make minor changes in the boundaries between Thailand and French Indochina. Following the Fall of France in 1940, Major-General Phibunsongkhram, the Prime Minister of Thailand, decided that France's defeat gave the Thais an even better chance to regain the territories they had lost during King Chulalongkorn's reign.
Metropolitan France's collapse obviously made the French hold on Indochina tenuous. The isolated colonial administration, cut off from outside help and supplies, was forced to allow the Japanese to set up military bases in Indochina. This seemingly subversivient behavior convinced the Phibun regime that the French would not seriously resist a confrontation with Thailand.
The Opposing Forces
French forces in Indochina consisted of an army of approximately fifty thousand men, of whom twelve thousand were French, organised into forty-one infantry battalions, two artillery regiments, and a battalion of engineers. The most obvious deficiency of the French army lay in its shortage of armour: it could only field twenty antiquated Renault FT-17s against the Thai army's 134.
The Armée de l'Air had in its inventory approximately a hundred aircraft, of which around sixty could be considered first line. These consisted of thirty Potez 25 TOEs, four Farman 221s, six Potez 542s, nine Morane M.S.406s, and eight Loire 130 flying boats.
The Thai Army was a relatively well-equipped force. Consisting of some sixty thousand men, it was made up of four armies, the largest of which was the Burapha Army with its five divisions. Independent formations under the direct control of the army high command included two motorised cavalry battalions, one artillery battalion, one signals battalion, one engineer battalion and one armoured regiment. The artillery had available a mixture of aged Krupp and modern Bofors howitzers and field guns, while sixty Carden-Loyd tankettes and thirty Vickers six-ton medium tanks made up the bulk of the army's tank arm.
The Royal Thai Navy - consisting of several vessels, including two coastal defence ships, twelve torpedo boats and four submarines - was inferior to the French naval forces, but the Royal Thai Air Force held both a quantitative and qualitative edge over l'Armee de l'Air. Among the 140 aircraft that composed the air force's first-line strength were twenty-four Mitsubishi Ki-30 light bombers, nine Mitsubishi Ki-21 heavy bombers, twenty-five Hawk 75Ns, six Martin B-10 bombers, and seventy Corsairs(Nappy adds Corsairs has been disputed here previously)
The War
While nationalistic demonstrations and anti-French rallies were held in Bangkok, border skirmishes erupted along the Mekong frontier. The superior Royal Thai Air Force conducted daytime bombing runs over Vientiane, Sisophon, and Battambang with impunity. The French retaliated with their own planes, but the damage caused was less than equal. The activities of the Thai air force, particularly in the field of dive-bombing was such that Admiral Jean Decoux, the governor of French Indochina, grudgingly remarked that the Thai planes seemed to have been flown by men with plenty of war experience.
In early January 1941, the Thai Burapha and Isaan Armies lauched their offensive on Laos and Cambodia. French resistance was instantaneous, but many units were simply swept along by the better-equipped Thai forces. The Thais swiftly took Laos, but Cambodia proved a much harder nut to crack.
At dawn on January 16, 1941 the French launched a large counterattack on the Thai-held villages of Yang Dang Khum and Phum Preav, initiating the fiercest battle of the war. Because of over-complicated orders and nonexistant intelligence, the French counterattacks were cut to pieces and fighting ended with a French withdrawal from the area. The Thais were unable to pursue the retreating French, as their forward tanks were kept in check by the gunnery of French Foreign Legion artillerists.
As the situation on land was exacerbating for the French, Admiral Decoux ordered the available French naval forces into action in the Gulf of Thailand. In the early morning of January 17, the French navy caught a Thai naval detachment anchored off the island of Koh Chang. The subsequent Battle of Koh Chang proved a victory for the French and resulted in the sinking of two Thai torpedo boats, and a coastal defence ship.
On January 24, the final air battle took place when Thai bombers raided the French airfield at Angkor near Siem Reap. The last Thai mission commenced at 0710 hours on January 28, when the Martins of the 50th Bomber Squadron set out on a raid on Sisophon, escorted by three Hawk 75Ns of the 60th Fighter Squadron.
The Japanese mediated the conflict, and a general armistice was arranged to go into effect at 1000 hours on January 28. On May 9 a peace treaty was signed in Tokyowith the French being coerced by the Japanese into relinquishing their hold on the disputed territories.
Aftermath
The resolution of the conflict was received with wide acclaim among the Thai people and was looked upon as a personal triumph for the Major-General Phibun. For the first time, Thailand had been able to extract concessions from an European power, albeit a weakened one. For the French in Indochina, the conflict was a bitter reminder of their isolation following France's defeat by Germany. In the French view, an ambitious neighbour had taken advantage of a distant colony cut off from her weakened parent. Without hope of reinforcements, the French had little chance of offering a sustained resistance. The real gainers from the conflict were the Japanese, who expanded their influence in both Thailand and Indochina and won from Phibun a secret verbal promise to support them in an attack on Malaya and Burma.
Western Cambodia and the two Lao enclaves were only returned to French sovereignty in October 1946, after France threatened to veto Siam's membership of the United Nations.
Casualties
The French army suffered a total of 321 casualties, of whom 15 were officers. The total number of men missing after January 28 was 178 (6 officers, 14 non-commissioned officers, and 158 enlisted men). The Thais had captured 222 men (17 North Africans, 80 Frenchmen, and 125 Indochinese
The Thai army suffered a total of 54 men killed in action and 307 wounded. 41 sailors and marines of the Thai navy were killed, and 67 wounded. At the Battle of Koh Chang, 36 men were killed, of whom 20 belonged to HTMS Thonburi, 14 to HTMS Songkhla, and 2 to HTMS Chonburi. The Thai air force lost 13 men. The number of Thai military personnel captured by the French amounted to just 21.
About 30% of the French aircraft were rendered unserviceable by the end of the war, some as a result of minor damage sustained in air raids that remained unrepaired. The Armée de l'Air admitted the loss of one Farman F221 and two Morane M.S.406s destroyed on the ground, but in reality its losses were greater
In the course of its first experience of combat, the Royal Thai Air Force claimed to have shot down five French aircraft and destroyed seventeen on the ground, for the loss of three of its own in the air and another five to ten destroyed in French air raids on Thai airfields
Summary
This article talks about the disagreements between the French and the Thais, over the claiming of territories. Following the Fall of France in 1940, Major-General Phibunsongkhram, the Prime Minister of Thailand, decided that France's defeat gave the Thais an even better chance to regain the territories they had lost during King Chulalongkorn's reign. The opposing views eventually led to a battle of war that lasted for a period of time. The war involved equipments such as tanks, Potez 25 TOEs, Farman 221s,Potez 542s, Morane M.S.406s, Loire 130 flying boats, tank arms and field guns.
Evaluation
The problem of claiming territory has existed since Man existed. Man has been competing for food and for shelter (territory). However in this case, I think the underlying problem here is the Greed of Mankind. If the French had not stolen the territory from Thailand, this problem would not have occurred. War would not have occurred. The many lives that were lost could have been saved. France already has its own land, territory to say, but because she wants to gain for more power, all of which because of Greed, it all ended up in such devastation.
However, the Thais are also at fault. Knowing that France’s defeat already had a big impact on France, by claiming their territory from France, it is only adding injury to insult for France. France faced problem after problem, that could have forced her into a battle. What I would do if I were the Thai government then would have been to wait for period of time for the French to calm herself down from the defeat. Only then, approach them for the territory. Even so, to achieve a win-win situation, the Thais could have asked for only half of the territory, while the other half was for the French. This could have prevented a war from taking place.
All in all, Man is greedy. That’s a fact! However, we should not let that Greediness in us to go to the extent of affecting others. We must always know the consequences of our actions, before doing so. This War has taught us to be satisfied with what we have, and don’t be greedy for what you already has. If not, you will be suffering at the losing end.
Negotiations with France shortly before World War II had shown that the French government was willing to make minor changes in the boundaries between Thailand and French Indochina. Following the Fall of France in 1940, Major-General Phibunsongkhram, the Prime Minister of Thailand, decided that France's defeat gave the Thais an even better chance to regain the territories they had lost during King Chulalongkorn's reign.
Metropolitan France's collapse obviously made the French hold on Indochina tenuous. The isolated colonial administration, cut off from outside help and supplies, was forced to allow the Japanese to set up military bases in Indochina. This seemingly subversivient behavior convinced the Phibun regime that the French would not seriously resist a confrontation with Thailand.
The Opposing Forces
French forces in Indochina consisted of an army of approximately fifty thousand men, of whom twelve thousand were French, organised into forty-one infantry battalions, two artillery regiments, and a battalion of engineers. The most obvious deficiency of the French army lay in its shortage of armour: it could only field twenty antiquated Renault FT-17s against the Thai army's 134.
The Armée de l'Air had in its inventory approximately a hundred aircraft, of which around sixty could be considered first line. These consisted of thirty Potez 25 TOEs, four Farman 221s, six Potez 542s, nine Morane M.S.406s, and eight Loire 130 flying boats.
The Thai Army was a relatively well-equipped force. Consisting of some sixty thousand men, it was made up of four armies, the largest of which was the Burapha Army with its five divisions. Independent formations under the direct control of the army high command included two motorised cavalry battalions, one artillery battalion, one signals battalion, one engineer battalion and one armoured regiment. The artillery had available a mixture of aged Krupp and modern Bofors howitzers and field guns, while sixty Carden-Loyd tankettes and thirty Vickers six-ton medium tanks made up the bulk of the army's tank arm.
The Royal Thai Navy - consisting of several vessels, including two coastal defence ships, twelve torpedo boats and four submarines - was inferior to the French naval forces, but the Royal Thai Air Force held both a quantitative and qualitative edge over l'Armee de l'Air. Among the 140 aircraft that composed the air force's first-line strength were twenty-four Mitsubishi Ki-30 light bombers, nine Mitsubishi Ki-21 heavy bombers, twenty-five Hawk 75Ns, six Martin B-10 bombers, and seventy Corsairs(Nappy adds Corsairs has been disputed here previously)
The War
While nationalistic demonstrations and anti-French rallies were held in Bangkok, border skirmishes erupted along the Mekong frontier. The superior Royal Thai Air Force conducted daytime bombing runs over Vientiane, Sisophon, and Battambang with impunity. The French retaliated with their own planes, but the damage caused was less than equal. The activities of the Thai air force, particularly in the field of dive-bombing was such that Admiral Jean Decoux, the governor of French Indochina, grudgingly remarked that the Thai planes seemed to have been flown by men with plenty of war experience.
In early January 1941, the Thai Burapha and Isaan Armies lauched their offensive on Laos and Cambodia. French resistance was instantaneous, but many units were simply swept along by the better-equipped Thai forces. The Thais swiftly took Laos, but Cambodia proved a much harder nut to crack.
At dawn on January 16, 1941 the French launched a large counterattack on the Thai-held villages of Yang Dang Khum and Phum Preav, initiating the fiercest battle of the war. Because of over-complicated orders and nonexistant intelligence, the French counterattacks were cut to pieces and fighting ended with a French withdrawal from the area. The Thais were unable to pursue the retreating French, as their forward tanks were kept in check by the gunnery of French Foreign Legion artillerists.
As the situation on land was exacerbating for the French, Admiral Decoux ordered the available French naval forces into action in the Gulf of Thailand. In the early morning of January 17, the French navy caught a Thai naval detachment anchored off the island of Koh Chang. The subsequent Battle of Koh Chang proved a victory for the French and resulted in the sinking of two Thai torpedo boats, and a coastal defence ship.
On January 24, the final air battle took place when Thai bombers raided the French airfield at Angkor near Siem Reap. The last Thai mission commenced at 0710 hours on January 28, when the Martins of the 50th Bomber Squadron set out on a raid on Sisophon, escorted by three Hawk 75Ns of the 60th Fighter Squadron.
The Japanese mediated the conflict, and a general armistice was arranged to go into effect at 1000 hours on January 28. On May 9 a peace treaty was signed in Tokyowith the French being coerced by the Japanese into relinquishing their hold on the disputed territories.
Aftermath
The resolution of the conflict was received with wide acclaim among the Thai people and was looked upon as a personal triumph for the Major-General Phibun. For the first time, Thailand had been able to extract concessions from an European power, albeit a weakened one. For the French in Indochina, the conflict was a bitter reminder of their isolation following France's defeat by Germany. In the French view, an ambitious neighbour had taken advantage of a distant colony cut off from her weakened parent. Without hope of reinforcements, the French had little chance of offering a sustained resistance. The real gainers from the conflict were the Japanese, who expanded their influence in both Thailand and Indochina and won from Phibun a secret verbal promise to support them in an attack on Malaya and Burma.
Western Cambodia and the two Lao enclaves were only returned to French sovereignty in October 1946, after France threatened to veto Siam's membership of the United Nations.
Casualties
The French army suffered a total of 321 casualties, of whom 15 were officers. The total number of men missing after January 28 was 178 (6 officers, 14 non-commissioned officers, and 158 enlisted men). The Thais had captured 222 men (17 North Africans, 80 Frenchmen, and 125 Indochinese
The Thai army suffered a total of 54 men killed in action and 307 wounded. 41 sailors and marines of the Thai navy were killed, and 67 wounded. At the Battle of Koh Chang, 36 men were killed, of whom 20 belonged to HTMS Thonburi, 14 to HTMS Songkhla, and 2 to HTMS Chonburi. The Thai air force lost 13 men. The number of Thai military personnel captured by the French amounted to just 21.
About 30% of the French aircraft were rendered unserviceable by the end of the war, some as a result of minor damage sustained in air raids that remained unrepaired. The Armée de l'Air admitted the loss of one Farman F221 and two Morane M.S.406s destroyed on the ground, but in reality its losses were greater
In the course of its first experience of combat, the Royal Thai Air Force claimed to have shot down five French aircraft and destroyed seventeen on the ground, for the loss of three of its own in the air and another five to ten destroyed in French air raids on Thai airfields
Summary
This article talks about the disagreements between the French and the Thais, over the claiming of territories. Following the Fall of France in 1940, Major-General Phibunsongkhram, the Prime Minister of Thailand, decided that France's defeat gave the Thais an even better chance to regain the territories they had lost during King Chulalongkorn's reign. The opposing views eventually led to a battle of war that lasted for a period of time. The war involved equipments such as tanks, Potez 25 TOEs, Farman 221s,Potez 542s, Morane M.S.406s, Loire 130 flying boats, tank arms and field guns.
Evaluation
The problem of claiming territory has existed since Man existed. Man has been competing for food and for shelter (territory). However in this case, I think the underlying problem here is the Greed of Mankind. If the French had not stolen the territory from Thailand, this problem would not have occurred. War would not have occurred. The many lives that were lost could have been saved. France already has its own land, territory to say, but because she wants to gain for more power, all of which because of Greed, it all ended up in such devastation.
However, the Thais are also at fault. Knowing that France’s defeat already had a big impact on France, by claiming their territory from France, it is only adding injury to insult for France. France faced problem after problem, that could have forced her into a battle. What I would do if I were the Thai government then would have been to wait for period of time for the French to calm herself down from the defeat. Only then, approach them for the territory. Even so, to achieve a win-win situation, the Thais could have asked for only half of the territory, while the other half was for the French. This could have prevented a war from taking place.
All in all, Man is greedy. That’s a fact! However, we should not let that Greediness in us to go to the extent of affecting others. We must always know the consequences of our actions, before doing so. This War has taught us to be satisfied with what we have, and don’t be greedy for what you already has. If not, you will be suffering at the losing end.
Sino-Indian War
Location of the War
China and India share a long border where there is a large number of disputed regions lie along this border. The Aksai Chin and the present Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh were overrun by China in the 1962 conflict.
Most combat took place at high altitudes. The Aksai Chin region was considered to be a strategic location for defense where one country can see the other from the mountainous areas. The high altitude and freezing conditions also causes logistical and welfare difficulties. More casualties have been caused by the harsh conditions than enemy action.
Causes and Events leading to the Sino-Indo War
The Sino-Indian War, also known as the Sino-Indian Border Conflict, was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. The cause of the war was a dispute over the sovereignty of the widely-separated Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh border regions where China and India claimed belonged to them. Thus, China's construction of this road was one of the triggers of the conflict. Tibet disagreements were also a major reason for the Sino-Indian conflict.
Events leading up to war
Many events triggered the Sino-Indian War in 1962. The three main reasons were mainly the Tibet controversy, the Indian Forward Policy and the failure to compromise.
Tibet controversy
The creation of the Republic of India in 1947, and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in China in 1949 had the Indian government were that of maintaining cordial relations with China. The Indian government wished to revive its ancient friendly ties with China and was amongst the first countries to give it diplomatic recognition after the PRC was declared.
After coming to power, the PRC announced that its army would be occupying Tibet. Thus, India sent a letter of protest to China proposing negotiations on the Tibet issue. The newly formed PRC was also more active in posting troops to the Aksai Chin border than the newly formed Indian republic was. India decided to take moves to ensure a stable Indo-Chinese border.
By 1951, China numerous posts within Indian claimed territory in Aksai Chin. The Indian government which concentrated its military efforts on stopping Ladakh from being taken by Pakistani troops and did not establish itself in Aksai Chin.
In 1956, Nehru expressed concern to Zhou Enlai that Chinese maps showed some Indian territory as Chinese. Zhou responded that there were minor errors in the maps and that they needed to be revised. Thus, the Indian public was outraged when it learned in 1958 that China had built a road between Xinjiang and Tibet through Indian-claimed territory in Aksai Chin.
There was a bloody clash in October 1959 at Kongka Pass in Aksai Chin in which 9 Indian frontier policemen were killed. Recognizing that it was not ready for war, the Indian Army assumed responsibility for the border and pulled back patrols from disputed areas.On 18 October 1959, the Chinese government approved the PLA's plan of a "self-defensive counterattack" against India because of its actions in Tibet.
China's policy on Tibet did much to heighten the conflict and tensions between the two nations.
Negotiations fail
China's 1958 maps showed the large strip of land between Ladakh and Bhutan (the Aksai Chin) as Chinese. In 1960, Zhou Enlai proposed the idea for India to accept conceding Aksai Chin. However, Nehru believed that China did not have a legitimate claim over both of those territories and was not ready to give away any one of them.
Nehru wasn't ready to simply concede the territory and leave negotiations at that. He was open to continued negotiations, but did not accept the idea of Indian troops withdrawing from their claimed regions. He remained firm that there would be no boundary negotiations until Chinese troops withdrew from Aksai Chin. This was unacceptable to the Chinese.
The Forward Policy
In the summer of 1961, China began patrolling along the McMahon Line. They entered parts of Indian administered regions and enraged the Indians. To retaliate, the Indians launched a policy of creating outposts behind the Chinese troops so as to cut off their supplies and force their return to China. This has been referred to as the "Forward Policy".
The initial reaction of the Chinese forces was to withdraw when Indian outposts advanced towards them. However, this appeared to encourage the Indian forces to accelerate their Forward Policy even further. This pattern of encirclement and counter-encirclement resulted in an interlocking, chessboard-like deployment of Chinese and Indian forces where no hostile fire occurred as they were only ordered to shoot in defense.
Effects after the War
India has repaired its relationship with the Chinese to some extent, though not all is forgotten.
After the war, India claimed that China was occupying about 33,000 square kilometres of its territory in the Aksai Chin region of Ladakh. China claimed that India was occupying 90,000 square kilometres; Beijing claims the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh as its territory.
Though the two Asian giants have tried to mend their relations over the decades, several issues remain unresolved: the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile in India; China's non-recognition of Sikkim's merger with India; the nuclear tests in 1998 by India; and India's allegation that China is arming Pakistan, including the latter's nuclear programme.
China and India share a long border where there is a large number of disputed regions lie along this border. The Aksai Chin and the present Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh were overrun by China in the 1962 conflict.
Most combat took place at high altitudes. The Aksai Chin region was considered to be a strategic location for defense where one country can see the other from the mountainous areas. The high altitude and freezing conditions also causes logistical and welfare difficulties. More casualties have been caused by the harsh conditions than enemy action.
Causes and Events leading to the Sino-Indo War
The Sino-Indian War, also known as the Sino-Indian Border Conflict, was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. The cause of the war was a dispute over the sovereignty of the widely-separated Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh border regions where China and India claimed belonged to them. Thus, China's construction of this road was one of the triggers of the conflict. Tibet disagreements were also a major reason for the Sino-Indian conflict.
Events leading up to war
Many events triggered the Sino-Indian War in 1962. The three main reasons were mainly the Tibet controversy, the Indian Forward Policy and the failure to compromise.
Tibet controversy
The creation of the Republic of India in 1947, and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in China in 1949 had the Indian government were that of maintaining cordial relations with China. The Indian government wished to revive its ancient friendly ties with China and was amongst the first countries to give it diplomatic recognition after the PRC was declared.
After coming to power, the PRC announced that its army would be occupying Tibet. Thus, India sent a letter of protest to China proposing negotiations on the Tibet issue. The newly formed PRC was also more active in posting troops to the Aksai Chin border than the newly formed Indian republic was. India decided to take moves to ensure a stable Indo-Chinese border.
By 1951, China numerous posts within Indian claimed territory in Aksai Chin. The Indian government which concentrated its military efforts on stopping Ladakh from being taken by Pakistani troops and did not establish itself in Aksai Chin.
In 1956, Nehru expressed concern to Zhou Enlai that Chinese maps showed some Indian territory as Chinese. Zhou responded that there were minor errors in the maps and that they needed to be revised. Thus, the Indian public was outraged when it learned in 1958 that China had built a road between Xinjiang and Tibet through Indian-claimed territory in Aksai Chin.
There was a bloody clash in October 1959 at Kongka Pass in Aksai Chin in which 9 Indian frontier policemen were killed. Recognizing that it was not ready for war, the Indian Army assumed responsibility for the border and pulled back patrols from disputed areas.On 18 October 1959, the Chinese government approved the PLA's plan of a "self-defensive counterattack" against India because of its actions in Tibet.
China's policy on Tibet did much to heighten the conflict and tensions between the two nations.
Negotiations fail
China's 1958 maps showed the large strip of land between Ladakh and Bhutan (the Aksai Chin) as Chinese. In 1960, Zhou Enlai proposed the idea for India to accept conceding Aksai Chin. However, Nehru believed that China did not have a legitimate claim over both of those territories and was not ready to give away any one of them.
Nehru wasn't ready to simply concede the territory and leave negotiations at that. He was open to continued negotiations, but did not accept the idea of Indian troops withdrawing from their claimed regions. He remained firm that there would be no boundary negotiations until Chinese troops withdrew from Aksai Chin. This was unacceptable to the Chinese.
The Forward Policy
In the summer of 1961, China began patrolling along the McMahon Line. They entered parts of Indian administered regions and enraged the Indians. To retaliate, the Indians launched a policy of creating outposts behind the Chinese troops so as to cut off their supplies and force their return to China. This has been referred to as the "Forward Policy".
The initial reaction of the Chinese forces was to withdraw when Indian outposts advanced towards them. However, this appeared to encourage the Indian forces to accelerate their Forward Policy even further. This pattern of encirclement and counter-encirclement resulted in an interlocking, chessboard-like deployment of Chinese and Indian forces where no hostile fire occurred as they were only ordered to shoot in defense.
Effects after the War
India has repaired its relationship with the Chinese to some extent, though not all is forgotten.
After the war, India claimed that China was occupying about 33,000 square kilometres of its territory in the Aksai Chin region of Ladakh. China claimed that India was occupying 90,000 square kilometres; Beijing claims the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh as its territory.
Though the two Asian giants have tried to mend their relations over the decades, several issues remain unresolved: the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile in India; China's non-recognition of Sikkim's merger with India; the nuclear tests in 1998 by India; and India's allegation that China is arming Pakistan, including the latter's nuclear programme.
Sino-Vietnamese War (Third Indochina War)
The Sino–Vietnamese War, also known as the Third Indochina War, was a brief but bloody border war fought from February 17 to March 16, 1979 between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
The PRC launched the offensive in response to Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia, which ended the reign of the PRC-backed Khmer Rouge, and Vietnamese raids in Chinese territory near the border. Both sides claimed victory in the last of the Indochina Wars of the twentieth century.
Reason for starting the Sino-Vietnamese War
The expulsion and persecution of Ethnic Chinese in Vietnam from late 1970s was one of the reasons, though not a primary one cited by China for starting the Sino-Vietnamese War. The reason cited for the invasion was the supposed mistreatment of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese minority and the Vietnamese occupation of the Spratly Islands (claimed by the PRC). The Third Indochina War followed the unsolved problems of the earlier wars. PRC, which was under Deng Xiaoping, was growing increasingly defiant.
Aftermath of the War
In the short run, China lost thousands of troops and millions of yuan were lost in overhead, delaying completion of their 1979-80 economic plan. They caused extensive damage to the Vietnamese countryside and infrastructure. The war did not alter Vietnamese policy in Cambodia; the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia was still ousted and replaced by a puppet government. The Chinese were forcibly reminded of their troops' lack of training and tactical coordination.
Border skirmishes continued throughout the 1980s. In 1999 after many years of negotiations, China and Vietnam signed a border pact, though the line of demarcation remained secret. There was a very slight adjustment of the land border, resulting in land being given back to China. Vietnam's official news service reported the implementation of the new border around August 2001.
The Vietnamese government continuously requested an official apology from the Chinese government for its invasion of Vietnam but the Chinese government refused. After the normalisation of relations between the two countries in 1990, Vietnam officially dropped its demand for an apology.
Improved Relations after the war
After the brief and bloody war, both the Vietnamese and the Chinese government tried to mend their strained political ties. Both countries have made efforts to improve the tensed situation by showing support to each other. There is also a landmark of improved political ties by building the Hanoi-Kuming Highway.
Firstly, the Tiananmen Square Crackdown improved relations between the two communist countries as the Vietnam Government showed great support for the Chinese Government. This proved to be ironic as the Chinese officers who served in the third Indo-China war were active in suppressing the protest movements.
Secondly, the plan to build a Hanoi-Kunming Highway on December 2007 was a landmark in the Sino-Vietnamese relations. It contributed to facilitating trade and industrial cooperation between the nations.
Thirdly, both countries have since worked to improve their ties. Since 1991, the leaders and high-ranking officials of both nations have exchanged visits. China and Vietnam both recognized and supported the post-1991 government of Cambodia and supported each other's bid to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). In 1999, the secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam visited Beijing, where along with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, he announced a "16 Word Guideline" for improved and strong bilateral relations; a Joint Statement for Comprehensive Cooperation was issued in 2000.
Vietnam and China also successfully negotiated a resolution of the disputes of the land border and maritime rights between 1999 and 2000. A joint agreement between China and ASEAN in 2002 marked out a process of peaceful resolution and guarantees against armed conflict. In 2002, Chinese President Jiang Zemin made an official visit to Vietnam, where numerous agreements were signed to expand trade and cooperation and resolve outstanding disputes.
The PRC launched the offensive in response to Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia, which ended the reign of the PRC-backed Khmer Rouge, and Vietnamese raids in Chinese territory near the border. Both sides claimed victory in the last of the Indochina Wars of the twentieth century.
Reason for starting the Sino-Vietnamese War
The expulsion and persecution of Ethnic Chinese in Vietnam from late 1970s was one of the reasons, though not a primary one cited by China for starting the Sino-Vietnamese War. The reason cited for the invasion was the supposed mistreatment of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese minority and the Vietnamese occupation of the Spratly Islands (claimed by the PRC). The Third Indochina War followed the unsolved problems of the earlier wars. PRC, which was under Deng Xiaoping, was growing increasingly defiant.
Aftermath of the War
In the short run, China lost thousands of troops and millions of yuan were lost in overhead, delaying completion of their 1979-80 economic plan. They caused extensive damage to the Vietnamese countryside and infrastructure. The war did not alter Vietnamese policy in Cambodia; the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia was still ousted and replaced by a puppet government. The Chinese were forcibly reminded of their troops' lack of training and tactical coordination.
Border skirmishes continued throughout the 1980s. In 1999 after many years of negotiations, China and Vietnam signed a border pact, though the line of demarcation remained secret. There was a very slight adjustment of the land border, resulting in land being given back to China. Vietnam's official news service reported the implementation of the new border around August 2001.
The Vietnamese government continuously requested an official apology from the Chinese government for its invasion of Vietnam but the Chinese government refused. After the normalisation of relations between the two countries in 1990, Vietnam officially dropped its demand for an apology.
Improved Relations after the war
After the brief and bloody war, both the Vietnamese and the Chinese government tried to mend their strained political ties. Both countries have made efforts to improve the tensed situation by showing support to each other. There is also a landmark of improved political ties by building the Hanoi-Kuming Highway.
Firstly, the Tiananmen Square Crackdown improved relations between the two communist countries as the Vietnam Government showed great support for the Chinese Government. This proved to be ironic as the Chinese officers who served in the third Indo-China war were active in suppressing the protest movements.
Secondly, the plan to build a Hanoi-Kunming Highway on December 2007 was a landmark in the Sino-Vietnamese relations. It contributed to facilitating trade and industrial cooperation between the nations.
Thirdly, both countries have since worked to improve their ties. Since 1991, the leaders and high-ranking officials of both nations have exchanged visits. China and Vietnam both recognized and supported the post-1991 government of Cambodia and supported each other's bid to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). In 1999, the secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam visited Beijing, where along with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, he announced a "16 Word Guideline" for improved and strong bilateral relations; a Joint Statement for Comprehensive Cooperation was issued in 2000.
Vietnam and China also successfully negotiated a resolution of the disputes of the land border and maritime rights between 1999 and 2000. A joint agreement between China and ASEAN in 2002 marked out a process of peaceful resolution and guarantees against armed conflict. In 2002, Chinese President Jiang Zemin made an official visit to Vietnam, where numerous agreements were signed to expand trade and cooperation and resolve outstanding disputes.
Vietnam War
Background Information of the Vietnam War
The Vietnam War was an international Cold War conflict for control of South Vietnam involving North Vietnam and its allies against South Vietnam, the United States, and their allies between 1954 and 1968. While there had been earlier, noncombat involvement of the United States before 1962, the Vietnam War, in terms of U.S. combat, began in 1962 with direct support to the South Vietnamese Army of the Republic of Viet Nam (ARVN), with the last U.S. bombing of North Vietnam in late 1972. At various times, the U.S. and ARVN forces were joined by South Korean, Filipino, New Zealand, Thai and Australian troops.
After WWII and until 1955, France fought hard to regain their former territories in the region. However, a poorly organized army and little determination among the troops, resulted in a failed attempt. The French were defeated on the 8th of May 1954. The French troops withdrew, leaving a buffer zone separating the North and South and set up elections in order to form a government in the South.
Between 1955 and 1960, the North Vietnamese tried to take over the government in South Vietnam, and in November 1963 President Diem was overthrown and executed. The following year, the North Vietnamese began a massive drive to conquer the whole country aided by China and Russia. Fearing a communist takeover of the entire region, the United States grew more and more wary of the progress of Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong. Communism had become the evil menace in the United States and with expansion of Soviet rule, the Americans were bent on stopping communism from spreading any further.
In the 1950s, the United States sent troops to Vietnam which created an ensuing war which lasted for 25 years. Approximately, 3 million soldiers were sent for a questionable cause. In total, the casualties totaled to two and a half million in total.
Challenges faced by the Vietnamese Government
The conflict in Vietnam ended up engulfing neighbouring Cambodia and Laos. United States and South Vietnamese forces sought to block the flow of soldiers and equipment through these countries in 1970. In 1975 communist forces prevailed in all three countries causing millions to try and flee the new regimes.
Cambodia sunk into the nightmare of Khmer Rouge rule. Refugee camps were set up along the Thai border as thousands of Cambodians fled the country. The camps were overcrowded and sometimes violent and people lived in them for years waiting for resettlement.
Two million people sought to escape South Vietnam after the communist victory taking overcrowded boats. Many never made it due to the small, over-crowded boats and the lack of ability to withstand pirate attacks.
After the war Vietnam was a country in ruins; infrastructure on both sides of the North/South divide had been destroyed. In 1957, the elections meant to unify the country failed to take place. In 1972, the South was left to continue the war without the support of foreign ground troops.
Project done to help the Vietnamese recover
The Australian Vietnam Veterans Reconstruction Group (AVVRG) was established in 1994 by a veteran of the war, Paul Murphy. Murphy was moved by the poverty and the terrible state of the country’s infrastructure almost two decades after the end of the war. Vietnam remained mired in poverty, unable to recover from a war whose aftermath had involved further fighting in Cambodia and a brief conflict with China in 1979.
Murphy identifed areas of need, launching an Australia-wide fundraising programme to support projects in South Vietnam. The AVVRG’s projects have included the installation of septic toilets at Long Tan as well as the establishment of medical and dental facilities. The organisation has also helped construct schools and orphanages; it has carried out agricultural and aquaculture projects. Members of the group also sponsor individual Vietnamese children, health care teams conduct regular visits to Vietnam and a busy program of activities shows the AVVRG’s commitment to helping a country in which Australians once fought.
The Vietnam War was an international Cold War conflict for control of South Vietnam involving North Vietnam and its allies against South Vietnam, the United States, and their allies between 1954 and 1968. While there had been earlier, noncombat involvement of the United States before 1962, the Vietnam War, in terms of U.S. combat, began in 1962 with direct support to the South Vietnamese Army of the Republic of Viet Nam (ARVN), with the last U.S. bombing of North Vietnam in late 1972. At various times, the U.S. and ARVN forces were joined by South Korean, Filipino, New Zealand, Thai and Australian troops.
After WWII and until 1955, France fought hard to regain their former territories in the region. However, a poorly organized army and little determination among the troops, resulted in a failed attempt. The French were defeated on the 8th of May 1954. The French troops withdrew, leaving a buffer zone separating the North and South and set up elections in order to form a government in the South.
Between 1955 and 1960, the North Vietnamese tried to take over the government in South Vietnam, and in November 1963 President Diem was overthrown and executed. The following year, the North Vietnamese began a massive drive to conquer the whole country aided by China and Russia. Fearing a communist takeover of the entire region, the United States grew more and more wary of the progress of Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong. Communism had become the evil menace in the United States and with expansion of Soviet rule, the Americans were bent on stopping communism from spreading any further.
In the 1950s, the United States sent troops to Vietnam which created an ensuing war which lasted for 25 years. Approximately, 3 million soldiers were sent for a questionable cause. In total, the casualties totaled to two and a half million in total.
Challenges faced by the Vietnamese Government
The conflict in Vietnam ended up engulfing neighbouring Cambodia and Laos. United States and South Vietnamese forces sought to block the flow of soldiers and equipment through these countries in 1970. In 1975 communist forces prevailed in all three countries causing millions to try and flee the new regimes.
Cambodia sunk into the nightmare of Khmer Rouge rule. Refugee camps were set up along the Thai border as thousands of Cambodians fled the country. The camps were overcrowded and sometimes violent and people lived in them for years waiting for resettlement.
Two million people sought to escape South Vietnam after the communist victory taking overcrowded boats. Many never made it due to the small, over-crowded boats and the lack of ability to withstand pirate attacks.
After the war Vietnam was a country in ruins; infrastructure on both sides of the North/South divide had been destroyed. In 1957, the elections meant to unify the country failed to take place. In 1972, the South was left to continue the war without the support of foreign ground troops.
Project done to help the Vietnamese recover
The Australian Vietnam Veterans Reconstruction Group (AVVRG) was established in 1994 by a veteran of the war, Paul Murphy. Murphy was moved by the poverty and the terrible state of the country’s infrastructure almost two decades after the end of the war. Vietnam remained mired in poverty, unable to recover from a war whose aftermath had involved further fighting in Cambodia and a brief conflict with China in 1979.
Murphy identifed areas of need, launching an Australia-wide fundraising programme to support projects in South Vietnam. The AVVRG’s projects have included the installation of septic toilets at Long Tan as well as the establishment of medical and dental facilities. The organisation has also helped construct schools and orphanages; it has carried out agricultural and aquaculture projects. Members of the group also sponsor individual Vietnamese children, health care teams conduct regular visits to Vietnam and a busy program of activities shows the AVVRG’s commitment to helping a country in which Australians once fought.
Cambodia Civil War
Background Information of the Cambodian Civil War
The Cambodian Civil War was a conflict that pitted the forces of the Khmer Rouge and their allies the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam. The civil war dated from 1967 to 1975 which resulted in the fall of the Khmer Republic to the Khmer Rouge. The war left six hundred thousand people dead and more than a million wounded.
After five years of savage fighting that brought about massive casualties, the destruction of the economy, the starvation of the population, the Republican government was defeated on 17 April 1975 when the victorious Khmer Rouge proclaimed the establishment of Democratic Kampuchea. During the genocidal Khmer Rouge period, educated Cambodians—teachers, managers, doctors, nurses and other skilled professionals—were specifically targeted by the Khmer Rouge and almost completely wiped out. Agriculture remains the main source of income for most Cambodians, more than 80% of whom continue to live in rural areas and approximately 36% of all households live below the poverty line.
This civil war led to the Cambodian Genocide, one of the bloodiest in history.
Challenges and After-math Effects faced by the Cambodian Government
Not surprisingly, Cambodia's damaged infrastructure and drained human resource base from the years of war and neglect proves to be a serious constraint to development. As a result, improving skills and building institutions is a key concern in virtually every area of society.
There are problems of high population growth rate, underemployment, migration, trafficking and persistent corruption.
High Population Growth Rate
Cambodia’s population now exceeds 13 million. While the population declined during the Khmer Rouge period, these losses have been more than made up by high fertility over the past two decades, especially in the baby boom of the early 1980s.
Underemployment
Underemployment is an important issue, especially in the unproductive agricultural sector.
MigrationMigration is an increasing in virtually every form: rural-urban migration occurs where the youngsters move to the urban areas in search of better-paying jobs. This movement reflects growing under-employment in rural areas. Promoting development in rural areas and better land and natural resource management are crucial to address this issue.
Trafficking and Persistent Corruption
Trafficking people is one of the leading human rights issues facing Cambodia. It damages Cambodia’s international reputation, harms society and threatens the country’s future. Most trafficked women in Cambodia move from rural to urban areas for the purposes of forced prostitution.
Corruption is a significant concern from both a political and economic perspective. Often, wealth and political power serves as the basis on which disputes among individuals and between individuals and the state are resolved. Human rights abuses are common. Notorious offenses like trafficking of women and children undermine fundamental rights. In recent year, logging, fisheries, land management have emerged as the focus of the international community’s efforts to reduce corruption. Ultimately, it requires sustained, high level commitment to address this issue.
The Cambodia Today
The social, political and economic fabric of the country has changed radically over the past decade, creating many new opportunities for other countries to work with the Cambodian government. The country has moved from being communism to democracy. Economically, it has progressed to be an open economy. There is relative stability and peace today, compared to past years of conflict. Cambodia is also strengthening international ties.
The Cambodian Civil War was a conflict that pitted the forces of the Khmer Rouge and their allies the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam. The civil war dated from 1967 to 1975 which resulted in the fall of the Khmer Republic to the Khmer Rouge. The war left six hundred thousand people dead and more than a million wounded.
After five years of savage fighting that brought about massive casualties, the destruction of the economy, the starvation of the population, the Republican government was defeated on 17 April 1975 when the victorious Khmer Rouge proclaimed the establishment of Democratic Kampuchea. During the genocidal Khmer Rouge period, educated Cambodians—teachers, managers, doctors, nurses and other skilled professionals—were specifically targeted by the Khmer Rouge and almost completely wiped out. Agriculture remains the main source of income for most Cambodians, more than 80% of whom continue to live in rural areas and approximately 36% of all households live below the poverty line.
This civil war led to the Cambodian Genocide, one of the bloodiest in history.
Challenges and After-math Effects faced by the Cambodian Government
Not surprisingly, Cambodia's damaged infrastructure and drained human resource base from the years of war and neglect proves to be a serious constraint to development. As a result, improving skills and building institutions is a key concern in virtually every area of society.
There are problems of high population growth rate, underemployment, migration, trafficking and persistent corruption.
High Population Growth Rate
Cambodia’s population now exceeds 13 million. While the population declined during the Khmer Rouge period, these losses have been more than made up by high fertility over the past two decades, especially in the baby boom of the early 1980s.
Underemployment
Underemployment is an important issue, especially in the unproductive agricultural sector.
MigrationMigration is an increasing in virtually every form: rural-urban migration occurs where the youngsters move to the urban areas in search of better-paying jobs. This movement reflects growing under-employment in rural areas. Promoting development in rural areas and better land and natural resource management are crucial to address this issue.
Trafficking and Persistent Corruption
Trafficking people is one of the leading human rights issues facing Cambodia. It damages Cambodia’s international reputation, harms society and threatens the country’s future. Most trafficked women in Cambodia move from rural to urban areas for the purposes of forced prostitution.
Corruption is a significant concern from both a political and economic perspective. Often, wealth and political power serves as the basis on which disputes among individuals and between individuals and the state are resolved. Human rights abuses are common. Notorious offenses like trafficking of women and children undermine fundamental rights. In recent year, logging, fisheries, land management have emerged as the focus of the international community’s efforts to reduce corruption. Ultimately, it requires sustained, high level commitment to address this issue.
The Cambodia Today
The social, political and economic fabric of the country has changed radically over the past decade, creating many new opportunities for other countries to work with the Cambodian government. The country has moved from being communism to democracy. Economically, it has progressed to be an open economy. There is relative stability and peace today, compared to past years of conflict. Cambodia is also strengthening international ties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)