Talk:Korean Demilitarized Zone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rename

Shouldn't the article be named simply Korean Demilitarized Zone? -- Taku 03:12, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, why not? --Jiang

I would say no, because a lot of people search for topics releated to "MDL". I can search for the DMZ on its own. Eltownse 13:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I renamed this to Korean Demilitarized Zone. Feel free to rever my move if there is a reason not to name that way. -- Taku

No way! This is inside the Korean demilitarized Zone, so there's a difference! -Mei —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.4.188 (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Width of the Zone?

What is the width of the Zone and how and why was that width agreed upon? Were there people living there before and what happened to them?

The first question I would have to do research on. As for the second question, from 1951 to 1953, the two sides were in a stalemate, pretty much stuck in the same place. As far as I know, the DMZ basically follows that 2-year stalemate line. So in other words, by the time the DMZ was established, I am guessing that most people living there would have already been forced out by the war. --Sewing 16:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The DMZ has changed some since the cease-fire. There was a peninsula that was cut off by the 38th parallel and left the South Korean inhabitants cut off from the ROK by the ocean. These people were evacuated and the land was surrendered to the North. Also the size of the DMZ was agreed upon at the JSA (Joint Security Area) during the armistice talks. What I remember from when I was stationed there is that the US/ROK forces and NK Forces moved 1000 meters from their last occupied positions and that is what marked the DMZ. The people that were living in the area of the present day DMZ did not need to be displaced at the time. There was a mass migration to the south and north due to the closeness of combat. The terrain in this area is very steep. Firefights at the time were no more than a few hundred meters apart. Civilians didn't have much of a choice but to leave and due to the length of the stalemate they settled elsewhere.

--SGT Fugate, Damian T. US Army The width of the zone is 4 km. The "truce" talks were going on for quite some time, and each side knew the outcome would be to end the fighting at the spot they were at the time, so there were some very fierce battles right before the armistice was signed, as each side was trying to advance even just a little bit. US Army personnel watched all this and changed the "front" line on the maps after each battle to indicate the exact position of each side at the time. When the armistice finally was signed, each side pulled back 2,000 meters, making the DMZ a buffer zone 4 km wide. Right down the middle of the DMZ runs the Military Demarcation Line- this line marks the exact military border between the two sides. It is designated by a series of very old signs written in Hangul and English on the south side and Hangul and Chinese on the north side.

"It is 250 kilometres (160 miles) long [1] and approximately 4,000 km (2,500 mi) wide, and is the most heavily militarized border in the world" Is it really 4,000 km wide? I´m sceptic. C.Ericson. 22:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's 4 km wide (that's 4000 meters or 2.5 - say two and a half - miles), see SGT Fugate comment or NYT article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/world/asia/north-korean-soldier-braves-dmz-to-defect-to-south.html The misunderstanding is the consequence of the different (reversed) way of using commas and dots in Europe and USA. For example 4,750 km is understood from an european as "4 kilometers and 750 meters" and from an american as "4 thousand and 750 km". It's anyway odd for most european to write "4km" in such odd "4,000 km" fashion, as we would normally write it as a round number with no decimals (4km and not 4,000km) or, if it's a number of chilometers that has multiple decimals, we would normally write it directly in meters. Thus my "odd example" of 4,750km would usually seen written 4750mt 217.133.51.150 (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No it's 2000 meters wide. SoLongSidekick (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Current forces

Who mans the border guard south of the DMZ? Only ROK and US forces? Who mans the UN side at Panmunjeom? David.Monniaux 20:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IIRC there are also Swedish and Swiss forces guarding the peace there. Regards, David Eerdmans 10:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The time that I spent in the JSA I did not see Swedish or Swiss forces there. There was us and the ROK's and some NK's. As far as the UN side? The south side is the UN side. Also I believe the spelling is wrong, it should be "Panmunjon". Might want to check that out.

--SGT Fugate, Damian T. US Army

There are representatives from the Swedish and Swiss forces at the demilitarized zone. Together they form The Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission (NNSC). I´m not surprised if you don´t see them. At the moment, I think there are only five of them from Sweden. Don´t know how many they are from Switzerland.

C.Ericson. 22:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Axe Murder incident

According to several articles Ihave found, two US soldiers died during the Axe murder incident. - Military marks date of DMZ incident in which two Army officers were slainand The "Axe Murder Incident" 18 August 1976 at Panmunjom. The latter has pictures of the actual attack, but I don't know if they are public domain or not. Their names were Barrett, 1st Lt. Mark T. - UNC - Bonifas, Capt. Arthur G. - UNC - 08/18/76 --68.80.190.94 00:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is an interesting bit of information for you. At the time of the tree cutting incident the US forces had a compound where the QRF (Quick Reaction Force) was housed. I won't tell you where it is but instead, it is close. The point being that, after the incident the compound was renamed Camp Bonifas.--SGT Fugate, Damian T US Army

Contributions welcomed at Operation Paul Bunyan. -- Visviva 13:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wildlife Refuge?

While this maybe true, it is only half true. Due to North Koreas constant isolation from the rest of the world they were unable to provide for their peoples needs. They have used most of their natural resources and instead of spending money to replant they choose to spend money on military technology. The North Korean side is free from trees and has a dust bowl look of dried earth while the South Korean side is lush and jungle like. During my extended stay I saw North Korean troops stacking brush against the side of a stone building and lighting it on fire. The winters in Korea are bitter cold and I'm assuming they did this for warmth. The southern side of the DMZ is no more hospitable. Some of the most explosive earth in the world is in the DMZ. It would take years of de-mining to clean up the buried destruction.

--SGT Fugate, Damian T US Army

North Korea is 70% covered by forest.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda

I heard propaganda via speakers in the distance on my trip to the DMZ, but my Korean at the time was not good enough to fully understand the content or origin. Is there someone who can add knowledgable information to the section regarding this? Smoove K 10:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• While I don't have any information on that particular question, I also think that the "Propoganda" section could be expanded a little more. For instance, maybe some info on the 'idealistic' towns that the North has build on the border to make their nation look like Paradise. -Sorry for not signin' in.

The town is not a functioning town. A few people come every day, but as far as the observers can tell- nobody really lives there. The buildings are kind of nice and big. They stopped booming the propaganda a couple of years ago.

---

Comments regarding the following passages:

"Tourists visiting the southern side of the JSA have sometimes been told (by U.S. soldiers serving as tour guides) that the North Korean building facing South Korea is not a real building but, "a façade designed to look large and impressive, in reality only a frame a few feet (1m) thick."

"Propaganda in the North has stated that the U.S. and South Korea have built a massive unclimbable wall across the entire length of the DMZ (the Korean wall)."

So are these statements true or not? The way they are written implies an uncertainty of their validity. I think the facts either need to be verified, or the way these statements are written needs to be changed.--Jerochan 12:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, how would you suggest that they be verified? When we are faced with conflicting claims with no clear basis for preferring one to the other, the best approach is for Wikipedia to report on the controversy rather than attempting to resolve it. See WP:NOR, WP:V. -- Visviva 12:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

---

"I visited the DMZ from the North Side in October 2006. There is indeed a building - I walked up 3 flights of stairs and took pictures from the roof looking back over to the South side. The building is dusty inside and does not seem to be used for anything. You can see reasonable satellite photos of Panmunjeom at Google Earth at 37°57'21.27N 126°40'36.20E.

The North Korean guides also took us to a site where through long range binoculars we could see the 'wall' and we were told the North Korea version that this stretches the entire border and as a political purpose to separate North from South. Whether there is a concrete wall running the length or not, the whole debate seems pretty silly since on both sides entry to the DMZ is heavily restricted and barbed wire fences prevent entry to the 4km zone from each side.

North Korea is a very interesting (and safe)trip incidentally - as long as you are not a US citizen it is open to you." Playgame66 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

---

The wall is actually also visible on google maps/earth (see for example http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=37.961244,126.774577&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.188298,78.837891&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=16&iwloc=addr ) where a section of it is clearly visible and looks as described by north (wall towards north, slope south). It's possible to follow on the satellite images for quite some distance to the east (and to the opening around panmunjom where there is a 4 km wall-less section according to the north description). After a while going east the images become to unclear to be able to make out the wall properly and it looks more like just a fence in some places. But it is definitly more than just the short distance claimed by south/US... 85.24.235.7 (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Link corrected (I also did the previous edit...) 85.225.55.37 (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the part about the wall where Peter Tetteroo supposedly "dismisses the south korean claim as propaganda". I've just now watched that entire documentary, and as of 10 minutes ago watched the entire segment on the wall, and not once does the film maker "dismiss" anything as "propaganda". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.208.46 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Transportation part

Um, the picture of "The Dorasan Station" - theres no reference made to it, whether this station is on the north or south side, perhaps have a paragraph referring to it or something? - User:Junglizt1210

non-verbal gestures exchanged

One of my co-workers who was in the US Army told me that guards on both sides have been known to exchange obscene and insulting non-verbal gestures. This is supposedly the reason why the opposing guards are not permitted to look directly at each other. Anyone ever heard this before or is it simply popular legend?Jlujan69 04:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pure "popular legend". I was stationed there from Aug. '75 - Sep. '76 and again in the '77-'78 timeframe. We would occasionally exchange "gestures", but we (the US and ROKA KATUSA's), would try to engage the NK's in staring "contests". The NK's weren't very good at it and usually looked away fairly fast. wbfergus 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The border monitors

A tiny swedish and swiss force observe the armistice on the border, originally there were four countries, two 'west european' and two 'east european' countries the two most 'neutral' of each 'team' were selected i suspect. One of the Easties was Czechoslovacia the other was poland or hungary, I don't remember. The eastern european troops withdrew when the politics of their countries changed, but the swedes and the swiss remain, they are not numerous, but they are there which should be mentioned...

Dorasan station

I don't understand the photo - why is it in the article, yet no mention of the station in the article.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

citation needed for a citation?

why does a citatoin have a citation needed tag?? Misterdiscreet 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hahhah, I don't know. But I find that really funny. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Incursion Tunnels

I'm not sure what the last part of this sentence means: "Starting on November 15, 1974, the South discovered four tunnels leading under the DMZ, by use of water-filled pipes dug vertically into the ground near areas of suspected tunneling activity. " Was the South's discovery made by use of water-filled pipes, or were the tunnels dug using water-filled pipes? Bsharvy 05:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that is a very poorly written sentence; I really have no idea what it means. Could someone who knows the actual meaning change it for the clearer, please? 65.81.145.26 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the "water filled pipes" were actually a simple sort of seismic detection device. The thought, was that any disturbance of the bedrock due to blasting, would cause shockwaves visible on the surface of the water contained within the buried pipe. I am afraid I do not know how accurate this anecdotal information is though. Dponath (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a truly ingenious tunnel detection system. Long lines of narrow tubes were bored in long narrow lines into the bed rock. A plastic sheath like an elongated balloon was inserted into the tube and filled with water. Any blasting or tunnelling would cause the sheath to burst emptying the water. S. Korean forces could then detect and discover where the North Korean tunnels were being dug. A very simple idea and with no need for high tech equipment. Although nowadays they use seismic equipment that can hear worms fart! 81.132.217.136 (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this correct ?

Second section of article current states that Korean War  started
..."with a Soviet-sponsored DPRK invasion across the DMZ". 
Is this correct ?  Was there a DMZ before the war ?   

Presumably the north koreans attacked across the border which was at that time the actual 38th parallel and not the future DMZ. Eregli bob (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wildlife

Wait, why would anyone need "maintaining" the land? it does NOT need human intervention! Its land, been around longer then humans and the stupid use of pruning shears, lawn mowers, pesticide, or anti-weed spray. You want that strip of land to exist forever? Then never let anyone go in. -Rafe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.115.247 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Tae Sung Dong

I was amazed to learn that Tae Sung Dong is a village within the DMZ. How is it possible there's no article about it? I'll post to Wikipedia:Requested Articles. Tempshill (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Incursion tunnels sealed?

Article talks about guided tours but currently does not say whether the incursion tunnels have been sealed at any particular point. I assume they've been sealed somewhere along the line by now? Could a knowledgeable editor add this information? Tempshill (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They are all sealed with reinforced concrete plugs at a middle point under the DMZ. The North Koreans, on discover, have probably mined their side preventing further penetration (a DPRK mine killed two UN personnel and six Korean soldiers after they examined the first tunnel under the DMZ). The S Korean entrances, except the third tunnel that has been opened to visitors, are sealed under steel blast doors, so for all access purposes permanently blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.217.136 (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Korean War End

The distinction between a de facto and a de jure end (or beginning) of the KW is meaningless. Few if any wars have such distinctions -- but one IS listed in this article. It is the Armistice Agreement. (Albeit, often breached.) The fact that South Korea did not sign off on the Armistice is a red herring. Legally they did not have the authority to sign off because the United Nations was the authority under which the defense of SK during the KW was conducted.

Saying that "technically" (or de jure) the war continues is not saying anything about the fighting that actually stopped or anything about subsequent events. If a war does not have one side surrendering to the other, does the war technically continue? No. For the most part, wars simply stop. Sometimes they stop with a peace treaty, but the lack of a peace treaty does NOT mean the war continues on in a technical fashion.

Here is an example to illustrate how the distinction in meaningless. The Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina had a definite ending date -- the Argentine forces on the islands were beat. But did the war continue on "technically" or de jure? No. In fact, the countries exchanged diplomatic visits some years later. (But they did not sign a treaty that ended the war or resolved the Falklands dispute.) If those visits signaled that the war was over, then similar diplomatic visits between SK & NK certainly signal that the Korean War was over.

Finally, no historical work regarding the KW discusses it in terms of the war "continuing" in a de jure or technical fashion. In this regard, any assertion in the article that the KW is "technically" going on requires verification from a reliable source. The edit I did should stand for this reason alone.

Let me add that the Armistice in Korea which ended the fighting was signed by the United Nations Command commander. In the article for UNC, you will note that the ROK relinquished command of its military forces to UNC early in the war. (This statement is unreferenced.) Thus, the military of SK (ROKA) was bound by the armistice. The armistice itself asked or projected that the governments of the parties would begin peace talks in the near future, but this did not occur. In any event, the fighting was stopped by means of a document (e.g., legal document) that was binding to the parties. The war had ended.--S. Rich (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps...The withdrawal of the DPRK from the armistice in 2009 seems to question the de facto end status of the Korean War; not to mention the ROKS Cheonan sinking.--Gniniv (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What withdrawal? Please provide a reference. A lot of rhetoric goes on between the two sides in the media, largely for public consumption and nothing more. Just because a nK newspaper rattles the sword does not mean the the armistice is ended. In fact, the activities at the JSA (which was created by the armistice) continue on. So the armistice must be enforce. Quite true, the ship was sunk and lives were lost. But we are editing an encyclopedia -- we are not here to promote our POVs. Again, please provide WP:RS.--S. Rich (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)00:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, I got news for you there, SRich. Please look at Daniel Bolger's "Scenes From An Unfinished War" (Leavenworth Paper #19, availabale on line) and the Congressional Research Institute's "North korean provocations: 1953-2007, also online. I'm too lazy to actually provide a proper citation, but they're easily available online by title search. The first might open your eyes as to whether the war is "finished". And yes, the norks did withdraw from the armistice in April of 1996. They no longer have a KPA Military Armisitice Commission. And one last thing, the picture of the Freedom House at the bottom that says the old Pagoda was placed next to it? Uh, yep, that's wrong too. It's a brand new pagoda. How do I know? I was there when they pulled the old one down in early 1997. Seems to me, as a drive-by observer, that you're being a tad too broad in your acceptance of things as you see them, probably from a million miles away, too. I'd like to spend some time doing the right thing and fixing broken WP articles on Korea, but frankly I don't care that much. Oh yeah, and before I forget, read Bruce Meyer's "The Cleanest Race". That'll open your eyes too! Cheers, Aidan Bothwell 144.59.12.230 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Aidan, this whole issue has been debated at length on the Korean War page and the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong page. The consensus is that there is an ongoing Korean Conflict that began sometime between 1945 and 1948, the Korean War is part of that Conflict, but the Korean War ended with the armistice in 1953. If you actually read the Bolger article (which I have numerous times in writing the Korean DMZ Conflict (1966-1969) page), you will see that in places he actually refers to the 1966-69 actions as the "Second Korean War", I don't agree with that label, but its hard to see how there can be a second Korean War if you argue that the first one hasn't finished yet. I suggest you should research more before you criticise other editors in future. Mztourist (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidents and Incursions — date format

The "Incidents and Incursions" section has dates in both British and American formats. Most dates are in the British format so the rest should probably look the same for consistency.

ICE77 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)