This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"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)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
File:KoreanWarpostalstampTC.jpg Nominated for Deletionedit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
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
ISBN160344128X, 9781603441285
Length 476 pages
Please feel free to add relevant information as long as you reference it. Thanks for the links, by the way. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Title Conflict: The History of the Korean War, 1950-53
Author Robert Leckie
Edition illustrated, reprint
Publisher Da Capo Press, 1996
ISBN0306807165, 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
ISBN1591140757, 9781591140757
Appleman, Roy E. (2008). Disaster in Korea: The Chinese Confront MacArthur. Vol. Volume 11 of Texas A & M University military history series: Texas A and M University (illustrated ed.). Texas A&M University Press. ISBN978-1603441285. Retrieved 18 Apil 2014. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
A butthurt Hindu spreads LIES about extraordinarily brave soldiers of a brave nation that boasts a SUCCESSFUL military tradition of 1500 years.
It would be better to remain silent as a member of a dishonorable culture that has been subdued a thousand times and ruled by different nations - including Turkish empires. 46.114.34.135 (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
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)Reply
Did Freeman withdrew after the Chinese attacked? Yes. Did Freeman withdrew away without US 2nd Infantry Division's permission? Yes (page 268-269). Does the English definition of fleeing means "run away from a place or situation of danger"? Yes. Did Freeman action is noticeable enough to cause a controversy? Yes. I don't see where "fleeing" count as original research here.
Furthermore, when Freeman ran and exposed a huge chunk of US 2nd Infantry Division to Chinese attacks and resulted in huge losses, while at the same time accusing Turkish Brigade's doing the same, don't you think the weight of his opinion in this article should be reassessed? Jim101 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Withdrew? That is a given. However, "fleeing" gives a completely different impression, which is clearly contradicted by page 438, "One such error is his[S.L.A. Marshall] statement that General Keiser, commander of the 2nd Infantry Divison, gave Colonel Freeman of the 23rd Infantry Regiment the authority to leave his station as rear guard of the withdrawing division at Kunu-ri and take the Anju road out of the battle area. General Keiser did not give Freeman that authority, it was given by the assistant division commander, Maj. Gen. Joseph S. Bradley, as the latter has stated in a letter to me that describe the event.". "Fleeing" gives the impression Freeman withdrew without orders or authorization. Furthermore, page 271 neither mentions "fleeing" nor Freeman being accused of "fleeing", both of which are original research, since "fleeing" is your interpretation of the source. Freeman withdrew under authorization, although clearly his withdrawal "exposed the rear of US 2nd Infantry Division to Chinese attacks".
"when Freeman ran...". Odd, after reading the source, I do not get the impression "Freeman ran". "The withdrawing 23rd Infantry had no trouble on the Anju road. After about eight miles, the head of the column came to the 5th RCT, 24th Division, blocking positions at the Chongchon River bridge crossings, five miles east of Anju. On the way, it ran into stragglers from many UN units-Turks and American soldiers." Even page 271 calls it "withdrawing", have you even read the source? Simply because you don't like Freeman's statement about Turks is no excuse for original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
My WP:NPOV point still stands. Freeman's action was controversial in the battle and has been interpreted as derelict of duty by some, hence his evaluation of Turkish brigade's performance as poor in the same battle must be framed in this context. Jim101 (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
"interpretated as derelict of duty". By whom? Where does it state this? He was condemned for not following the 2nd division down Sunchon road. But I see no mention of dereliction of duty. Your interpretation of "NPOV" is to libel Freeman for making a derogatory statement about the Turkish brigade. My original research point still stands. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Well, the above statement is technically a WP:COAT, but it is the only way to solve a thorny WP:NPOV problem since WP:UNDUE does not apply here. I want no part of this and I give up on fixing this article. Jim101 (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
I have actually made the comment above. Not sure why looks unsigned. I had also started this very article. I am disappointed but not surprised that it has attracted the attention of the usual pov editors. Hopefully others can provide some balance. I plan to add more details in due time.
I have had the same comment made to me by a Korean War veteran. The Turkish Brigade was praised by the veteran, who thought they performed bravely and were caught up in some communication problems. By the way, they were not the only troops this happened to in Korea. Even modern war can be confusing and can suffer from failures of communication. Some balance should be maintained in the article and I will look for some sources to see if I (or maybe someone else with my suggestions) can bring some additional content to the article. Donner60 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I feel a bit lost as I haven´t done a single edit to the Turkish Brigade article and am not sure where said edit should be. Probably mixing me up with somebody else? ...GELongstreet (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
