Vietnam vs Korea

[scottishcanuck]

Why did the UN help S.korea, but not S.vietnam. In both cases there was the communist north trying to take over the south. The UN sent a military force to repel N. korea but no to repel N.Vietnam. I just dont understand ???



[Edit to correct grammar in title to aid in future SEARCH.]

 

[mckee19]

there are some things in life no one will fully understand, and to me this is one of them

 

[Danjanou]

Basically it comes down to the UN Security Council and the permanent members with their Veto. The Soviet Union were in a position to veto any UN resolution calling for UN intervention in South Vietnam.

As to why they didn’t do it in 1950 when North Korea attacked the south, the simple reason is they screwed up. Rather than veto the resolution they chose to boycott it. Remember the UN and the Security Council was still a relatively new thing then and the Cold War just starting. They never made that mistake again.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

At that point Communist China did not have the veto the Nationalists which had been pushed off the island did.  That is why the USSR walked away.

The UN and war
Korea
1st Gulf War
Afghanastan
I think thats it.
I have NO IDEA why Bush thought the UN would back him on Iraq!

 

[Danjanou]

At that point Communist China did not have the veto the Nationalists which had been pushed off the island did.  That is why the USSR walked away.

The UN and war
Korea
1st Gulf War
Afghanastan
I think thats it.

yeah that's about it

I have NO IDEA why Bush thought the UN would back him on Iraq!

It worked for Daddy 8)

 

[nowhere_man]

Why the heck would they give the Russians a veto when they we're the enemy.

And if the Russians wernt boycotting the counsel would they have veto'd the UN action in Korea?

 

[Danjanou]

Ok a little history lesson ( God why don’t teach this in school anymore). The Soviet Union ( not Russian mind) were not the “enemies” when the UN was formed just prior to the end of the Second World War. Remember they were on our side back then. It was only in the post war years when the Soviets decided to not give back the European Countries that they had “liberated” during the war that they became the new bad guys and the Cold War started.

Anyway it was agreed that the five main Allied powers, the United States, The United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union, and Nationalist China would all have permanent seats on the new Security council with a special veto power denied all other members, go read Orwell for an explanation on that.

I’m not going to get into a why France got one, hell Romania or US ( Canada) would probably have been better if it was based on numbers involved in winning the damn war. Chang Kai Chek was still top dog in China in 1944 and would be for another 4 years before getting booted out by Mao and the Communists. Mind the UN is a Government Bureaucracy so it would take a few more years for them to change who got the Chinese seat (like almost 30).

Yes they would have vetoed the UN mission to Korea had they not been relatively new at the game. As noted they never made that mistake again.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

And if the Russians wernt boycotting the counsel would they have veto'd the UN action in Korea?

Definitely; they tried to have the resolution declared illegal after the fact, and then tried to have the UN withdraw (vetoed by the US and others).  While Soviet participation was primarily by proxy, the end result was that they were involved in a war against the UN (of which they were a senior member).  Stalin's policy was to spread communism everywhere in the world, primarily by fomenting and supporting communist revolutions (you can draw your own conclusions about whether you believe that we would all be left living in a worldwide socialist utopia, let alone if the state would 'whither-away').

The Korean War started because the Soviets (and to a lesser extent the Chinese) wanted it to, as was the case for most the 20th Century wars and conflicts (with the obvious exception of the world wars).

<< EDIT: first part better-explained by subsequent post! >>

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

So all the vetos were granted at the founding? I was under the impression it was more to do with who had Nuclear Weapons.
All five permanent members certainly have them now, mere coincidence or requirement for continuing membership?

 

[rz350]

So all the vetos were granted at the founding? I was under the impression it was more to do with who had Nuclear Weapons.
All five permanent members certainly have them now, mere coincidence or requirement for continuing membership?

Or maybe the members (USA, USSR, France, England and China) Just all happened to be the MAJOR world powers, and major world industrial and technological powers with the need, desire, money and industrial capacity to develop Nuclear weapons.

 

[Danjanou]

What part of my third post is unclear?

The original five permenant members of the Security Council were the five major victorious Allied powers.

It had nothing to do with nukes then. Only one was a nuclear power at the time, the US. the UK and later France would devlop/get nukes ast ey were Allies and the Soviets would steal the process. Nationalist China never had them, and may/or may not now. When they lost their seat to the PRC, it already had nukes.

Conventional military power yes as they were the winners and both the US and the Soviets had massive numbers of men under arms but were in a process of demobilizing. The other three,  the  Chinese had a large feild army but that was it, The Brits including the Dominions were also pretty big in terms of troops,ships, places etc., but also demobolizing. France had noreal fleet left  and only a few Divisons in the field (-10 IIRC).

Economically both the Brits and the Soviets were pretty close to bankruptcy, China and France the same and while the US wasn't there yet it was close. Wars can be expensive.

 

[Spirit of the Sixties]

That seems like an overt simplification of the workings of the United Nations Security Council, not to mention a bit of an attitude in your response. They were only asking questions. BTW what are your qualifications in regards to Political Science may we ask?

 

[Old Sweat]

Spirit of the Sixties,

What do you find objectionable about the short lesson on the origins and working of the power structure of the UN? The Security Council may be elitist and it often is disfunctional, but perhaps the intent was to put checks and balances in place.

Do not forget that when the UN was established, much, perhaps the majority, of the current membership that sit in the General Assembly were still colonies. Thus there was an imbalance in the General Assembly, with the western democracies outnumbering what would become the Soviet Bloc. As a result, a number of member republics of the USSR were granted seats in that body as a counter balance.

I am old enough to remember the Soviets boycotting the Security Council and being caught flat-footed when the resolution on Korea passed. As the time it was recognized as a major error on their part, due to, well, I'll let others more better qualified debate their motivation.

Regards

 

[a_majoor]

Political Science? This is just basic history, like they should be teaching in high school.

Most organizations reflect the condition of the world at the time they were created (check out the GDP's of various world powers compared to the membership of the G-8, for example), that part is history

Organizations either evolve (i.e. NATO expansion) are discarded (the Bretton Woods agreement) or wither into irrelevance (the League of Nations) as the world changes. That part is political science.

 

[Danjanou]

Old Sweat I think he’s just upset that us poor soldier types don’t use them fancy big words. Or maybe he’s afraid/upset that we do know how to use them ;D.

As to my qualifications Spirit, rest assured I have them. I stay within my lanes here. Now how about you telling us your credentials skippy. Or are you just a troll?

 

[mckee19]

my detective work has led me to figure that spirit of the sixties was in the US army and went awol during the vietnam war.
judgeing by the name, his military experience in his profile and where he now lives.

Danjanou your posts seem very clear to me

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

Danjanou I found them pretty clear as well, I guess I should have added this  to my last line.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

Just wondering why you think Spirit of the Sixties went AWOL?
Just because he now lives in Canada and did not join the army by choice does not mean he went AWOL...... (I could be missing something here)

 

[mckee19]

haha it was more of a joke, if you look at his military experience it says US army but not for long, his name gives you a time frame and he now lives in canada. everything just kind of falls into place
but i do not know for sure i was joking around

 

[Fishbone Jones]

haha it was more of a joke, if you look at his military experience it says US army but not for long, his name gives you a time frame and he now lives in canada. everything just kind of falls into place
but i do not know for sure i was joking around

"haha it was more of a joke" doesn't make it so, especially on the internet. It looks like a cover for a cheap shot. Keep your speculation to yourself. You're already on thin ice around here for other thread responses. You've been warned there also. Don't push your luck. Steps on the warning ladder can and are, taken in strides in special circumstances.