russian jet pilots in korean war?

Why was Russia, still a member of the UN, clandestinely fighting
against the UN?

Russia had walked out of the Security Council some time prior to the
North Korean invasion of the south. That (and only that) made possible
the UN's decision to send troops to Korea. Otherwise Russia would have
exercised its veto.

Given that the war had been started--literally--behind its back,
Russia presumably felt no obligation to abide by the UN's decision,
any more than China did.

("Communist China" in 1950 was not a member of the UN, Security
Council or otherwise. The Chinese seat was held by "Free China" aka
Taiwan, when Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT had removed themselves the
previous year.)

Russia never again made the mistake of walking out on the Security
Council.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
Why was Russia, still a member of the UN, clandestinely fighting
against the UN?

Russia had walked out of the Security Council some time prior to the
North Korean invasion of the south. That (and only that) made possible
the UN's decision to send troops to Korea. Otherwise Russia would have
exercised its veto.

Given that the war had been started--literally--behind its back,
Russia presumably felt no obligation to abide by the UN's decision,
any more than China did.


The Soviets (not the Russians to be precise) walked out of the Security
Council thinking that the US would not be able to push through a vote.
While many historians had thought that the Soviets were reluctant
supporters duped by a unruly client, the declassified archives show
otherwise. The Soviets were doing their share of instigating and
were quite active in supporting the North Korean plans
to start a conventional attack on the South. The Korean War was
certainly not started behind Stalin's back.

Han

In article ,
Han Kim wrote:

The Soviets (not the Russians to be precise) walked out of the Security
Council thinking that the US would not be able to push through a vote.

As I understand it (and without going back and rereading the UN
charter), there was a difference of opinion about the role of
permanent members of the Security Council. The Soviets at that
time interpreted it as meaning that action required the positive
votes of all five permanent members, and therefore that by walking
out they were disabling the SC. The US maintained that action
required no negative votes of the permanent members, and whatever
the charter actually says this interpretation was accepted.
(Corrections by people who know more than I do about this willingly
accepted.)

While many historians had thought that the Soviets were reluctant
supporters duped by a unruly client, the declassified archives show
otherwise. The Soviets were doing their share of instigating and
were quite active in supporting the North Korean plans
to start a conventional attack on the South. The Korean War was
certainly not started behind Stalin's back.

I believe that the poster meant that the UN intervention was
started behind Stalin's back, and one implication is that Stalin
did not feel bound by it. (Not that Stalin would have necessarily
followed a UN resolution if he didn't agree with it.)

There is the possibility that the US could have intervened on
behalf of South Korea, without direct UN auspices. Again without
looking it up, I believe the UN charter allows the use of military
force in defense, and not only defense of one's own country.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

(David Thornley) wrote in message m...

In article ,
Han Kim wrote:
While many historians had thought that the Soviets were reluctant
supporters duped by a unruly client, the declassified archives show
otherwise. The Soviets were doing their share of instigating and
were quite active in supporting the North Korean plans
to start a conventional attack on the South. The Korean War was
certainly not started behind Stalin's back.

I believe that the poster meant that the UN intervention was
started behind Stalin's back, and one implication is that Stalin
did not feel bound by it. (Not that Stalin would have necessarily
followed a UN resolution if he didn't agree with it.)

There is the possibility that the US could have intervened on
behalf of South Korea, without direct UN auspices. Again without
looking it up, I believe the UN charter allows the use of military
force in defense, and not only defense of one's own country.


Yes and No.
UN charter Article 51 says:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the
United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in
the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to
the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take
at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or
restore international peace and security. "

"the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed
attack occurs" is the right of all countries. The UN general secretary Annan
specially mentioned this article before US, UK by-lateral barbaric
invasion to Iraq in 2003. He meant that the US, UK invasion of cause
does not belong to this category and could not be classified as
legal defense according to UN charter. It is of cause a barbaric OFFENSE
invasion to an weak independent sovereign country.

According to this article, any country could help another country who is
invaded by the FOREIGN imperialists. For Example: France, UK declare war
against NZ Germany AFTER Hitler invaded Poland, China helped NK AFTER
US invaded Korea in 1950, US led Allies fought with Iraq AFTER Iraq
invaded Kuwait. Does USA army entering Korea belong to this category?
No. It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion. USA army was
the FIRST FOREIGN army entered Korea CIVIL WAR. In 1950, including USA saw
Korea as a whole country. Both Korea governments also thought this way.
In late 1940s, USA initiated a resolution in UN to hold an election in
WHOLE Korea and the resolution was passed. So clearly Korea was viewed
by both USA and UN as an SINGLE independent country rather than two separate
countries. However, the elections were hold separately and two governments
were elected. So, before USA army invaded Korea, there was Korea CIVIL
WAR and the aggressor in the CIVIL war was NK. It is the internal affairs
of Korea and UN charter clearly prevent FOREIGN forces to intervene
the internal affairs of an independent country, especially military
invasion intervention. So it is crystal clear that USA intervention
was an invasion to Korea. Korea future should be decided by Korea people
and army rather than by foreign invasion army. If the Korea were two
separate countries and if both Korea governments, the world thought that
way, yes, USA could legal help country SK against country NK aggressive
attack. Same rules apply to the Vietnam war and so called protection to
Taiwan province of China against mainland Chinese government.

USA also had a famous civil war. If in this war any other country sent
army into US to fight either side, it clear was an imperialist invasion.
The fate of USA should be decided by the people of US rather than any
other nations' army.

But in the world, when some countries feel they are really strong, then
they ignore the international laws, the sovereignty of those weak
countries. In the last two centuries, we see a lot of this kind of
examples, e.g. western colonist history, NZ, JIA, the wars fought
in the second half of 20th century, Korea war, Vietnam war, invasion to
Panama in 1982, 1968 Prague Spring, USSR invasion to Afghanistan,
etc... Unfortunately, in the 21st century, we still see this kind of
invasion. The preemption conducted by JIA, NZ become official policy
of some countries though it clearly violate the international laws and
sovereignty of other countries. What a pity!

Have a nice weekend!

Dazuixia





--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion.

North Korea's army, under the direction of its government in
Pyongyang, invaded South Korea across an internationally recognized
border or demarcation line.

If the Republic of Ireland sent its army into Northern Ireland. would
that represent civil war (and nobody's business)?

If Israel occupies the West Bank, is that civil war?

If the Federal Republic of Germany had invaded East Germany (DRG),
would that be a civil war?

If Poland invaded Ukraine to recover the territory that was Polish in
1939, is that civil war?

The eastern seaboard of the United States once consisted mostly of 13
British colonies. If Britain invades them, is that civil war?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..

It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion.

North Korea's army, under the direction of its government in
Pyongyang, invaded South Korea across an internationally recognized
border or demarcation line.

I have answered this questions in the statements right after the statement
you are commenting. You know I was right and then you delete them.
Here I re-quote:
" USA army was
the FIRST FOREIGN army entered Korea CIVIL WAR. In 1950, including USA saw
Korea as a WHOLE country. Both Korea governments also thought this way.
In late 1940s, USA initiated a resolution in UN to hold an election in
WHOLE Korea and the resolution was passed. So clearly Korea was viewed
by both USA and UN as an SINGLE independent country rather than two separate
countries. However, the elections were hold separately and two governments
were elected. So, before USA army invaded Korea, there was Korea CIVIL
WAR and the aggressor in the CIVIL war was NK. It is the internal affairs
of Korea and UN charter clearly prevent FOREIGN forces to intervene
the internal affairs of an independent country, especially military
invasion intervention. So it is crystal clear that USA intervention
was an invasion to Korea. Korea future should be decided by Korea people
and army rather than by foreign invasion army. If the Korea were two
separate countries and if both Korea governments, the world thought that
way, yes, USA could legally help country SK against country NK aggressive
attack. Same rules apply to the Vietnam war and so called protection to
Taiwan province of China against mainland Chinese government."

Hope this time you could read the whole paragraph before you jump into
the discussion. 38th parallel whatever you call it, was NOT a border
of two countries, and the world including USA, both Korea governments
thought the Korea was a whole country. That is why USA initiated the
resolution in UN to hold ONE election in WHOLE Korea rather than two
elections in two separate countries.


If the Republic of Ireland sent its army into Northern Ireland. would
that represent civil war (and nobody's business)?

No. Of cause not. You pretend you do not know the difference or you
intentionally try to confuse the netters? Republic of Ireland and
"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" are two different
countries. This is recognized by both countries and the world. So if
"Republic of Ireland" sent its army to a FOREIGN country "United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", she was the invader as USA sent
her army to Korea. If "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
sent her army from England Island to Northern Ireland of her own territory
as NK of Korea sent her army to SK of Korea, it is not the business of
any other countries. That is exactly current case. UK was fighting
with Ireland republican army in Northern Ireland. It is not the business
of any other countries.

If Israel occupies the West Bank, is that civil war?

Israel from beginning was created by FOREIGN imperialists to occupy the
Palestinian's land and to control the oil of middle east. How can
Jews minority had the right to rob most of Palestinian lands of
British Palestine, i.e. the 55% lands against the will of majority
people of Palestine lands? Most of Jews in Israel was moved to the
area AFTER Israel robbery. Israel still refuse the right of Palestine
refugees to return to their OWN lands and want to move more Jews (1 million
more) to the area to enhance their robbery. You may support the robbery
but I do not. Learn the real history and FACTS before you comment on some
thing you do not know, OK?


If the Federal Republic of Germany had invaded East Germany (DRG),
would that be a civil war?

May be not. the Germany was the criminal of WWII. The Allies and UN had
resolution to co-occupy the German and this occupation continued.
Both countries were UN members. Both governments
and UN agree they are two separate countries created after WWII.

Korea was occupied by Japan in 1895 and
Annexed in 1910. After USSR started to attack Japan in North-East
China USSR Aug. 9th, 1945, she declared she would enter Korea to
fight Japan. USA really want to share the occupation of Korea with
USSR but the nearest USA troops were in Okinawa which is thousands
miles away from Korea. USA had no chance to send her troops to Korea
before USSR took the whole Korea. Then a USA colonel was required to
create a share plan at night of Aug. 10th, 1945. He even had no Korea
map in his office, but a world map. So it is impossible for him to
divide Korea according to Korea administrative region, then he found
38th parallel divide Korea even. Then he made the suggestion and the
telegraph was sent to Moscow next day. Stalin accepted the suggestion
and Red Army stopped at 38th parallel. Only 20 days after, USA army
reached 38th parallel from South.

On December 31st, 1948, all USSR troops withdrew from NK. On June 30th,
1949 because feel shame, all US troops withdrew from SK.
Now Korea should only up to Korea people to decide who should govern.
USA suggested an election in WHOLE KOREA in UN and the resolution was
passed. However, the election were conducted separately and NK, SK
elected their own governments. Both think they represent the whole
Korea. Communists countries led by USSR recognize NK, and western
countries recognized SK.

Unlike Germany, Korea was not the criminal country of WWII. The occupation
of Germany continued, or the foreign troops keep stay in the Germany
according to an agreement, but
not Korea. The world including US and Korea governments saw Korea as
a whole country but that was not the case in Germany. It is true 38th line
had her international affair history and that is not the case of Taiwan.
Taiwan is more a pure internal affair of China but the cowboy of U.S. of A.
still shamelessly claim US would use whatever methods to protect
Taiwan province of China from China. As I said in last post:
"Unfortunately, in the 21st
century, we still see this kind of invasion. The preemption conducted by JIA,
NZ become official policy of some countries though it clearly violate the
international laws and sovereignty of other countries. What a pity!"


If Poland invaded Ukraine to recover the territory that was Polish in
1939, is that civil war?

No. Both countries are UN members. Both governments and UN accepted current
borders are borders of two separate countries.


The eastern seaboard of the United States once consisted mostly of 13
British colonies. If Britain invades them, is that civil war?

Yes, when they were British colonies, it was civil war. The USA revolutionary
war could be called as a Civil war of UK. After USA defeated UK and found
her own country, especially after UK accepted this independence, if
UK invaded USA, it is an invasion.

Any more question? I am glad to answer. Learn the FACTS first, you will
be much smarter. It is better for you to take logic 101 before you post.

Have a nice day!

Dazuixia