In 1953, although the Korean War ended after the signing of the armistice agreement, the theory of victory or defeat in the war still aroused widespread controversy in the international community.
With nearly 190,000 dead in China in the Korean War, more than five times that of the United States, does China have reason to say it won? This question made the atmosphere in the reception room tense.
However, General Kim Il-nam's answer left the British journalist speechless. So, how did General Kim Il-nam respond? And how does he explain that the number of Chinese volunteers killed is five times higher than the number of American deaths?
On July 27, 1953, the time of the Panmunjom negotiations, the United States was still haunted by the outcome of the Korean War. Although the main force of the US-led coalition has been exhausted, the Sino-North Korean coalition can still hold on, and anyone with a discerning eye can see that the United States has been defeated.
But instead of admitting defeat, they made a big fuss about the war agreement, insisting on signing an armistice instead of a surrender, trying to restore the dignity of their world hegemon in words, and deluding themselves with it.
The legacy of this war is a controversy over winning or losing, and the United States has always insisted that they are the victors in the war. They repeatedly emphasized the existence of the Armistice Agreement and claimed that their war-loss ratio was much lower than that of China in order to endorse themselves.
This is a clear indication that it is already clear who the real winners are.
That staggering figure quickly spread throughout Europe and convinced even the British. At a press conference, when the Korean War was mentioned again, a British journalist unceremoniously asked: "How can you still say that you have won with 190,000 deaths in China, five times that of the United States?" ”
Suddenly, all eyes at the press conference were focused on the British journalist. General Kim Il-nam smiled, he didn't have any expression on his face, just looked around with the eyes of his strategist, and then slowly spoke his point.
In a war, victory or defeat does not depend only on numbers, but more importantly, on the achievement of strategic goals and the achievement of expected war results. Just as in the early days of the Korean War, Kim Il Sung was overwhelmed by the powerful equipment of the United States and immediately turned to the Soviet Union for help.
However, Stalin was very wary of the United States and did not promise to send troops, but advised Kim Il Sung to turn to China for help. Stalin actually had his own intentions.
Although Sino-Soviet relations were still relatively harmonious at that time, Stalin's attitude towards China was both wooing and wary. He hoped that China and North Korea would be bogged down in the quagmire of war, and that if China and North Korea were defeated by the United States, they would eventually need to turn to the Soviet Union for help.
Doing so would not only strengthen his position in the international arena, but also conceal the possibility of realizing some of the Soviet Union's petty calculations. So, should China send troops? At first, there was a long discussion about this in the ** Military Commission.
The majority of experienced and distinguished leaders believe that at this time, New China had just been established, its industrial base had not yet been perfected, its economic strength was relatively backward, and it was in a state where all kinds of industries were waiting to be developed and all kinds of waste were waiting to be done.
If the troops are rashly dispatched, it will only further drag down China's economic situation and people's living standards, and will undoubtedly make matters worse.
In the face of the United States, the world's number one military power, China will not only need to confront its powerful equipment and missiles, but also deal with possible follow-up disasters. If North Korea loses to the United States, China may face even greater disasters as is customary when Japan invaded the Korean Peninsula.
Now that the U.S. front has advanced to the vicinity of the 38th parallel, getting closer and closer to northeast China, there is not much time left for China to hesitate.
The bombing campaign by the Americans was aimed at provoking China, especially against the three northeastern provinces. ** Deeply concerned about the situation, he decided to take military action after much reflection.
His goal is to protect China's borders, support North Korea**, and thwart the ambitions of countries such as the United States. China has always adhered to its strategic goal of defending the country and protecting the 38th parallel in exchange for better development in the future.
However, what is the US approach?
The South Korea was originally a confrontational force fostered by the United States on the Korean Peninsula to counterbalance the situation in Asia, and the United States tried to further enhance its influence in Asia through the Korean War, and even planned to wait for an opportunity to invade China -- this is the strategic purpose of the United States.
So have the United States and China achieved their goals? For China, the Korean War was of great historical significance, and although China was the victor in World War I and World War II, external factors had a great influence.
When the People's Republic of China was founded, the rest of the world was curious about the nascent regime, and at the same time had some hostile eyes. Just when everyone thought that China's power was mediocre, the Korean War broke out.
The Korean War was hailed as the battle for the founding of China, and it made the world reassess China's strength, after all, it was these soldiers armed with millet and rifles who successfully defeated the well-equipped 17-nation coalition army.
Back then, when the news of the victory of the Korean War came back to Beijing, the *** who had been worried about the war for many years was in a good mood, humming along with Peking Opera, squinting his eyes and beating the beat, and said happily: "After this war, New China will not have to fight often in the future!" ”
China has achieved the goal of "one punch, one hundred punches". In addition, the staunch defense of the volunteers in the Korean War kept the 38th parallel and achieved the core goal of defending the homeland and the country, which is the most important thing.
The Korean War was a significant victory for the People's Republic of China, not only achieving its strategic objectives, but also bringing peace to the decades to come. And for the United States, this war is undoubtedly a heavy blow.
Since the failure of the Christmas plan, the United States**, the military, and the civilian population have suffered psychological trauma. Since the signing of the armistice, the United States has been deeply powerless and frustrated, and this has had a considerable impact on the social atmosphere and vitality of the United States.
In addition, the U.S. Asian program has suffered a heavy blow, with troops withdrawn from North Korea and North Korean resources not being obtained. This war is an indelible shame for the United States.
Although the United States has maintained its pre-war stability in the Asian region, its expansion plans have been put on hold for the time being. However, China's intimidation of the United States has far exceeded expectations, devaluing the United States, damaging its international image, and weakening its influence in Asia and the Third World.
In all respects, the United States is a loser in this incident, which the United States knows very well, but it is unwilling to admit it, and can only justify itself by emphasizing the numbers.
However, is it true that the number of ** in the United States is only one-fifth that of China, as the British claim?
In the Korean War, the Sino-Korean coalition forces lost a total of 1.03 million people, of which 190,000 were killed and 380,000 were wounded. At the same time, the combined forces of China and North Korea eliminated prisoners and seriously wounded **10930,000, of which 39 were lost by the US military70 thousand.
Soon after, the Joint Command also released data showing a total of 147 people in 17 countries70 thousand. Although there is not much difference between the data released by the two sides at this time, and even the ** data released by the US side exceeds the number of enemies destroyed by our army, where does the "one to five" battle loss ratio come from?
This is mainly due to the fact that there is no uniform standard on the part of the United States when it comes to statistics. In some cases, the number of people killed in battle is determined by the name tags of the remains of soldiers, so that the number of missing persons and the number of unidentifiable bodies is omitted.
During the Korean War, China's statistics were more comprehensive and accurate. The U.S. statistics are as of July 27, 1953, and those who died from serious injuries suffered in the war after that are not counted.
China, on the other hand, includes all soldiers who have died, disappeared, and died as a result of serious injuries in battle, and continue to count them after the war. This shows the reliability of China's data.
In addition, the U.S. continued to revise its data in the following decades, making its numbers smaller and smaller, while China's numbers were getting higher. This makes even the one-to-five war loss ratio, which the United States is most proud of, untenable.
So, what exactly did the United States get out of this war?