Talk:Hungnam evacuation

Quit edit warring yourself.

@Mztourist I already gave full reasons on my edit description and my edits are appropriate. Whereas you failed to give reasons at all and just revert and tell people to give reasons on talk. Despite those edits shouldn't even be debated on.. No historian doubts those facts. The evacuation had two major outcomes of two parties. One was a UN retreat. The other was the Chinese / NK troops advancing and retaking the lands. They did not stay stationary but moved forward fast.. Both separate outcomes should be mentioned as the final outcome. 49.179.183.11 (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Zero mention in Aftermath on how they lost territory

the evacuation wasn't something that the Americans had ideally wanted. There is not a single mention in article's aftermath that Un troops ceded lots of territory that were previously controlled by them, in the aftermath. It's like wiped from the history book that this evacuation was not a full success story. It was a long and embarrassing retreat where they couldn't advance against the enemy, were pushed back and lost lots of territory as a result. Instead the aftermath reads as if it was deliberately chosen by the Americans that they retreated. And nothing bad came from it. Despite they literally lost control of heaps of "liberated" north Korean territory as an aftermath of the evacuation. Why is arguably the only true aftermath result not mentioned at all? I added it in to aftermath.49.179.183.11 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You are mixing together separate and distinct aspects of the PVA offensive. This page deals with the evacuation of Hungnam only. Where is the reliable source that states that 23,000 square miles of North Korean territory were abandoned in the Hungnam evacuation? The statement you inserted that "As a result of the evacuation, the North Korean and Chinese troops advanced and retook almost all Korean territories above the 38th parallel." is incorrect, that was a result of the entire offensive, not just the Hungnam evacuation. Similarly "MacArthur created a list of "retardation targets" in Korea, Manchuria and other parts of China and requested 34 atomic bombs from Washington with the purpose of sowing a belt of radioactive cobalt to prevent further Chinese advances" was a result of the offensive, not the evacuation. I am fine with you adding these details to the Aftermath section of Second Phase Offensive or UN retreat from North Korea, but they don't belong here. Again you should not reinstate disputed edits to the page while a Talk Page discussion is in process. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Both the offensive and the retreat Happened simultaneously. They were not that apart from one another. Just because the UN didn't choose to lose ground to the enemy. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. The south Korean and American forces had to give up or abandon liberated territories in their withdrawal -> https://arsof-history.org/articles/v7n1_hungnam_page_1.html those soldiers left their held grounds. Obviously if you retreat or withdraw, you are going to have to abandon territories. No respectable historian is going to say differently. And it's directly because of the withdrawal, that they lost those territories to the opposing side. The withdrawal and the opposing side rapidly moving south and gaining territories happened all at the same time. 49.179.183.11 (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if you are inexperienced or just argumentative. In WP:MILHIST if a battle or offensive is too large and there are distinct phases we split it into separate pages. I repeat my comments on Talk:Second Phase Offensive. The source you have provided is just once source, there are numerous reliable sources available about the war that do not confirm this figure. You say "No respectable historian is going to say differently" if that is indeed the case then you should have no trouble providing other reliable sources confirming this. Also you should read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which states that the lead is a summary of the page and so if you want to add such detail you should put it in the body of the page and then summarize it in the lead. Mztourist (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)