This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Because of false intelligence, the Turks were expecting to encounter with Chinese somewhere on the road" "The advance party of the Turkish Brigade arrived in Pusan on 12 October 1950. The main body arrived five days later, October 17 from the eastern Mediterranean port of Iskenderun, Turkey, and the brigade went into bivouac near Taegu where it underwent training and received U.S. equipment"
Please makes sure you are using proper punctuation and grammar when adding information to the article.
Also, the last 5 paragraphs of the "Background" section are a total mess. Almost every sentence is an attempt to discredit the last and the Turkish defeat at Pongmyong-ni becomes very redundant with multiple quotes giving the same opinion. I feel like this can be shortened to a couple sentences about what happened then follow it with another couple sentences covering what historians and military leaders thought about the performance of the Turkish brigade at this battle. 76.184.196.142 ( talk) 15:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I need help in organizing this article. All inputs and suggestions welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.118.177 ( talk) 14:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:KoreanWarpostalstampTC.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
According to reliable sources like "Disaster in Korea: The Chinese Confront MacArthur" By Roy E. Appleman, the turkish brigade's performance against Chinese forces were atrocious. The turks actually slaughtered and captured a band of several hundred south korean soldiers whom they mistook for chinese a few miles away from wawon, the battle was falsely reported in the western press as a turkish victory.
The chinese inflicted decisive defeats upon turks around wawon and sinnim-ni and on the road towards tokchon. The article as it stands now, is nothing more than turkish nationalist propaganda.
Title Disaster in Korea: The Chinese Confront MacArthur Texas Aamp;m University Military History Series Williams-Ford Texas a&M University Military History Series Author Roy E. Appleman Edition illustrated Publisher Texas A&M University Press, 2009 ISBN 160344128X, 9781603441285 Length 476 pages
http://books.google.com/books?id=k8d2YX43hMoC&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.doureios.com/magazine/TurksInKorea.html
18:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Page 89
Page 90
Page 92
Page 190
Page 206
Page 207
Title Conflict: The History of the Korean War, 1950-53 Author Robert Leckie Edition illustrated, reprint Publisher Da Capo Press, 1996 ISBN 0306807165, 9780306807169
Title The Forgotten War: America in Korea, 1950-1953 Author Clay Blair Edition illustrated, reprint Publisher Naval Institute Press, 2003 Original from Indiana University Digitized Nov 7, 2008 ISBN 1591140757, 9781591140757
Page 451
Page 452
Page 455
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)Rajmaan ( talk) 05:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.warhistoryonline.com/articles/turks-korea-creating-myth-part-1.html
http://www.warhistoryonline.com/articles/turks-korea-creating-myth-part-2.html
HISTOIRE MONDIALE DE L APRES GUERRE 1945 - 1953 ----
Paris Match
http://www.worldcat.org/title/histoire-mondiale-de-lapres-guerre-1-1945-1953/oclc/489707840
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/apres-guerre/author/cartier/sortby/3/page-1/
http://www.worldcat.org/title/histoire-mondiale-de-lapres-guerre/oclc/635639404
http://www.amazon.com/Histoire-mondiale-laprès-premier-1945-1953/dp/B005JDF7OW
http://www.amazon.ca/Histoire-mondiale-laprès-premier-1945-1953/dp/B005JDF7OW
Most of these sources clearly do not meet up to the NPOV standards of Wikipedia, and many just cite each other as opposed to actual historical documents. It's safe to assume that the citations used currently are the most reliable. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.184.220.115 (
talk) 15:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
According to
this source page 438, Freeman was given authority to leave his position. Although, the following sentence does state the authorization was controversial.
In the article it states, "..., who was later accused of fleeing from Kunu-ri with his
US 23rd Infantry Regiment and exposed the rear of US 2nd Infantry Division to Chinese attacks.." citing page 271, which neither states he was fleeing or was accused of fleeing. He was condemned for not following the 2nd Division down the Sunchon road as its rear guard(page 271), to state he was "fleeing" is
original research.
Instead, the sentence should state, ", who contentiously withdrew his
US 23rd Infantry Regiment from Kunu-ri,(page 438) and exposed the rear of US 2nd Infantry Division to Chinese attacks". --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 20:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Now that we have exchanged pleasantries, the sentence in question:
"American commanding officer Paul Freeman, who contentiously withdrew his US 23rd Infantry Regiment from Kunu-ri and exposed the rear of US 2nd Infantry Division to Chinese attacks, said that the Turks had a "look at the situation," "and they had no stomach for it, and they were running in all directions."
"American Colonel Paul Freeman, said that the Turks had a "look at the situation," "and they had no stomach for it, and they were running in all directions, and yet he had contentiously withdrew his own regiment, thereby exposing the rear of the US 2nd Infantry Division to Chinese attack."
Thoughts? I would prefer to summarize "the Turks had a "look at the situation," "and they had no stomach for it, and they were running in all directions" part, but nothing has come to mind yet. --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 01:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
As late comer to this argument, but as someone who had studied the subject a little, I have some comments to make. It is known that the Turkish Brigade had communication difficulties due to technical and language problems. When the Chinese Army launched the massive surprise attack, a whole ROK army to the flank of the Brigade had just disintegrated. This left this one brigade facing a whole Chinese army. Situation had little to do with stomach or courage. There is some evidence that Turks did not receive or were not informed about a withdrawal either. They did not know that they were being left behind by the 23rd regiment most likely. American commanders were mostly oblivious to these given the massive confusion and panic. Turks soon found themselves being encircled too and tried to escape the trap in a disorganized manner. They did rearguard action and delayed the Chinese onslaught significantly, saving the 8th Army many lives as recounted by many survivors in many diaries. I have heard some directly from a few US veterans. (This well thought out comment was left by User:GELongstreet, an experience contributor to military history articles, who must have inadvertently missed signing this post, an undoubtedly rate occurrence.) @ GELongstreet: as info. Donner60 ( talk) 01:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes it seems good is not good enough. Not sure what value the extraneous edits add to the article. The "Loss" section is clearly about losses, or should be. Why add long "judgments" and "critique" of performance in here? If there is an unstoppable need and urge to opine about the performance of the brigade, then open another section titled such.
I also note that same information is repeated in numerous places. Apparently sprinkled in without regard to the rest of this modest article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.134.90 ( talk) 02:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I've fixed it up as best as I could, I noticed the same quotes being repeated and information being irrelevant to the section as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.220.115 ( talk) 16:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Because of false intelligence, the Turks were expecting to encounter with Chinese somewhere on the road" "The advance party of the Turkish Brigade arrived in Pusan on 12 October 1950. The main body arrived five days later, October 17 from the eastern Mediterranean port of Iskenderun, Turkey, and the brigade went into bivouac near Taegu where it underwent training and received U.S. equipment"
Please makes sure you are using proper punctuation and grammar when adding information to the article.
Also, the last 5 paragraphs of the "Background" section are a total mess. Almost every sentence is an attempt to discredit the last and the Turkish defeat at Pongmyong-ni becomes very redundant with multiple quotes giving the same opinion. I feel like this can be shortened to a couple sentences about what happened then follow it with another couple sentences covering what historians and military leaders thought about the performance of the Turkish brigade at this battle. 76.184.196.142 ( talk) 15:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I need help in organizing this article. All inputs and suggestions welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.118.177 ( talk) 14:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:KoreanWarpostalstampTC.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
According to reliable sources like "Disaster in Korea: The Chinese Confront MacArthur" By Roy E. Appleman, the turkish brigade's performance against Chinese forces were atrocious. The turks actually slaughtered and captured a band of several hundred south korean soldiers whom they mistook for chinese a few miles away from wawon, the battle was falsely reported in the western press as a turkish victory.
The chinese inflicted decisive defeats upon turks around wawon and sinnim-ni and on the road towards tokchon. The article as it stands now, is nothing more than turkish nationalist propaganda.
Title Disaster in Korea: The Chinese Confront MacArthur Texas Aamp;m University Military History Series Williams-Ford Texas a&M University Military History Series Author Roy E. Appleman Edition illustrated Publisher Texas A&M University Press, 2009 ISBN 160344128X, 9781603441285 Length 476 pages
http://books.google.com/books?id=k8d2YX43hMoC&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.doureios.com/magazine/TurksInKorea.html
18:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Page 89
Page 90
Page 92
Page 190
Page 206
Page 207
Title Conflict: The History of the Korean War, 1950-53 Author Robert Leckie Edition illustrated, reprint Publisher Da Capo Press, 1996 ISBN 0306807165, 9780306807169
Title The Forgotten War: America in Korea, 1950-1953 Author Clay Blair Edition illustrated, reprint Publisher Naval Institute Press, 2003 Original from Indiana University Digitized Nov 7, 2008 ISBN 1591140757, 9781591140757
Page 451
Page 452
Page 455
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)Rajmaan ( talk) 05:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.warhistoryonline.com/articles/turks-korea-creating-myth-part-1.html
http://www.warhistoryonline.com/articles/turks-korea-creating-myth-part-2.html
HISTOIRE MONDIALE DE L APRES GUERRE 1945 - 1953 ----
Paris Match
http://www.worldcat.org/title/histoire-mondiale-de-lapres-guerre-1-1945-1953/oclc/489707840
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/apres-guerre/author/cartier/sortby/3/page-1/
http://www.worldcat.org/title/histoire-mondiale-de-lapres-guerre/oclc/635639404
http://www.amazon.com/Histoire-mondiale-laprès-premier-1945-1953/dp/B005JDF7OW
http://www.amazon.ca/Histoire-mondiale-laprès-premier-1945-1953/dp/B005JDF7OW
Most of these sources clearly do not meet up to the NPOV standards of Wikipedia, and many just cite each other as opposed to actual historical documents. It's safe to assume that the citations used currently are the most reliable. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.184.220.115 (
talk) 15:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
According to
this source page 438, Freeman was given authority to leave his position. Although, the following sentence does state the authorization was controversial.
In the article it states, "..., who was later accused of fleeing from Kunu-ri with his
US 23rd Infantry Regiment and exposed the rear of US 2nd Infantry Division to Chinese attacks.." citing page 271, which neither states he was fleeing or was accused of fleeing. He was condemned for not following the 2nd Division down the Sunchon road as its rear guard(page 271), to state he was "fleeing" is
original research.
Instead, the sentence should state, ", who contentiously withdrew his
US 23rd Infantry Regiment from Kunu-ri,(page 438) and exposed the rear of US 2nd Infantry Division to Chinese attacks". --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 20:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Now that we have exchanged pleasantries, the sentence in question:
"American commanding officer Paul Freeman, who contentiously withdrew his US 23rd Infantry Regiment from Kunu-ri and exposed the rear of US 2nd Infantry Division to Chinese attacks, said that the Turks had a "look at the situation," "and they had no stomach for it, and they were running in all directions."
"American Colonel Paul Freeman, said that the Turks had a "look at the situation," "and they had no stomach for it, and they were running in all directions, and yet he had contentiously withdrew his own regiment, thereby exposing the rear of the US 2nd Infantry Division to Chinese attack."
Thoughts? I would prefer to summarize "the Turks had a "look at the situation," "and they had no stomach for it, and they were running in all directions" part, but nothing has come to mind yet. --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 01:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
As late comer to this argument, but as someone who had studied the subject a little, I have some comments to make. It is known that the Turkish Brigade had communication difficulties due to technical and language problems. When the Chinese Army launched the massive surprise attack, a whole ROK army to the flank of the Brigade had just disintegrated. This left this one brigade facing a whole Chinese army. Situation had little to do with stomach or courage. There is some evidence that Turks did not receive or were not informed about a withdrawal either. They did not know that they were being left behind by the 23rd regiment most likely. American commanders were mostly oblivious to these given the massive confusion and panic. Turks soon found themselves being encircled too and tried to escape the trap in a disorganized manner. They did rearguard action and delayed the Chinese onslaught significantly, saving the 8th Army many lives as recounted by many survivors in many diaries. I have heard some directly from a few US veterans. (This well thought out comment was left by User:GELongstreet, an experience contributor to military history articles, who must have inadvertently missed signing this post, an undoubtedly rate occurrence.) @ GELongstreet: as info. Donner60 ( talk) 01:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes it seems good is not good enough. Not sure what value the extraneous edits add to the article. The "Loss" section is clearly about losses, or should be. Why add long "judgments" and "critique" of performance in here? If there is an unstoppable need and urge to opine about the performance of the brigade, then open another section titled such.
I also note that same information is repeated in numerous places. Apparently sprinkled in without regard to the rest of this modest article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.134.90 ( talk) 02:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I've fixed it up as best as I could, I noticed the same quotes being repeated and information being irrelevant to the section as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.220.115 ( talk) 16:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)