|
Cookie,
I see your point and generally agree, but
today we live with the legacy of mountains of
180 contradictions from the Cold War era, objective truth may
sometimes be beyond the grasp of humans IMO.
To take your example further, I don't think
the results of MiG killing by the USAF is so much in doubt. UN
says ~800. Admitted Russian and Chinese losses add up to the mid 500's, and
the North Korean defector No Gum Suk said the KPAFAC lost 100 to all causes, so
maybe a few dozen in combat, so seems ~600 altogether. The remaining
discprepancy of around 200 is not shocking to readers of air combat history in
other wars.
OTOH the communist claim/UN loss dispute is of a
different magnitude, frustrating but intensely fascinating all the more for it.
In this case one side said it shot down as many
as 10 times depending on who counts, as many aircraft as the other side says it
lost. Surely the result is in somewhere in the middle but not necessarily
anywhere near exactly in the middle.
Focusing in on specific incidents, as you well
know, there can be bizzarre contradictions between accounts: "they made one
pass, got one of our a/c then left" v. " we battled with them for 30 minutes,
and shot down 7, all but one". Or "all pilots returned safely" v. "two aircraft
were shot down and their pilots found dead in their cockpits by our Chinese
allies".
Searching for objective truth at this level isn't
somewhere in the middle. Either for example, US airmen were shot down and
killed but the incidents and their names not written even
in dispatches stamped "declassified" over original stamp "secret" (which
anybody can now get), and their comrades have presented a continuous wall of
silence about them. Or there were fabrications or perhaps sloppy disregard
of truth on the Russian side ("ah, the Chinese found a plane today, I guess it's
the one we claimed yesterday, yes let's say that"). And there are many other
such 180 deg oppositions on specific facts (serial no. of wreck recorded, no
such plane with the serial in US records, or plane never served in Korea, etc.).
Cases where if the Russians were correct and truthful, the US had to be lying.
Russians didn't absolutely have to be lying, could have been hearing what
they wanted to hear from Chinese and NK crash and wreck reports, but couldn't
have been rigorously truthful if the US wasn't lying.
You can see where I'm coming from in the general
conclusion I've begun to draw, but I think it's inevitable one gradually draws
conclusions about relative credibility. And I'm not sure that process can be
completely "objectivized". For example our friend and former poster here Diego,
whose writing is extremely interesting to me, usually dismisses my opinion
condescendingly "you're American I understand you must be loyal". An
F-86 POW was recorded taken by the Russians May 20 1951. No
mention in the many US first hand accounts written of that famous
engagement nor any official records of the time, nor POW/MIA search
efforts in the 90's. But the Russians say it, so it's probably true
to Diego, he always includes it in his accounts of that day. He seems to
conclude the US was (and is) lying to save spoiling the story of
the first US MiG ace crowned that day. (An F-80 pilot was POW in the same
location May 21 and not mentioned separately in Russian accounts BTW).
I'm pretty sure the truth in that case, but it
depends on an arguably subjective factor, my general non-belief in
elaborate cover ups in the US lasting for decades relying also on veterans
decades later to still cooperate. Yet still I want to know more.
I haven't read a lot on No Gun Ri, though as other
posters noted refugees killed by the US when NK infiltrators were thought
to be among them, or one case they couldn't be cleared from a Naktong
bridge that had to be blown, not a new discovery. My gut tells me when I
get around to reading all the sources on it, I'll find people's predispositions
written into what evidence they believe or what conclusions they draw. One can
only *try* to be objective in such cases I'm afraid I've concluded, not
necessarily be *recognized* as totally objective by all reasonable people. What
can be hoped for is people to look at all evidence and be inspired by
contradictions to look further for more, not tend to quickly stop and say one
side is lying.
Joe
|