Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 August 11
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 10 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 12 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
August 11
editMilitary meaning of PMTU
editOn this map, [1] some battalions are labeled "PMTU". What do you guys think it means? --Lgriot (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
![[1]](https://mercingthechains.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/northkorea_armyorbatmap.gif){kind=link}
- Paramilitary Training Units? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Works as an acronym, but seems unlikely that the government would allow "paramilitary" to exist in the traditional sense of that word. Does the shape of the icon help? --Lgriot (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Read [2], which was the very first link in a google search "PMTU North Korea". --Jayron32 14:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- (ec)
See this example.(same source as given by Jayron above.) I'm not familiar with how the system works in North Korea but in China there is a system of locally organised militias as a sort of reserve force and local security force, so the North Korean "paramilitary" might refer to something similar. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC) - Actually, see Korean People's Army#Paramilitary organizations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Page 41 of the pdf document PalaceGuard linked to states PMTU does indeed stand for Paramilitary Training Unit. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Works as an acronym, but seems unlikely that the government would allow "paramilitary" to exist in the traditional sense of that word. Does the shape of the icon help? --Lgriot (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- NATO Joint Military Symbology helps: they have a upper bar, meaning they are some sort of HQ; a bottom bar, meaning they are some sort supply; and no other weapon or specialty symbol (like missile, infantry, EW, EOD, CSS, etc.). Also, none of them appears on the front, but they belong to the 4th (and last!) echelon fellow on troops, that is, to be used after everything else is already engaged. They have XX, indicating fairly numerous personnel. All this hinted at some sort of "training unit" for TU, but i wouldn't guessed the "PM" part without the link provided by JayronGem fr (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- The naming as "paramilitary" had diplomatic/political reasons. In the Korean War both sides claimed to be the only legitimate government of all of Korea, thus the Republic of Korea Armed Forces and United States Forces Korea also rejected to recognize the opponent force Korean People's Army as legit, thus rebranding them as paramilitary, terrorists, crimimals etc. --Kharon (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- While this is interesting, it doesn't seem to really relate to the question. Nowadays and since 1983 at least, it seems there is no disagreement that North Korea does have a non-paramilitary armed forces. As per the above sources, the ones labelled as paramilitary are specific parts labelled as such for specific reasons relating to their structure, organisation and composition. I'm not totally sure even the North Korea government necessarily disagrees with the label. Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- The question was extended by "but seems unlikely that the government would allow "paramilitary" to exist". I tried to answer that in pointing to the hidden agendas and strategies frequent in politics that seem nonsense on first sight. These often simply aim to discredit the opponent. --Kharon (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Except that all evidence suggests this doesn't have anything to do with trying to discredit the opponent. As PalaceGuard008 has already mentioned, China is one example where they have no problem calling part of their force paramilitary. They don't call it that because other people don't like this part of their force. It's not entirely clear, but it appears to me that North Korea likewise calls their force something which is translated to paramilitary. In other words, this last little to do with other parties trying to discredit North Korea or the other side, but all to do with how the side themselves structure and call that part of their military. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- The question was extended by "but seems unlikely that the government would allow "paramilitary" to exist". I tried to answer that in pointing to the hidden agendas and strategies frequent in politics that seem nonsense on first sight. These often simply aim to discredit the opponent. --Kharon (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- While this is interesting, it doesn't seem to really relate to the question. Nowadays and since 1983 at least, it seems there is no disagreement that North Korea does have a non-paramilitary armed forces. As per the above sources, the ones labelled as paramilitary are specific parts labelled as such for specific reasons relating to their structure, organisation and composition. I'm not totally sure even the North Korea government necessarily disagrees with the label. Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- The naming as "paramilitary" had diplomatic/political reasons. In the Korean War both sides claimed to be the only legitimate government of all of Korea, thus the Republic of Korea Armed Forces and United States Forces Korea also rejected to recognize the opponent force Korean People's Army as legit, thus rebranding them as paramilitary, terrorists, crimimals etc. --Kharon (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all, and apologies for dismissing PalaceGuard008's first guess. I could not imagine that "para" would be used to designate government approved military units, and I was wrong. And yes, I should have tried to google better than I did, I only searched "PTMU" which led me nowhere. But Kharon, this does not seem to be the West dismissing them as not a 'real army', or they would dismiss the whole thing, not just certain units. they seem to be called this by both sides. Or am I wrong again here? Anyone speaks Korean and know what they are called in that language? --Lgriot (talk)