Talk:Blue House raid

Untitled

Surely if the DPRK could infiltrate into south Korea as far as Seoul then south Korea simply would not exist today. Many spy cases and incidents during the period of Park Chung Hee military rule such as the case of the Peoples Revolutionary Party have been shown to be fake ones created by the Park regime itself. The Blue House Raid was carried out by south Korean armed guerrillas rather than north Korean commandoes.

Do you have any proof for this preposterous claim? The Blue House Raid and numerous other North Korean incursions during and since the rule of Park Chung-Hee are well documented and in many cases openly acknowledged by North Korea. Do you really think that hundred of South Koreans would sacrifice themselves to pretend to be North Korean commandos?Mztourist (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to the Vietnam War

User:Hungarian historian, as detailed on the Korean DMZ Conflict (1966-69) page, the North Koreans tried unsuccessfully to instigate a Viet Cong style uprising in South Korea. All detail on North Korea copying the Vietnamese etc should be contained on the Korean DMZ Conflict page, with only a small background section and specific detail of the Blue House Raid here. I tried to consolidate some of your input into the Aftermath section (not the Background section where you had originally put it), but there is a fundamental conflict between your source Szalontai with the views of the US command in Korea which saw only a coincidental link between the Blue House Raid, the Pueblo seizure and the Tet Offensive which I tried to address. To be frank the statements: "The timing of the Blue House was unusual if compared with the patterns of North Korean commando and agent operations across the DMZ. Normally, such operations were infrequent during the November–February period because of such adverse conditions as snow and the absence of thick foliage. In contrast, the military operations of the Vietnam War usually peaked during the dry season, that is, in the winter and spring." and that the Presidential Palace and Blue House Raid were "by an almost identical number of commandos (31 in Seoul and 34 in Saigon, respectively)" seem to be very tenuous and not particularly convincing. North Korea presumably scheduled the raid for a time when they thought that South Korean and US defenses were less alert and so giving them the greatest chance of successful infiltration. As detailed on the page, Unit 124 would have probably made it all the way to the Blue House undetected if they hadn't set the woodcutters free. As for the similar numbers of attackers in Saigon, who knows? Presumably that was the minimum number of men that was regarded as necessary to complete the mission, it seems doubtful that any NK-NVN liaison would extend down to coordinating the number of attackersMztourist (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I deleted my contribution to the Blue House raid and Korean DMZ conflict entries. It would have been practical if you had read the whole article (which provided a lot of additional details and which was based on declassified Soviet bloc diplomatic sources with access to Hanoi and Pyongyang) before summarily dismissing it on the basis of the impromptu evaluations of the UNC in 1968), but I cannot ask you to read it if you are convinced of the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungarian historian (talk • contribs) 04:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I did read the article, it raised some interesting issues, but I felt it extrapolated them too far. If you read my revision you will see that in the Background and Aftermaths section I retained a lot of what you originally wrote while pointing out the conflicting US views on the interrelationship between the Raid, the Pueblo and the Tet Offensive. Mztourist (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The last time I kept the background section intact. It is better to omit my references to Vietnam from the aftermath section, for the way they were modified somewhat distorted their meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungarian historian (talk • contribs) 06:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I kept in the Background section the events and circumstances that predated the Raid and moved into the Aftermath section the events that occurred after the Raid. This is chronologically correct and doesn't distort the meaning at all. I accept that Szalontai's arguments have some merit, but there are also conflicting US views. The true answers will never be known and so it is important to have a balance of possible views here Mztourist (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the explanation that the cited US views do persuasively refute is not identical with the one described in the article, nor do they address certain specific issues raised in the article. In contrast, the article takes these earlier views into consideration. For this reason, using the 1968 views to refute the 2012 article is a bit like putting the cart before the horse, or compare apples with oranges. But if all these views are regarded as equally uncertain, then I do have a right to remove that part of my contribution that is being questioned, for the sake of avoiding any further controversy. It would be sufficient to keep the reference to Johnson and Bolger, because this one did not create any dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungarian historian (talk • contribs) 07:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Probably I should undo my contribution to the North Korea-Vietnam relations entry, too, because it cites the same article as source, and the article is currently regarded as unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungarian historian (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, both arguments can be maintained in the article and it should be left as it is now. As I said earlier, Szalontai's arguments have some merit, but there are also conflicting US views. The true answers will never be known Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I will prepare a more elaborate historiographical overview. There were a number of scholars, like Mitchell Lerner, who examined this issue long after LBJ and Bolger, and on the basis of wider sources. It would be better to include it in the Korea DMZ section, however.Hungarian historian (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I will review it when it is done.Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blue House raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107074129/http://www.tacticalmilsim.com/1-military/wheels-up/the-blue-house-raid-part-ii-%e2%80%9cspecially-selected-and-handpicked%e2%80%9d/ to http://www.tacticalmilsim.com/1-military/wheels-up/the-blue-house-raid-part-ii-%E2%80%9Cspecially-selected-and-handpicked%E2%80%9D/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blue House raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325103728/http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/scenes/scen_c3.pdf to http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/scenes/scen_c3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)