Talk:Battle of Chosin Reservoir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please help us improve this article.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...

Contents

[edit] PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ARTICLE

I feel that the statement "Chinese Volunteers" seriously erodes the fact that these soldiers were not "volunteers" but were instead full-fledged Chi-Com soldiers. To say otherwise is disingenuous. Look at the history. They were not volunteers, but were ordered into battle. Brutusbuk 05:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Brutusbuk, as long as your edits can sourced to reliable and published references, feel free to correct the article. However, countless reference books on the subject clearly state that the Chinese who fought were officially members of the Chinese People's Volunteer Army, which was created solely for the Korean War by transferring units from the PLA into the CPV. Officially the PLA never entered Korea, regardless of the fact that it was merely troops transferred from one 'umbrella' to another. The article People's Volunteer Army may need a bit of additional referenced material to help clarify the exact composistion of the CPV, but it was the CPV itself in Korea. As much as I don't like it myself at times, Wikipedia is not about the truth, but only about what has been published by verifiable and reliable sources. On a side note, in the future, new 'discussions' get added to the bottom. It took me a couple of edits to get the hang of it myself. wbfergus Talk 11:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


I do not feel that the article, as currently written, gives an accurate depiction of the 7th Infantry Division's participation. First, only parts of the 7th, to be precise roughly 1/3rd of the division, was in or near the battle at all. The major units of the 7th which were present include Task Force MacLean/Faith, located east of the reservoir and northeast of the Marines and B Co. of the 31st Infantry Regiment, which formed part of Task Force Drysdale, the relief effort from the south. In other words roughly one regimental combat team, approximately 3,000 men total out of a division which numbered between 12 and 15,000 men.

Also, I have never read anywhere that the Marines picked up the "abandoned equipment" of the 7th and used it in their "advance to the rear." There was little or no equipment to pick up as Task Force MacLean/Faith, which was virtually destroyed and did lose all of its equipment, was miles away from the Marines, and not on their marching route south from Chosin. An Army tank company - manned by soldiers - did play an important role in the battle, fighting its way to Hagaru in company with the Marines and providing much needed firepower.

So, in the next day or so(this being 11-9-05)I would like to see some sources for the assertions that the Marines picked up the abandoned equipment of the presumably fleeing 7th Division, or I will alter the article to reflect what I believe is a more accurate description of the battle.

MY sources are: Clay Blair's, THE FORGOTTEN WAR, Times Books, NY(1987); Roy Appleman's, EAST OF CHOSIN, Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station(1987); and ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE KOREAN WAR, Spencer Tucker, ed.,Checkmark Books(Facts on File), NY(2002).

Beau Martin, aka dubeaux

Your suspicions are correct--the story about Marines picking up abandoned equipment has no basis in fact although it is still taught to Marines in boot camp that Marines recovered abandoned army artillery (totally false). At any rate, it appears to have been deleted.

I added a few things in regards the army but am unskilled in restructuring the article itself. P1340 16:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)P1340


Glad to see this topic! I play wargames and have one on this topic, called "Semper Fi!" by The Gamers. Some good historical notes in the rulebook, and I also have a book on the subject. May add a bit to this down the road. Something that struck me in the reading (and I haven't finished) is the friction between the Army and the Marines (an Army general was the overall commander of the operation and wasn't very highly thought of by the marines who seemed to do most of the work). The battles for the hills (Fox Hill for instance) were something I would never want to be a part of, a few battalions holding off a couple of Chinese divsions over two nights. It's too bad this war is so forgotten except in M*A*S*H episodes. I'm against war myself (a paradox I know, in that I play the games) but the marines who participated in these battles have my utmost respect for their conduct in the battle itself. --Rgamble

As a Chinese, I could only show my utmost respect for these Chinese soldiers who fought in such an extreme condition with such poor equipments. It was them who reevaluated China to a status of great power and ended a century of impotence against foreign army. --Zhouyn

Welcome, Zhouyn. My father actually fought in the Chosin Reservoir with the US Marines, which is where my interest, and a great deal of information I have contributed to this article, have come from. He's expressed great respect for the skill of the Chinese forces in Korea. He told me once about one time that the US forces had trouble getting their radios to work (I'm not entirely sure whether or not this was in the Reservoir, but it was in Korea). While they were having this trouble, he heard bugles in the distance. The Chinese were using bugles to coordinate their troops in the field, and were doing a better job at it than the Americans could do with their radios.

It's truly interesting to learn that this battle is remembered with as much if not more pride among the Chinese as it is among the US Marines. Thanks for your input into the article, Zhouyn. Philwelch 02:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Factual innacuracy revert

Phil, you changed my taxobox to say that the commander was 'Howlin' mad smith instead of Oliver Smith. You are thinking of Holland Smith, a marine corp general of approximately the same time period. However, you are very wrong. Check out the USMC bio of Oliver Smith. Different people, similiar names and occupations. →Raul654 20:29, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

The numbers of combatants and casualties in the text do not match the numbers in the box. If there are conflicting estimates, then the right thing to do is to pick a median (or give the range) and cite the conflicting sources. Gdr 11:41, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

The number of casulties of the PRC is grater than the number of combatants from China . Deleting until someone corects it! AdrianCo (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo

[edit] Fox Hill

Someone above mentioned Fox Hill. It is not mentioned in the article, nor in the wiki article on Ray Davis. It would perhaps make a nice entry in one or the other. It would more naturally belong here, but, it might be a US-POV problem. I can't write about it without using a US POV, and I gather that this article is attempting neutrality between the UN and the Chinese combatants. Sivamo 09:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] medals

I read that Almond gave DSCs to Smith, Litzenberg, Murray, Beall, and Puller on Dec 4 (1950) at Hagaru-ri, but that later Smith recommended all three regimental commanders for upgrade to Navy Cross, and it was approved at least for Puller -- so probably also for Liztenberg and Murray -- does anyone know for sure if Litzenberg and Murray were awarded Navy Crosses for their leadership at Chosin? Sivamo 10:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Navy Cross is the Navy/Marine equivalent of the DSC. They're both equal--there's no upgrade.

I know Murray had a Navy Cross but don't know the details. P1340 16:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrrhic victory

I am changing the result from Chinese Pyrrhic victory to just Chinese victory. Chosen reservoir wasn't a pyrrhic victory for the Chinese they defeated the UN-forces and drove them back, albeit with heavy casualties. Chosen reservoir didn’t seriously damaged the Chinese army, they could easily replace there losses. - Carl Logan

The definition of a Pyrrhic victory would be a victory in which the losses required to attain it exceeded the gain earned through victory. The assault by the Chinese against the 1st Marine Division and its accompanying UN units was unnecessary, as the 1st Marine Division was not going to assault forward on its own without the rest of the UN force and would have been forced to withdraw under any circumstances. The Chinese, however, decided to attempt to destroy the Division, and lost eight of their own in the process. The loss of eight divisions in an unsuccessful attempt to kill one renders this a Pyrrhic victory in terms of the specific and discrete resources expended compared to specific and discrete gains achieved. - Tommythegun

I agree with Tommythegun; I can't recall the specifics but all those divisions were rendered ineffective for months. P1340 16:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)P1340

I'm changing it back to "Chinese victory" independent of this discussion. IMO "pyrrhic victory" is a tactical victory that is worse than defeat. To quote the "Aftermath" section, "This campaign, with the simultaneous victory against U.S. forces to the west, was the first time in a century a Chinese army was able to defeat a Western army in a major battle, despite the heavy losses." Not only did the Chinese achieve their strategic goals after the battle, the Chinese's reputation soared in anti-American countries during the Cold War after the battle. Moreover, if Mao: The Unknown Story and a few other controversial books could be taken seriously, losing the divisions (said to be ex-Nationalists) was actually Mao Zedong's goal. Or, if we take it from another perspective, the South Korean and US forces failed in their offensives. Aran|heru|nar 07:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Also dont forget that even thought the Chinese lost many division during this battle against the Marines, dont forget that Mao Zedong said that he wouldnt mind to sacrifice another 10 division just to reach his goal, this prove that the Chinese still has the human resource to remain fighting.

Hanchi 26 November 2006

But we have to remember that it was a pyrrhic victory from the perspective of the Soviet Union, which had a vested economic as well as political interest in the war. The fact that Mao disagreed only made matters worse. To the American leadership only the Soviet's goal really mattered (with the notable and ultimately ironic exception of General MacArthur), and in that sense the battle and the war's eventual outcome was far from a loss for the American side. So "pyrrhic victory" would make sense if we're talking about the Communist alliance and/or the Soviet sphere of influence in Asia, but it is also understandable from a short term perspective why it would simply be called a Chinese victory. On the other hand, Mao is not a good source for determining whether or not human costs were worth it.Shield2 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The box is wrong in stating a Pyrrhic Chinese victory. From Pyrrhic victory: "However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers and their losses did less to their war effort than Pyrrhus's losses did to his." The chinese (unlike Pyrrhus) had the larger pool of soldiers to draw from compared to the UN forces. They lost more soldiers than their opponents, however since they could replace these losses, it was not a pyrrhic victory. --Xeeron 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strategically, a Chinese victory, but based on this battle alone, I think it is a UN/American Pyrrhic victory. The Chinese PVA failed to destroy the UN forces and badly mauled themselves. The 1st Marine Division and RCT 31 is largely intact despite heavy casualties but due to the uncertain situation, they are forced to retreat.

--SCSI Commando 14:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize this discussion is a bit old, but I'd like to chime in and say that I don't think the battle was at all Pyrrhic for the Chinese. SCSI Commando makes a good point that the UN forces were not completely destroyed, but the question of whether an enemy is annihilated or not, doesn't spell the difference between "victory" and "Pyrrhic victory." The fact is, the PVA did suffer horrendous losses in this action, but still managed to push UN forces back over the 38th parallel in the ensuing months, before the front stabilized at the present-day border. The losses suffered at Chosin did not, apparently, cripple the ability of the Chinese forces to make war. On the other side, the US 2nd Inf. suffered devastating (by American standards) losses as well, while making their breakout to Sunch'ǒn. I think that had the US divisions not made it out of there, we'd be talking about the Battle of Chosin Reservoir as a "decisive" victory for the Chinese. I'm not going to change the result to "Chinese victory" ATM, but wait to hear any more arguments on why we should consider Chosin to be Pyrrhic.

On the comment made by Shield2, about the Soviets' interest in Korea: You certainly may be right on this point, but considering how removed Stalin tried to make himself from the Korean War, I think we ought not be reading things from a Soviet standpoint... while the War itself would have a major impact on Soviet affairs (particularly regarding their relationship with Mao and China), I think that on the level of the battle, we should concentrate on the military ramifications to the combatants themselves. Louiebb (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

In text, one can read "Around 20,000 UN troops, with advanced weaponry and air power, clashed with 200,000 poorly equipped but well organized Chinese soldiers" but the table compare strengths: 25,000 vs 120,000.

which are the right numbers?

ThierryVignaud 7 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

Is the link to Bill Barber the person intended for this article?

For the record I changed it a few months ago to: 30,000 vs. 60,000. P1340 16:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)P1340

[edit] Someone fix this article!

Someone who has a good military history book of the Korean War must get to work immediately to fix this article. Most of it is just cut and paste from other sites, and the part that isn't is just written sloppily. The article repeats itself and is not, in my opinion, from a completely neutral POV. Notice the list of Americans who got medals, but not only does it not mention any Chinese soldiers, it doesn't mentioned anybody from the UN allies either. If I knew anything about the Korean War, I would help. But I don't :( (Which is why I came to the article in the first place!!!) Lou N.

[edit] You're right about fixing it

You're right. The article is lousy as is. I might try to completely revise it, but right now I haven't got the time to do the necessary research. I do suggest, if you are interested and have the time, to check out Clay Blair's excellent history of the Korean War, THE FORGOTTEN WAR, which has a very good account of the Chosin Reservoir.

As for the lack of mention of individual Chinese participants, there is, even today, very little in English(indeed, virtually nothing)from the Chinese side. Many of the generals who commanded Chinese units were later disgraced during the Cultural Revolution of the 1960's, or otherwise fell out of favor with Mao's regime. The few Chinese accounts(translated)I've seen of the war are little more than formulaic communist diatribes where the virtuous peasant-soldiers of Mao trounce the evil capitalist war-dogs of the West.

It would be great to have the story of the Chosin campaign from both sides.

But you can't write history worthy of the name based on the Chinese propaganda currently available. BEAU MARTIN/dubeaux

Great work starting the article but even to get more balance on the UN side would be good. The article starts with describing things from the US/ UK perspective then half way through forgets about anything but the US. The impression is that all the other UN forces had packed up and gone home at this point.--82.133.79.7 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all Chinese war diary was written by Leaders or generals or "propaganda", dont you think the American side use "propaganda" as well? For example by praising the small victory for the Marines as a "Feel Good" factors. Anyways there are alot of none written accounts about Korean War by surviving Chinese veterans who fought in the war, but doesnt have the writing skill to put it down, most of their story is just "memories". Also in Hong Kong there are written study of the Korean War from the Chinese point of view, and just because its written by a Chinese doesnt mean its going to be "propaganda" (Must all "Neutral" view be written by a "Westerncentric" point of view?).

Hanchi 00:18 16 Januari 2006 Greenwhich Time.

To Hanchi: I'm all in favor, as I said above, of including Chinese accounts of Chosin Reservoir. However, until recently, there have been no translated accounts generally available in the USA(my location)that were not mere propaganda. This situation is changing and as soon as I or other interested parties, competent in English, obtain and study such accounts, I'm sure the article will be modified to integrate the Chinese POV as well as the American.

dubeaux 14 May 2006

The admitted POV of this article is just evidence of a systemic problem here - you can only cite sources in English, and the vast majority of information about the Korean War from the DPRK or Chinese side hasn't been translated. I also think it's wrong to dismiss all Chinese accounts that seem too optimistic or positive as pure propaganda. The Volunteers were an incredible bunch of soldiers on an individual level, and you can't get that without high morale as well. Of course, there are plenty of propagandistic accounts, but we shouldn't silence all aspects that don't fit with the UN forces line. Deleuze 09:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me an article written by american participants in the war, as this Talk page shows: most of the comments are from USA veterans, welcomed, of course, but without a view of the other side of the conflic. English sources can be quoted by those who talk english, chinese ones by chinese speakers, I refuse to believe there are no chinese historians, whose point of view surely deserves respect. Referring to China's army as "Chinese communist forces" is a shame for Wikipedia, even if no Chinese has contributed to this article; the article seems to evoke here and there texts from USA Army propaganda. For example, the "Background" section put McArthur to fight PLA forces after their invasion of Korea, while the main article in the Korean war mentions the opposite: McArthur engaged the PLA before they crossed the Yalu. I'm not qualified to make many changes, but, if I find no arguments about it in this page a prudential time, I will substitute the CCF tag with the official name of PLA. As for a self-defeating win, perhaps a more NPOV would be to say that the chinese army seems to have achieved a clear victory with high losses, against an army better equiped. PLA flanked and encircled US Army, or so the map of the battle shows. It also can be qualified as costly, as shown by the 7700 to 37500 death and wounded toll, implying a 1 to 5 casualty ratio, similar to the numbers achieved by Russia against Germany in WWII when fighting in similar conditions of numeric superiority and equipment inferiority. The unnecesary qualification to the battle would be true if the chinese casualties could be trusted, but they are greater than the strength, as pointed out by Hanzo Hattori. Even if these figures are true, nobody would qualify the Eastern Front battles as pyrrhic.--Ciroa 07:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new layout

I was thinking under battle we should maybe have a layout like:

Battle
Fighting at Yudam-ni and Hagaru-ri
Task Force Drysdale
Task Force Faith
Breakout and relief of the Toktong Pass
Consolidation
Withdrawal to the sea
Aviation support

Just a rough idea. Interested to hear any other ideas--Looper5920 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese total casualties are greater than the strenght

--HanzoHattori 19:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. The Chinese casualties seem greatly exaggerated. If the numbers on the page are to be believed, The Chinese strength was 60,000, but suffered 67,500 casualties (25,000 killed, 12,500 wounded, 30,000 frostbite injuries). If the numbers are to be believed, half the Chinese in the force died, while everyone who didn't die some suffered from some sufficiently serious injury to become a casualty.--61.221.52.85 (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The name of the place

The actual name of the location where the battle took place is Changjin, although the continued use of Japanese name for the location for some reason led to the wrong name (Chosin) being stuck. Although the name of the battle remains in history books, I felt that it would be best to at least get the place names right and made a few changes. H27kim 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CCF?

Why are the Chinese forces referred to as the CCF in numerous places, rather than PLA troops? It would seem to make more sense, particularly as CCF means Combined Cadet Force in the UK - making for very amusing reading! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.251.97 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on several factors, such as the time the writing was done, the author, etc. CCF as it pertains to the Korean War stands for Chinese Communist Forces, which were also called CPV (Chinese People's Volunteers) or just PVA (People's Volunteer Army). The Chinese created the new name PVA and then transferred PLA units over, so they could claim that they weren't fighting the US (and the rest of the UN countries), but instead the fighting was being done by indivudual volunteers. Now almost everybody outside of mainland China knows thats a crock, but almost all references to the Korean War make the distinction between the PLA and the PVA (or CCF, CPV). wbfergus Talk 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)