During the campaign, conventional weapons such as explosives, incendiary bombs, and napalm destroyed nearly all of the country's cities and towns, including an estimated 85% of its buildings.

A total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, were dropped on Korea. By comparison, the U.S. dropped 1.6 million tons in the European theater and 500,000 tons in the Pacific theater during all of World War II (including 160,000 on Japan). North Korea ranks alongside Cambodia (500,000 tons), Laos (2 million tons), and South Vietnam (4 million tons) as among the most heavily-bombed countries in history.

In an interview with U.S. Air Force historians in 1988, USAF General Curtis LeMay, who was also head of the U.S. Strategic Air Command, commented on efforts to win the war as a whole, including the strategic bombing campaign, saying “Right at the start of the war, unofficially, I slipped a message in "under the carpet" in the Pentagon that we ought to turn SAC lose with some incendiaries on some North Korean towns. The answer came back, under the carpet again, that there would be too many civilian casualties; we couldn't do anything like that. We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, some way or another, and some in South Korea, too......Over a period of three years or so we killed off, what, 20 percent of the population of Korea, as direct casualties of war or from starvation and exposure? Over a period of three years, this seemed to be acceptable to everybody, but to kill a few people at the start right away, no, we can't seem to stomach that.”

Sahr-Conway Lanz, who holds a Ph.D. in the history of American foreign relations, has written extensively about the legacy and impact on American discourse on the international norm of noncombatant immunity. He states:

"During the war, American military and civilian officials stretched the term "military target" to include virtually all human-made structures, capitalizing on the vague distinction between the military and civilian segments of an enemy society. They came to apply the logic of total war to the destruction of the civil infrastructure in North Korea. Because almost any building could serve a military purpose, even if a minor one, nearly the entire physical infrastructure behind enemy lines was deemed a military target and open to attack. This expansive definition, along with the optimism about sparing civilians that is reinforced, worked to obscure in American awareness the suffering of Korean civilians in which U.S. firebombing was contributing."

The song was inspired by Korean war veteran that John McCrea met in a bar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Rgsihd6WM

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 31 points 2 years ago (2 children)

@Hyggyldy@sffa.community that feeling gnawing at the back of your awareness is the realization that you've been duped by the most prolificly evil entity to ever exist on the planet

[–] autismdragon@hexbear.net 26 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Won't realize anything. When I showed this article to my liberal friend he doubled down and said that while civilian deaths were unfortunate, it was a proportional response to Kim invading the South and compared it to Hitler invading Poland. Its veryt rare that shit like this gets through.

[–] Evilsandwichman@hexbear.net 16 points 2 years ago

Hey I too know a lib I can't get through to; this guy however doesn't know nearly enough about history to try and sound informed; he instead spouts whatever comes to mind, for example: when I told him about what had been going on in Donbas until the war, and that Ukraine wanted the land but not the people, he argued for ethnic cleansing in the form of forcing all the Russians there to leave, and it was enough that the Ukrainian government wanted them gone for him to say that. When I brought up that the US is causing major issues with Taiwan, his response was "Do you believe that China does bad things?", and then wanted to start talking about the Uyghurs even though.....it has literally no relation to the situation with Taiwan. He pretends that countries not being democracies is the reason he supports the US intervening or invading many nations, and when I point out that Ukraine has shut down many left wing parties, he then pivots and says Putin does it too with a face as though he's said something really clever.

I've spent hours trying to educate him about what's going on in many countries the US intervenes in but the truth is this guy just inherently supports US empire.

Your friend may be different, but I suspect he's using what little historical info he has to try and lend legitimacy to his claims but the truth is he already knows who he supports (just not why).

[–] reaper_cushions@hexbear.net 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’s not a pissing contest, but I still believe Nazi Germany takes the cake in that regard.

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 9 points 2 years ago

its certainly possible, as someone living under the former example and 85 years separated from the latter, its impossible for me to say

Death to america/nazis!

[–] Evilsandwichman@hexbear.net 24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"During the war, American military and civilian officials stretched the term "military target" to include virtually all human-made structures, capitalizing on the vague distinction between the military and civilian segments of an enemy society. They came to apply the logic of total war to the destruction of the civil infrastructure in North Korea. Because almost any building could serve a military purpose, even if a minor one, nearly the entire physical infrastructure behind enemy lines was deemed a military target and open to attack. This expansive definition, along with the optimism about sparing civilians that is reinforced, worked to obscure in American awareness the suffering of Korean civilians in which U.S. firebombing was contributing."

One of the things I never understood is why Western countries (as we're not the only ones who do this) bother coming up with these laws and rules of engagement and such if they're just going to basically be interpreted in the most liberal sense to allow one to do whatever they want. Take that adviser to Trump who suggested sending out a drone to 'deal' with migrants before they crossed the US border or entered American waters because they wouldn't be protected by the US constitution at that point. What even is the point of these laws if the intent is ignored and people simply find a way to play the system?

[–] culpritus@hexbear.net 23 points 2 years ago

the mask of civility is the thin veneer that liberals use to hide their agenda

it's related to the difference between materialist and idealist perspectives

if you claim to uphold lofty ideals, then you can just claim the material failure to live up to those ideals is an oversight, mistake, accident, victim-blame etc

this is also why plausible deniability is a critical aspect of many operations, it was those few bad people that caused the bad things, not the institutional structure that is dedicated to lofty ideals

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 14 points 2 years ago

To say that they have them

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 2 years ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=52Rgsihd6WM

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.