Talk:Bombing of North Korea

As of this edit, this article uses content from "Bombing of North Korea 1950-1953", which is licensed in a way that permits reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, but not under the GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it is largely an expansion of the "Bombing of North Korea" section in the Korean War article, started by me from various sources. The "Sourcewatch" article appears to be a copy of this, not the reverse.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Jack Upland unless I'm mistaken, this article was started in 2018. The SourceWatch page is from 2017‎. You can have the deleting admin check it if you want to. Additionally, the SourceWatch page credits various Wikipedia articles, but not this one, so I'm inclined to believe we copied them, not the other way around. At any rate, this article included an explicit note saying that it incorporates content from SourceWatch. The problem here being obviously the NC license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the very first revision of this article said it copied from SourceWatch. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The following is copied from Anthony Bradbury's talk page for future reference: You recently deleted the above page as an unambiguous copyright infringement. I don't think that should have happened because it is largely an expansion of the "Bombing of North Korea" section in the Korean War article, started by me from various sources. The "Sourcewatch" article appears to be a copy of Wikipedia, not the reverse.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Bombing of North Korea 1950-1953#Contested deletion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

In response to Finnusertop's comments, which have since been deleted:

1. Yes, it seems the "Sourcewatch" article was created first, but both articles were created by Tednace based on material from other Wikipedia articles.

2. "Sourcewatch" is public domain.[1]

3. Even if it wanted to, "Sourcewatch" couldn't claim copyright over material copied from Wikipedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments noted. It might have been helpful if the link between the articles had been mentioned. I will restore the article. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

PRIO dataset

This Wikipedia article was copied from SourceWatch, which is a highly unreliable source (as we shall see). As far as I know, there are no reliable estimates of civilian casualties caused by the bombing of North Korea from 1950 to 1953 (at most, we can probably say that the order of magnitude is hundreds of thousands), but SourceWatch somehow got the idea that exactly 995,448 civilians were killed, attributing this figure to the prestigious Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). Turning to the source (p. 362), it turns out that this number refers not to civilian victims of U.S. bombing but rather to the "battle deaths" caused by all sides throughout the entire Korean War:

Best estimate: 995,000

214,899 (most recent DOD estimate of North Korean military deaths) + 401,401 (most recent DOD estimate of Chinese military deaths) + 299 (USSR) + 113,248 (COW estimate of South Korean military losses) + 115,000 (South Korean civilian deaths Clodfelter suggests were battle related) + 31,641 (Most recent estimate of US military deaths) + 3,960 (UN KIA) = 880,448. If North Korean civilian battle deaths were at least as great as South Korean civilian battle deaths, this would imply about 995,448 deaths. (emphasis added)

Presumably the last sentence is what tripped up the inept SourceWatch editors, but PRIO was entirely transparent about the math involved: PRIO calculated 880,448 "battle deaths" from other sources, to which it added 115,000 "North Korean civilian battle deaths." The 115,000 figure was not based on anything in particular due to the lack of reliable information on the fate of North Korean civilians; instead, PRIO simply assumed for the purposes of the study that such North Korea civilian casualties "were at least as great as South Korean civilian battle deaths." If anything, PRIO appears to have revised its estimate of Korean War "battle deaths" down from the 1.2 million cited at the main Korean_War#Casualties (which is a real mess, BTW, perhaps the worst "casualties" section for an article on a major war that I've seen on Wikipedia), now putting the total at just under one million. If these figures seem suspiciously low, that is because PRIO is only estimating "battle deaths," using a methodology intended to exclude deaths from one-sided civilian massacres (of which there were many during the Korean War) as well as starvation and disease. To give just one example, PRIO states (p. 361):

Clodfelter gives the only available estimate of South Korean civilian deaths: 244,000. He implies that up to 129,000 of these deaths may have been in one-sided violence.

In other words, PRIO's estimate of roughly one million Korean War "battle deaths" excludes about half of South Korea's civilian casualties on the grounds that they do not constitute "battle deaths." Consider the implications: If we were to extrapolate just from this one data point, then an assessment of the overall excess mortality wrought by the Korean War would be closer to 2 million rather than PRIO's 1 million, assuming that all of PRIO's underlying estimates are accepted. (In other cases, of course, the disparity between "battle deaths" and excess mortality might be less or even more extreme than it is in this example. According to PRIO, p. 361, 1.5 million is the minimum estimate of overall excess mortality caused by the Korean War, while other estimates range from 3 million to as many as 4.5 million, figures that can be compared to PRIO's full range of 644,696 to 1.5 million "battle deaths"—the ratio seems to be closer to 1:3 rather than 1:2, consistent with a mid-value sum of roughly 3 million.) When focusing specifically on Korean casualties, it's worth bearing in mind the obvious fact that several hundred thousand Chinese soldiers are included in any of these statistics.

Because of uncertainties in the underlying evidence, the limitations inherent in PRIO's methodology, as well as the fact that numerical coincidences do occur, it's possible in principle that SourceWatch's estimate isn't as far from the truth as it might appear to be at first glance. Nevertheless, SourceWatch egregiously misrepresented PRIO's findings to conjure up that number essentially out of thin air, and this should greatly influence our assessment of its credibility (just as including such an easily-checked fabrication likely dampened the perception that many of our readers have of Wikipedia's credibility). It would be outrageous to take this fabrication at face value and conclude that the bombing of North Korea was definitively more damaging to civilians than the Allied strategic bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan during World War II. I don't think that Wikipedia can say which of those bombing campaigns was the deadliest in wikivoice, certainly not with SourceWatch as the only citation. Furthermore, it would be well-advised to go through this article with a fine-toothed comb and make sure that Wikipedia is not perpetuating other distortions ostensibly based on reliable sources but actually originating with SourceWatch, which has demonstrated that it cannot be depended upon to accurately transcribe what RS say.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

First of all, it is misleading to say this was copied from SourceWatch. All that happened was an editor created identical articles here and at SourceWatch, using material from other Wikipedia articles etc. This is discussed above. Secondly, also as discussed above, this article was deleted as a copyright infringement, which it clearly wasn't. You have no valid grounds to suggest deletion. Thirdly, all articles should be checked as thoroughly as possible. The PRIO number was clearly just a mistake. It should have just been deleted. Instead you have removed swathes of unrelated text. Fourthly, I see no evidence that anyone was citing SourceWatch as a source. Fifthly, any POV should be removed automatically. In conclusion, you are over-reacting to a minor error.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

UN or USAF?

User:XXzoonamiXX by this edit: [2] changed the first sentence from "The United States Air Force (USAF) carried out an extensive bombing campaign" to "Air forces of the United Nations Command carried out an extensive bombing campaign". Now the USAF was acting as part of the UN Command but did other air forces participate or not? My understanding was that other air forces may have participated in close air support, but strategic bombing was exclusively done by the USAF, but I may be wrong on this. If it was essentially a USAF effort shouldn't the first sentence read something like: "The United States Air Force (USAF) acting under the United Nations Command carried out an extensive bombing campaign"? Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't just the USAF bombing North Korea, but also Marine and Navy aircraft as well as other countries from the UN forces as well. I'm pretty sure other editors can add other organizations' historical air raids in the Korean War if they wish. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There was certainly some Marine and Navy bombing, but the strategic bombing campaign was a USAF operation and I really don't think any of the other air forces took part in that. Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to say that the United Nations, predominantly through the USAF, carried out the bombing campaign. I know, for example, that the Australian navy shelled North Korea positions...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is specifically about air raids on North Korea, not naval bombardment. "Bombing" generally refers to aircraft dropping ordnance on a target. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Napalm Quote

I have removed this:

"Napalm was widely used. In John Ford's 1951 documentary, This is Korea, footage of napalm deployment is accompanied by a voice-over by John Wayne saying, "Burn 'em out, cook 'em, fry 'em"; the New York Herald Tribune hailed "Napalm, the No. 1 Weapon in Korea". Winston Churchill, among others, criticized American use of napalm, calling it "very cruel", as the US/UN forces, he said, were "splashing it all over the civilian population", "tortur[ing] great masses of people". The American official who took this statement declined to publicize it."

This was taken verbatim from a pre-January 2020 version of the article on napalm. Refer to here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ANapalm#Incorrect_%22This_Is_Korea!%22_Quote - there is a misquote and misattribution in this copied paragraph that was corrected well over two years and has stood unchallenged. Effectively the only factual information in the paragraph is that napalm was dropped on Korea from aircraft. What isn't false information is just emotive statements disapproving of its use, and those statements are about its use in general, not specifically its use in the bombing campaigns - it's irrelevant to this article.

It looks rather like someone edited the napalm article, and probably the same person added the content here, because they feel its use was unethical and wanted to express their opinion through some falsified quotes. It would be fine to add a section covering the ethics of the use of napalm specifically in the bombing of Korea if there were appropriate sources, and also to cover the manner in which it was employed, but this is that, it is, as stated, irrelevant, and long since corrected on the page it was copied from. 124.148.174.195 (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Since part of this got restored, I thought it was worth verifying the citation. The parts from "This Is Korea!" were wrong so the restored parts had a high chance of being erroneous as well. The passage from Neer reads as follows:

"[Omar Bradley] requested permission to issue a statement that confimed U.K. support for U.S. napalm attacks. Prime Minister Winston Churchill expressed misgivings, but did not stand in the way of agreement by Britain’s commanders. He recorded his meditations, if not his actions, in a 22 August 1952 file memorandum: I do not like this napalm bombing at all. A fearful lot of people must be burned, not by ordinary fire, but by the contents of the bomb. We should make a great mistake to commit ourselves to approval of a very cruel form of warfare affecting the civilian populations. Napalm in the war was devised by and used by fighting men in action against tanks and against heavily defended structures. No one ever thought of splashing it about all over the civilian population. I will take no responsibility for it. It is one thing to use napalm in close battle, or from the air in immediate aid of ground troops. It is quite another to torture great masses of people with it.

In the event, Bradley never published the statement."

Compare with the article:

"Winston Churchill, among others, criticized American use of napalm, calling it "very cruel", as the US/UN forces, he said, were "splashing it all over the civilian population", "tortur[ing] great masses of people". The American official who took this statement declined to publicize it."

I think this shows that the original contributor was being deceptive. Even the most banal points are false, e.g. "the American official [Bradley] who took this statement": it's a memo written by Churchill NOT a statement recorded by Bradley. More to the point, the memo Churchill wrote is clearly NOT the statement that Neer is referring to when he says "In the event, Bradley never published the statement" since it is explicitly stated: "Churchill [...] did not stand in the way of agreement by Britain’s commanders". Churchill's memo is a different document altogether, so the sentence is entirely false.

It's also misleading in that Churchill clearly approved of using napalm in combat against military units and fortifications. His objection is when it is used on civilians, and even then, not on the destruction of their housing or other property, but on the direct injury by napalm itself. This distinction is unmentioned, but it's definitely relevant, as there those who condemn its employment of even against soldiers.

Furthermore, in the quoted passage Churchill does NOT say that "the US/UN forces [...] were "splashing it all over the civilian population", "tortur[ing] great masses of people"" He is clearly stating his opinion about how it SHOULD NOT be employed rather than describing how it IS being employed.

I'm not being disingenuous here. Given the context Churchill is at least concerned that this is how napalm WILL be employed as a result of accepting its use against targets away from the battlefield. It may even be interpreted that Churchill means this IS what is happening - but that the issue is that the actual statements are phrased as hypotheticals not actual practice in Korea.

Perhaps a larger piece of the Churchill statement ought to be inserted as a block quote so that it's not selective and misleading. I've no particular view on its inclusion beyond the factuality of it.

I think it does lead to a broader point about the entire article - it's almost exclusively a description of the casualties and damage to infrastructure of North Korea. There's a heavy usage of emotive quotes to describe the damage. It could be retitled "An indictment of the UN bombing of North Korea."

The article is really quite lacking in every way other than that. There's practically no other information than a litany of damages. For example, what sort of weapons and what quantities did the DPRK have to defend itself against strategic bombing? Did the DPRK expect to face strategic bombing before the war started? Did the USSR provide them with support in this area prior to the war? How did it respond once it began? How effective were its defenses? Did it develop new tactics and strategies? Did this affect the way its supporter the USSR thought about USAF operations and weapons? What effects did it have on the ground combat operations of the KPA and later PLA? Given that the KPA and PLA were being supplied externally and so the sources of their food, ammunition, weapons, vehicles, fuel, etc couldn't be destroyed or even degraded by strategic bombing per USAF (and RAF, etc) doctrine, what were the objectives set by the USAF? These are the sorts of things the article on the Vietnamese air war covers.

This also highlights that the entire structure is questionable, since tactical air attacks are discussed along with the strategic ones. Usually CAS/BAI, destruction of bridges, airfields, roads, etc in support of ground combat are considered within the article for the relevant battle or campaign etc because they're essentially part of that topic. Strategic bombing would be separate, and even have articles for distinct phases or major episodes e.g. Ploesti oilfields or Op Chastise.

124.148.174.195 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to your post above, which failed to assume good faith, the original contributor(s) was not being "deceptive". In fact, Pembroke 2018 directly states: "In John Ford's 1951 propaganda film This is Korea!, footage of napalm being deployed is accompanied by John Wayne's chilling commentary: 'Burn 'em out, cook 'em, fry 'em.'" While it is clear that Pembroke is guilty of a (fairly trivial) distortion of the relevant quote, your rationale for removal was not especially strong—it basically consisted of original research (i.e., watching the documentary for yourself and rendering the quote more precisely as "Fry 'em out, burn 'em out, cook 'em") and a reference to IMDb, which is not a reliable source per WP:RSP (specifically an entry that no longer lists This is Korea! as a credit for John Ireland, undermining your thesis). Nevertheless, I did not contest that portion of your deletion because Pembroke 2018, though largely reliable for factual information, is a fairly partisan source as evidenced by the publisher (Oneworld Publications), the foreword (by Noam Chomsky), and the review by Blaine Harden in The Washington Post ("With a polemicist's distaste for ambiguity, Pembroke cherry-picks events of the Korean War, emphasizing American outrages ... Yet Pembroke's book ... does deliver crucial information that Americans need to understand the permanent crisis in northeastern Asia"). Such considerations clearly do not apply to the views of Winston Churchill as summarized (and deemed important) by top scholarship from Harvard University Press. If Neer 2013 is being misrepresented in any sense—even by way of another trivial mistake of the sort that you seem to have a proclivity for blowing out of proportion—then the text should be corrected, but total deletion is not a valid option. The excerpt that you provided appears to substantiate two main points: 1.) That Churchill expressed misgivings about widespread napalm use inflicting disproportionate harm on Korean civilians to Omar Bradley (concerns which Churchill memorialized in a contemporaneous memorandum), and 2.) That Bradley declined to publicize Churchill's views. In context (and given what we know about the bombing campaign), it is not plausible to infer that Churchill was merely speaking hypothetically; his memorandum explicitly states "I do not like this napalm bombing at all" [emphasis added], nor does Neer 2013 make any such inference—which, again, likely constitutes original research. Regardless, I will take a stab at revising the text to address your stated objections momentarily. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)