Talk:Korean War/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Soviet Involvement at the Beginning of the War

I had added a paragraph citing Mark O'Neill's research based on Soviet Archives: O'Neill, M. (2000). Soviet Involvement in the Korean War: A New View from the Soviet-Era Archives. OAH Magazine of History, 14(3), 20-24. I can email anyone a pdf of the article if they would like.

I wrote a paragraph:

Soviet archives show that Stalin gave Kim Il-sung permission to invade South Korea provided that China agreed to support North Korea in April of 1950. Chinese leader Mao Zedong agreed in order to obtain aid from the Soviets. Mao also released 60,000 ethnic Korean combat veterans from the PLA to serve in the North Korean forces. It was the Soviet advisory staff that drew up plans for the assault. <ref>Mark O'Neill, "Soviet Involvement in the Korean War: A New View from the Soviet-Era Archives," OAH Magazine of History, Spring 2000, p21.</ref>

My edits were removed for being redundant.

However, I think the current version of "The war begins(1950)," fails to mention new findings from Soviet Archives. According to O'Neill, Stalin and the Soviet role in the beginning of the war is far more involved than what is mentioned in the current version. There may have been some question as to the degree of Soviet support before but the archives seem to make it certain that the Soviets did run the show.

Stalin only decided to start a war in Korea after the Soviets suffered diplomatic setbacks in Europe (the formation of NATO) at the same time Mao was victorious in China. Stalin felt that another military victory in Asia would compound the communist victory in China and draw US attention away from Europe. The fact that the Soviet advisory staff in Korea drew up the initial invasion plans goes beyond becoming "extensively involved in North Korea's war planning." Soviet generals planned the specific attacks across the 38th parallel that the KPA implemented. Therefore, I believe that there should be some modification to the section about the beginning of the war.

Please add to the discussion here.

Thank you, Hanhwe. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanhwe.kim (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the edits. I kept the sentence about ethnic Koreans, as it was new. This is the relevant existing text:

In the first half of 1950, Kim Il-sung travelled to Moscow and Beijing to secure support in a war with the South. The Soviet military became extensively involved in North Korea's war planning.[81][82][83][84] There are differing accounts of the degree of Soviet support, ranging from support if the North was attacked,[85], to approval,[86][87] to actually initiating the war.[82] Similarly, some accounts indicate that Chinese support was stronger than Soviet support[88], and some say it was reluctant.[84].

I think that largely covers what you wrote. It is certainly redundant to have separate paragraph. This existing paragraph was largely devised by me, with discussion by other editors. I wanted to acknowledge different accounts, without the text contradicting itself. Your source is just one account. It might be right, but it isn't the only account based on Soviet archives and it isn't very new. I have no objection to you adding extra information to this paragraph, rewording it, or simply adding your source as one of the citations. But not a separate paragraph.

The sentence about war planning was intended to be a general statement that all sources agreed with. I don't see a great deal of difference with what you wrote, unless you are trying to say that North Korea had no input in planning.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I made the major edit to this section to reflect the scholarship of Weathersby and Millett regarding Soviet Foreign Ministry and Presidential Archives. I cite-checked Cumings 1997 "Korea's Place in the Sun" and although he mentions other theories regarding Soviet involvement (e.g., "less than China") he notes the findings from Soviet Archives might help answer many of the questions regarding Stalin's role(the Archives had just recently been declassified when Cumings wrote "Place in the Sun.") I believe at this point, Weathersby's description (opportunistically supportive of the war but extremely concerned of direct conflict with the Americans, and wanting to make sure that China bears the brunt of the fighting if needed) is now mainstream scholarship on this topic. Millett seems to agree as does Andrei Lankov and other modern scholars. The other theories about Stalin's role that were discussed before the availability of the Soviet archives ("initiated the war," "promised support only if North Korea was attacked," "reluctantly supported," "supported less than China") can be laid to rest. -- Hanhwe.kim (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, I think the section as it stands now is very much better. I particularly like the sentence: "Declassified documents...now show a much clearer, but complex picture of the interactions between Kim, Stalin, and Mao regarding the decision to invade South Korea". As I said before, different scholars will make different interpretations of the evidence. I would prefer the "superseded" accounts to stay, if only to protect the integrity of the text as it stands. The problem is, given the nature of Wikipedia, that there is no way to prevent a "superseded" account being reinserted later on. I believe it is better to acknowledge that there are a range of accounts (most of which, if not all, are false!). It is also, as acknowledged, a complex picture, and the last thing we want to do is boil it down to "Stalin ordered an attack". I would like to look at these sources, and will return to this when if I do. At the moment, I would like clarification about Ongjin. According to these sources, Kim Il Sung wanted to attack Ongjin, but then moved on to a plan of general attack. I don't see why the DPRK would bother with this small peninsula. Conversely, it was of some strategic importance to the ROK, who held the indefensible southern tip which was isolated from the rest of its land. In any case, war did start at Ongjin and South Korea did claim to have captured Haeju (unless Cumings is wrong). Based on this limited skirmish, the DPRK then launched an all-out amphibious assault that was devastatingly effective. To me, this sounds like either the war was started by an ROK action, or the DPRK had a sophisticated (but largely unsuccessful) plan to frame the South.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not have time to cite-check Cumings reference (in "Korea's place under the sun" I believe) regarding the fighting starting at Ongjin or the South Koreans claiming to have taken Haeju. When Rhee fled Seoul, he had the radio stations broadcast reports that there was nothing for the residents to worry about so they would not flee. The report that Haeju had been taken by the ROK forces may have been related to the disinformation.

There would be a good reason for the KPA to neutralize the ROK garrison on Ongjin. In Millett(2007) The Korean War: The Essential Bibliography p. 18, the KPA's main attack was along Kaesong-Munsan and Uijongbu axes. The relatively strong ROK 17th Regiment at Ongjin would sit due West of their main attack route. If the 17th Regiment was being reinforced, it could be a threat on the flank of the main force.

In the Korean language Wiki, the page for the Battle of Ongjin says that the KPA did attack the 17th Reg on June 25. Out of 3600 South Korean troops, over 1400 were killed or missing. There is no mention of taking Haeju. The South Koreans did resist fiercely and managed to pull out by sea. Hanhwe.kim (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The capture of Haeju could well be disinformation (or wishful thinking), but it seems well-established that the fighting started there. I think most sources ignore this because it doesn't fit the narrative. Sure, the KPA would need to neutralise Ongjin, but it seems strange to give advance warning of their overall attack. To protect their flank the KPA only needed to bottle up the forces in Ongjin, I think.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Battle of Ongjin page says that the peninsula had strategic high ground. Therefore, for the North Koreans it would not be a good idea to allow a pocket of strong enemy forces on high ground, overlooking their flank. Furthermore, the North Korean operational goal was to destroy the South Korean forces (rather than take territory). Destroying the 17th Regiment, one of the ROK Army's premier formations, rather than just bottling it up, would make sense.

In any case, the main attack on the Uijongbu Corridor began only 90 minutes after the shelling on Ongjin began (See South to Naktong, North to Yalu p. 24). So there was not much delay. Hanhwe.kim (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To you it's "not much"; to me it's 90 minutes too long. Attacks in my opinion should be as simultaneous as possible (like the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbour and Malaya which were meant to be simultaneous). Otherwise you're tipping your hand, telegraphing your punches etc. But that's our opinions, and these (however logical and however true) have no place in Wikipedia. I think though, this fact is notable enough, and backed by enough citations to be included here.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

UN General Assembly called PRC intervention in Korea 'aggression'

The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 498(V) on February 1, 1951, which found PRC's intervention in Korea an act of 'aggression', and called upon PRC to cease hostilities against UN forces.

This fact is missing in the article, and it should be added. Happyseeu (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The article is semi-protected, not full-protected, and you have more than enough time and edits. Is there a reason you can't do this yourself? --ElHef (Meep?) 04:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2013

There are numerous points in this article where the USA is named but no other country is. for instance: "The United States of America provided 88% of the 341,000 international soldiers which aided South Korean forces in repelling the invasion, with twenty other countries of the United Nations offering assistance. "

I believe that all country's or none of them should be represented in this as wikipedia is not a American only database and should represent all nations or none of them. As far as i can see, this is just a patriotic and useless fact to put into this page. Shang master (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The phrase "United States" appears over 40 times in the article - I see no clear-cut reason to remove the reference from the lead section without established consensus. --ElHef (Meep?) 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Shang master I disagree with your comment, it is not a "patriotic and useless fact", it is just a fact, the bulk of the forces and the cost of the war on the UN side was borne by the USA Mztourist (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That is only half correct - most the the combat casualties/burden on the UN side was suffered by the South Koreans since Chinese and North Koreans always pick on South Korean units first per their fear of US firepower. US came in second in turn of loss because of this "meat shield" effect (Paik Sun-yup did mention it that some ROK officers resented the appearance that their units was used to absorb the initial shocks of Communist attacks before Americans join the fight). Millet had already pointed out that South Korean contributions to UN combat operations was always ignored by western historians despite the disproportionate losses they suffered, while Appleman complained that ROK Ministry of Defense has a nasty habit of losing bulk of South Korean war records which prevents the outside world from understanding their side of story. Jim101 (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

My comment related to Shang master's quote regarding international forces. As a point of fact South Korea wasn't part of the UN, although the operational control of South Korean forces was subsumed to the Commander of UN forces in Korea, in any event Shang master's anti-American comment has no merit Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation of WP:Red Flag Fact

In April 1950,...Mao...stationed troops closer to the Korean border.[101][102]

This is a rather exceptional claim in the studies of Chinese involvement in the Korean War. I cite Chen Jian's China's Road to the Korean War page 136-137:

On July 13 the CMC formally issued the "Orders to Defend the Northeast Borders"...[F]our armies (the 38th, 39th, 40th and 42nd) and three artillery divisions (the First, Second, and Eighth) would be concentrated on the Chinese-Korean border...The 38th Army arrived in the Fengcheng area of Liaoning province on July 24; the 39th Army entered the Liaoyang-Haicheng areas in Liaoning the next day; the 40th Army, which had to travel from Guangdong province in the south to the Northeast, arrived by train at Andong, a border city on the Yalu River on July 27. Meanwhile, the 42nd Army, which had been previously stationed in the Qiqihar area of Heilongjiang province in Northern Manchuria, moved into the Tonghua-Ji'an area of Jilin province. By the end of July, four armies, three artillery divisions, four air-defense artillery regiments, three truck transport regiments, one one tank regiments, one engineer regiment, and one cavalry regiment, with a total of more than 255,000 troops, had taken positions on the Chinese-Korean border.

So far I have not seen a single historian disputed this and suggested April 1950 as possible window of Chinese army mobilization until today. Can somebody confirm exactly what does it means by "Mao stationed troops to Korean borders in April 1950"? Jim101 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

hi Jim101, it seems like I dropped a citation regarding Mao promising to send troops to the Korean border, as well as the date when Kim Il-Sung visited Mao - it was May of 1950. Here is the text that had confused me:

In Weathersby(1993, p. 29)

...Following this, in May, Kim Il Sung visited Beijing and secured the support of Mao.

The Korean government envisioned realizing its goal in three stages:
1) concentration of troops near the 38th parallel
2) issuing an appeal to the South for peaceful unification
3) initiating military activity after the South’s rejection of the proposal for peaceful unification.
At Stalin’s order, all requests of the North Koreans for delivery of arms and equipment for the formation of additional units of the KPA were quickly met. The Chinese leadership sent to Korea a division formed from Koreans who had been serving in the Chinese army, and promised to send food aid and to transfer one army closer to Korea “in case the Japanese enter on the side of South Korea.”(telegram 362, 1950)

I will correct these. Thanks for the careful proofreading 08:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2013

Please add a bullet point in the status box saying "North Korean Invasion of South Korea repelled" 68.175.92.184 (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also you need to establish consensus before requesting a controversial edit like this. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of references for that, but I don't see the purpose of doing it, either, since that was not the only goal of the war. It could just as easily say "UN invasion of North Korea repelled" as well. The outcomes should cover changes of long-term importance. —Ed!^(talk) 16:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to its inclusion, as "UN Invasion of North Korea repelled" is already in the infobox.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with its inclusion, the infobox contains "UN Invasion of North Korea repelled" and "Chinese invasion of South Korea repelled", the North Korean invasion preceded these and so should also be included Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1,550,000

1,550,000 civilians dead. Funny number. And no comments. МетаСкептик12 (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine anything funny about it. It is the official ROK estimate, if you have a better source please provide it. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits made on July 9, 2013

1. I added "politely" in "After Lin Biao politely refused Mao's offer to command Chinese forces in Korea" because "refused" by itself sounded too defiant. Nobody was refusing a command offered by Mao at that time. And besides that he never technically refused, he just said he was scheduled to fly to the Soviet Union to have medical treatment at that time (which he was) but was also a convinient excuse. I also took out "General" for Lin Biao and Peng Dehuai which I felt was unneccessary.

2. I also had to change the structure of the a bit in the section "China intervenes". Mao immediately gave the command to Peng after Lin refused/make a excuse. I'm positive he didn't "ask him to Beijing to hear his views". Mao was not someone who was hesitant about telling people what to do. He wouldn't ask Peng to hear both sides and give his opinion, he told Peng to command the forces going to Korea, then told Peng to speak in favor of intervention. Remember Peng and Mao had a little brother-big brother type relationship. My source on this is The Coldest Winter by David Halberstam btw.

3. I added a bit more detail to Zhou Enlai and the Chinese delegation's trip to the Soviet Union. They went to Moscow first and then to Stalin's Black Sea resort.

I do plan to make a couple more edits, nothing major but I just want to incorporate a couple more sources. I don't want to step up anyone's toes. Hopefully any of you who have a problem with my edits will tell me here. Meme3234 (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Caution and caveat about point 2. According to China's Road to the Korean War and Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War, Mao at that time does not have 100% control of the CCP and still needed political allies such as Lin and Peng before risking to directly involve China in the Korean War, especially when half of his inner circle was disagreeing with him on the matter. Technically you were correct on the point that Mao didn't really "ask Peng's view" in the sense that Mao needs Peng's consul (Mao's mind was made up the moment Korean War stalled on the Pusan Perimeter according to Chen Jian), but Mao was using Peng and Lin's views on the Korean War to manipulate the attitude of his inner circles and prevent a split of Chinese leadership. So Peng's personal decision to support Mao after Mao asked him for his view still does matter a lot in the history of Korean War. Jim101 (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I change the statement to "Mao decided that Peng Dehuai would be the commander of the Chinese forces in Korea after Peng agreed to support Mao's position." since the previous version was a bit one sided in implying Mao some how force the decision on Peng without any personal opinions from Peng. Jim101 (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, with regards to point one, in Lin's illness excuse, he also said to Mao: "The United States is highly modernized. In addition, it possesses the atomic bomb. I have no certainty of success [in fighting the US Army]. The central leadership should consider this issue with great care." (The Dragon Strikes, page 88-89) According to Nie Rongzhen, Nie had never seen Lin afraid of anything until that point. So even through Lin did not say "I refuse to command", he did made his intention crystal clear to everyone around him, including Mao. So you may want to think that one through too. Jim101 (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Map

The map showing the changing frontline is good as a graphic, but misleading in its use of solid colour. The UN forces advanced along the coastal strips, but did not occupy all the mountainous terrain of North Korea (80% of the country). Remnants of the KPA were able to regroup there, and join with the PVA in wiping out the UN's gains in the north. Perhaps it is hard to capture the real deployment of forces, but a caveat might help.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

India

A recent change added India to the Communist side of the infobox, with a citation. Can we get a further explination for this? This places India on both sides of the conflict. Was it the Indian government that sent forces to both sides of the confict?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

According to William Stueck, since India is the leader of Non-Aligned Movement and acted a mediator (rather than a combatant) between the Communist and Western blocs during the Korean War, India sent identical amount of medical aid (a field hospital to be exact) to both sides to avoid the appearance of taking a side in the conflict. Jim101 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that to be incorrect. The Indian government sent a "Parachute Field Ambulance" (not as big as a field hospital) to the UN side; unlike the Swedes, Danes etc., the Indian unit was actually involved in combat operations on the front line, albeit in a medical capacity. No aid - and certainly no "unit" - was sent to the north. After the war, the Indians were used to keep the ceasefire and oversee the repatriation of POWs, but they were definitely on the southern side when they did it, and besides, the Swedes did the same. An error, a joke or vandalism? ---Brigade Piron (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can either present a source that explicitly states India did not provided a hospital to the Communist side, or take you opinion to a public debate with Dr. William Stueck. Anyway, this is the original source text:

"Most nations of the Arab-Asian group were of similar mind, willing to express support for the initial action in Korea, but determined to avoid commitments that would fundamentally undermine their middle course in the East-West conflict. Eight members of the loosely knit group offered no material aid to the UN enterprise in Korea. India donated a field hospital; but then, as the war lingered on and Nehru and Rau persisted in their efforts at mediation, India sent a similar hospital to the other side as well. US resistance to Arab-Asian attempts at meditation hardened most of the governments in their determination to avoid commitment to the West."

It should be noted that although India view NK invasion of SK as illegal, India also viewed the exclusion of PRC from UN after the PRC invasion is wrong as well. Unlike Sweden, Indian foreign policy actually coordinated with Communist bloc foreign policies and pushed for PRC admission to UN as per-condition for Korean ceasefire. So technically Indian stance on "neutrality" is not just Swedish style non-involvement, it is being actively both pro-UN and pro-Communist during the conflict. Jim101 (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe I also missed this part, since it is immediately above the India paragraph in the book in page 196, but this does make the point that Swedish neutrality (leaning towards one side of the conflict without resorting to formal military alliances, see Stueck 1995, page 82) is not the same as Indian neutrality (actively promoting both sides' causes evenly, see Stueck 1995, pages 51, 80) as User:Brigade Piron implying:

"Sweden also sympathized with the UN effort to repulse "aggression" in Korea. Some element of the country continued to advocate a military contribution and perhaps even entry into the NATO. Dominated by the Social Democrats however, the government persisted in the more cautious course of armed neutrality established during the two world wars."

The comparison between Indian and Swedish stance on neutrality seems like comparing apple and orange IMO. Jim101 (talk)

Okay, the above comment sounded a bit confrontational. If people really believed Dr. Stueck made an error on the matter, it would be wise to first check up on the updated version of his book (Korean War: A New Diplomatic and Strategic History, 2002) to see if he dismissed the above source text, which he wrote in 1995. I would do this myself, except I don't have access to that book. Jim101 (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that whatever Mr. Stueck says, India did not send a Field Hospital to the south, and I equally doubt that it sent one to the north. As for "present[ing] a source that explicitly states India did not provided a hospital to the Communist side", it is somewhat problematic. this, however, makes no mention of it and states explicitly that "From the mid-1951 to the mid-1952, India paid little attention to the Korean issue which assumed new dimensions after the branding of China as an aggressor" before involving itself in prisoner repatriation negotiations at the UN. If you can find a shred more evidence from another source, I'll climb down.

Despite your insistence that Swedish neutrality was different, the Swedish unit was from the Red Cross - the Indian one was from the Indian military - and stayed a long way from the fighting. The Indian unit was involved in several military operations including Operation Tomahawk.

Whatever the case, no "Field Hospital" was sent to the South by India anyway. I suggest you look up the definition. The "60th Parachute Field Ambulance" was a much smaller medical unit with a fundamentally different role... Besides, political histories are notoriously poor on military details.--Brigade Piron (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, there are several messages I'm getting across from the above post. I'll address them one by one and User:Brigade Piron can correct my interpretations if I'm wrong:

1. "I'm afraid that whatever Mr. Stueck says, India did not send a Field Hospital to the south": Okay, I think this argument started off on the wrong foot. WP:PROVEIT does cares about what Mr. Stueck says, not what you says. You can dismiss Mr. Stueck researches and status in your personal opinions, but Wikipedia editing policies made no such allowances.

2. "Political histories are notoriously poor on military details". The source of dispute is the Indian stance and belligerence on Korean War, not the military orbat of Indian forces during the Korean War. Thus this dispute clearly falls in the area of political/diplomatic history of the Korean War, and Dr. Stueck is recognized as the leading expert in the area. Dr. Stueck may be wrong on the details of Indian aids sent to the both sides, but his point that India, as part of its foreign policy, sent an identical amount of medical aid to both side in an attempt to stay neutral does carry a lot of weight on the discussion of Indian belligerence. Finally there are other belligerents in the infobox that got included for donating a lot less aids than India.

3. "You can't prove a negative": Well, the converse of that argument is that lack of mentions in other sources also does not mean it does not exist. For example, according to 99% of the English sources I have access to, General Deng Hua also doesn't exist, yet he commanded the Communist forces for well over a year during the Korean War. So this argument is not really helping to move the dispute forward, and your evidence provided did not rule out that India could have sent medical aid to Communist side outside of public view. My stance is that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and by not providing sources to support one's stance on an issue while blocking other editors' high quality sources from being presented is technically a disruption.

4. "If you can find a shred more evidence from another source, I'll climb down.": I believe now this dispute has moved on from WP:RS to WP:REDFLAG issue. I concede to this point that due to my real life commitments, I don't have readily accesses to my research materials as I was three years ago. At this point and I will look for WP:RSN for guidance on a short term solution. All other users, including User:Brigade Piron can join that debate over there. Jim101 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The most comprehensive work on the forces involved in the war, Gordon Rottman's Korean War Order of Battle (Praeger Publishers 2002 - and available online via EBSCOhost for people with membership of academic libraries) does not identify any Indian medical unit as having assisted the Communist forces. The page on India's contribution (page 192) notes that India sent a field ambulance to assist the UN forces during the war and an infantry brigade as part of a peacekeeping force after the war, but does not identify any other forces as having taken part. Similarly, Assistant Professor Kim Chan Wahn's journal article "The Role of India in the Korean War" (International Area Studies Review 2010 13: 21, DOI: 10.1177/223386591001300202) does not mention any assistance being provided to the Communists, and notes that India was broadly sympathetic towards the South but sought to remain neutral (and played a useful role in the diplomatic negotiations which ended the war). What reference does Stueck provide to support this statement? Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Stueck did not provide a citation, but in his bibliography both Joseph Goulden's book Korea: The Untold Story (1982) and John Prados's book Presidents' Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Iranscam (1986) mentioned that CIA intercepted an Indian medical unit en-route to Korea to help the Communist side in Korea. Also the caveat is that Gordon Rottman's Korean War Order of Battle is only comprehensive for the UN side only...there is no such thing as "most comprehensive work" for the Communist orbat (the closest source I have that even came close was the reference work Chinese People's Volunteer Army Order of Battle published by Chinese People's Liberation Army Publishing House, and that is for the Chinese contribution only). And finally India was also sympathetic to China by linking the PRC admission to UN as conditions for cease fire in Korea, a move was viewed by US government as pro-Communist policy. Jim101 (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Rottman is a widely-published expert on orders of battle and India has a pretty open approach to history, so it's fairly unlikely that he would have entirely missed an Indian unit deployed to China or North Korea. He notes the hospitals sent to support the Communists by East Germany and Hungary, as well as tiny sub-units sent by various countries. The journal article I provided also does not mention any Indian units being sent to North Korea or China. In short, no-one but Stueck is claiming this, and he got the basic details of the nature of the Indian parachute unit wrong which doesn't inspire confidence. As such, I think that this should be removed from the infobox until it can be confirmed from other sources. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused, what do you mean only Stueck claimed this? Both Joseph Goulden and John Prados counter-claimed it along with Stueck, and John Prados is an expert in CIA operations. Jim101 (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The key text from Stueck here seems to be "India sent a similar hospital to the other side as well", which is being used to support the material in the infobox. No-one else appears to have said anything so definite. According to what you've written about Goulden and Prados state that this unit didn't actually reach China or Korea (have you sighted this material in their books? If so, can you please explain what they say exactly?). The notion that the Indian Government allowed the CIA to murder an entire field hospital without any complaint at all at the time (and then went on to be an honest broker in the peace negotiations and post-war ceasefire) or in the subsequent 70 years seems rather unlikely. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is midnight from where I am from so the only thing I can do right now is a quick Google book search on the keyword "Operation Stole": Prados, Goulden, Paul M. Edwards, Edward Chapter 23. My yard stick for deciding whether to include India in the infobox is based on a consensus from a previous discussion. Jim101 (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Chosin Reservoir

Does the Battle of Chosin Reservoir qualify, as it was mainly between Western allies and China? Twillisjr (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by the word "qualify"? Jim101 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I saw your comments on Talk:North_Korea#Chosin_Reservoir...Battle of Chosin Reservoir has been recorded in Chinese, American, British and South Korean official histories of the Korean War...is there a reason why it shouldn't be counted as an event in the Korean War? Jim101 (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

While new to this page, I was not sure if there may have been previous arguments that could have resulted in the removal of battles that were not specifically US vs NK. In my experiences, certain elements of articles have resulted in similar rejections. Thanks for the clarification, any suggestions on how or where it should be implemented? Twillisjr (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

North Korean invasion of South Korea repelled

This phrase should definitely be included in the infobox, as otherwise the box suggests that the war started with the UN invading the North. This has already been demanded six weeks ago and been denied for no reason. --KnightMove (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that there seemed to be general support for this when it was previously discussed and it's clearly sensible I've just made this change. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

At Korean War § Etymology, the name in South Korea in the infobox on the right does not match that shown in the prose. One or the other should be adjusted. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

the Infobox is just a direct translation of Korean War into North Korean and South Korean. I agree this doesn't match the etymology section perfectly but then we would have to put in all the different North and South Korean and Chinese names for the war Mztourist (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Deaths resulting from the Jeju Uprising

The article states that all the deaths resulting from the Jeju Uprising were caused by South Korean soldiers, while the article the statement is based on states that it was a combination of warring factions, execution, and suppression by South Korean soldiers. If I have indeed spotted an inconsistency could someone with permission to edit the article fix it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.50.167 (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Old discussion about Bodo League massacres in the "Course of the War:Korean War begins" section - see talk archive 9

We had an extensive discussion a few months back about whether or not to include mention of the Bodo League massacre in the section "Korean War begins(June 1950)." A few other editors and myself wanted to remove it (along with references to other atrocities). The only editor that was adamant about keeping the text was Syngmung.

The reference to the massacre is out of place in a discussion about the initial military and political struggles during the first weeks of combat. The massacre went on for months after the war started and was particularly atrocious in that thousands of children were murdered along with their parents. Because such killings did not have any military or political significance other editors and I wanted it moved to the section on war crimes and other atrocities.

Currently, it is in a separate paragraph at the end of the section. It does not really fit in at all. Do we need unanimous agreement to make edits?

Hanhwe.kim (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

US bias

This article, though on the whole excellent, underrates the role of other UN participants, notably the British and Commonwealth troops who were the first to support ROK and US forces in response to the UN mandate. The British 27th Infantry Brigade arrived at Busan on 29 August 29 1950. The UK alone committed over 90,000 combatants during the course of the war, suffered more than one in ten fatalities and showed conspicuous gallantry. In one action a force of 30,000 Chinese troops crossing the Imjin River was taken on by 600 soldiers of the British Army. British understatement failed to impress the US commander. When Brigadier Tom Brodie of the Gloucestershire Regiment reported that the situation was "a bit sticky" he was given neither reinforcements or permission to fall back. The Chinese eventually overcame the British resistance, taking most of the UN forces prisoner, but at a cost of 10,000 Chinese lives. British losses stood at 59. For confirmation and more detail see numerous references to British, Commonwealth and other forces in different Wikipedia entries or at sites such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1285708.stm. It might be added that most countries who supported the ROK did so reluctantly, seeing no national benefit and only an obligation. Churchill's and Attlee's governments regarded it as a "most undesirable commitment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.209.100.2 (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an American, so allow me to summaries their point of view from a point of neutrality. British forces made the second biggest UN contribution to the ROK, but it was only a fraction of the size of the US force. If anything, in purely numerical terms, the US is probably underrepresented in the article as it is, although obviously numbers are not everything. As for the Battle of the Imjin River, there were a good deal more British soldiers than you mention, but also Belgians, Luxembourgers and Americans who were just as important in the Battle. And Filipinos. In my opinion, the UK currently receives proportional coverage in the text, though the photos could in my opinion do with including other nationalities other than Australian, US and GB...Brigade Piron (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Brigade Piron, its difficult on a page summarising an entire conflict to perfectly weight it to give the proper balance to all combatants, but I don't see there is any particular US bias here (I'm not American either). The Battle of the Imjin River has its own very detailed page which is x-refed on the Korean War page. Mztourist (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If people are going to use 29th Brigade at Imjin River as an example of how the Brits deserve the limelight, please do a bit more research on how the South Korean 1st Inf. Division in the same battle managed to maul 5 Chinese Divisions while not dumb enough to get one of its sub units annihilated in a trap that was discovered four months ago. If anything, it is the South Koreans contribution that is underrepresented. Jim101 (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Grammar, Syntax, & Spelling

There are grammar, syntax, and spelling mistakes throughout the entire article. Throughout the next week I will read it back and forth a few times and try to fix as many of these as I find. Some of them are understandable, but there are entire sentences which make no grammatical sense and reflect poorly on everyone who has invested time here. Qolivieri 20:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Early UN Mandate

Is the following passage incorrectly phrased? I do not believe the UN "deadline" was to establish an "anti-communist government", but rather to hold democratic elections? The Soviet Union was present at that time on the Security Council.

"The USAMGIK decided to forego the five-year trusteeship agreed upon in Moscow, given the 31 March 1948 United Nations election deadline to achieve an anti-communist civil government in the US Korean Zone of Occupation."

I propose removing the words "anti-communist". If there is no objection, I will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC) . Actually, there was another government already, but the US military occupation didn't want it because they thought it was communist, so they banned it and allowed for the former Japanese invading oppressors to keep ruling Korea and keep massacring and brain-washing its inhabitants, backed by US military. It's kind of funny, really. US invades Korea to free it from the Japanese, but then they restore the same Japanese oppressors, because they thought that a communist government was forming. Of course, this could only lead into a very messy war. So, in conclusion, they were, in fact, very anti-communist.

"The most powerful country in the world"

Who was the moron that wrote the USA was the most powerful country in the world in the 40/50's???? What about the Soviet Union?? USA didn't even beat the Germans a few years earlier without the MASSIVE help of the Commies!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.204.52 (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in fairness the IP user has a point. The phrase referred to is this:

“ Mao Zedong's decision to involve China in the Korean War was a conscientious effort to confront the most powerful country in the world, undertaken at a time when the regime was still consolidating its own power after winning the Chinese Civil War. ”

That's actually quite a pov claim, aside from the erroneous use of the word "conscientious". Would anyone object to a rephrase to "...to confront a more powerful country, at a time when the regime..."? ---- Brigade Piron (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No issue with rewording, makes sense to me. Perhaps it would be more simple though just to state that he intended to confront the United States (assuming the sources spt that wording)? Anotherclown (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Which part of the sentence is people disputing? I have no opinion whether US is the most powerful country or not in the 1950s, but that sentence is technically correct if read in the right context. Mao and Chinese leadership as whole did intentionally scored a domestic political victory with its ability to hold their grounds against what they view as the most powerful anti-Communist power in the world while crushing all internal dissents in the process, and anti-Communist rebellions were pretty much stamped on Chinese mainland after the Korean War was over. See Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries and Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns which technically conducted as part of war effort for Korean War. Jim101 (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better to get rid of the whole sentence. It's commentary rather than information. And it's misleading: there was no all-out confrontation between China and the USA.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Chinese leadership view it as do or die struggle of Chinese Communism, over 60% of Chinese military was mobilized in the process, the entire Chinese economy was put on total war footing, and war propaganda/mobilization campaigns was everyday life in China...there was no all-out confrontation from Chinese perspective? Jim101 (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It was obviously not "do or die" for China as they never declared war themselves. There were many on both sides who wanted to expand the war, but they were overruled by those who favoured a more limited conflict. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not the matter whether US will invade China, what really did mattered is the CCP's mindset during the Korean War. The Chinese leadership, with questionable control of Chinese population at the time, really did believed the US will invade China as part of Imperialist/anti-Communism crusade and a part of conspiracy with KMT to resume the Chinese Civil War. The entire Chinese population was then repressed, controlled then mobilized into total war mode because CCP really did believe people would rebel and KMT would return to Chinese mainland if UN succeed in Korea. Technically without the Korean War, the CCP would never have got the excuse/power to carry out Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries and Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns in the first place. Jim101 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The war remained in Korea (and bordering areas). Victory for the UN would not have meant the fall of the PRC.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Image

The main image needs to be Matt DePerro . Currently it is very US-centric. Every pics relates to the US but not the ROK, DPRK or China. Surely it should be changed a bit. Regards. Stumink (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bit one sided

It seems that the entire article is just dominated by pictures of americans. Can't we have some variety here? I mean, there are barely any photos of South Koreans, the main combatant on the allied side, and not to mention the poor British, who don't even appear at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.195.236 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to add relevant photos, keeping in mind the relative involvement of the parties Mztourist (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the lack of pictures of Koreans should be rectified.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay Round Agreements Act...'nough said. Jim101 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Broken Link

The source for a lot of the statistics, number 11, is broken which makes a lot of those numbers meaningless. Does anyone know where to get updated info or remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkalltheway (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the reference to include an archived version. (Hohum ^@) 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013

The following ridiculous image (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Michigan_state_police.gif) is featured prominently under the 'Names' header above the text that is located directly above the 'Background' heading. The image seems to be spam and is in no way related to the topic at hand. Mccombju (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)mccombju

Question: Huh? I see no such image anywhere in this article. --ElHef (Meep?) 16:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No Gun Ri and Bias

This article shows an incredibly poor understanding of the No Gun Ri massacre and overall seems to be overly sympathetic towards the American interventionist perspective. It should be edited to actually discuss American massacres of civilians such as No Gun Ri. As The Bridge at No Gun Ri has clearly demonstrated, there were no infiltrators of refugees/civilians. This belief on the part of the Americans reflected poor military intelligence and strategy and racism. The end results of this situation were countless American massacres of civilians on the ground and from the air on a massive scale and with official recognition all the way up the chain of command to MacArthur, mirroring later policies and actions in Vietnam (see Kill Everything that Moves.) In addition, the references to and claims by Rudolph Rummel should be taken critically; he is an outspoken anticommunist interventionist whose scholarship is controversial at best, making him not the best person to source in an article like this. Antifa99 (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you add your information to the No Gun Ri massacre page.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The No Gun Ri massacre page does a pretty good job of accurately summarizing the events. This page's "War crimes" section is the problem. The only American atrocity that is mentioned is No Gun Ri, when there were probably hundreds of similar massacres during the war. And the summary here of No Gun Ri misrepresents both the facts of the case and the South Korean position on the event. The bombing campaign, which Curtis LeMay summarized as, "We burned down every town in North Korea, and South Korea, too" is mentioned under "Bombing North Korea" (where the quote is "changed" to "some in South Korea") but there is no suggestion that this constituted a war crime or the scale of the South Korean bombing campaign. In addition, North Korean and Chinese war crimes are exaggerated, especially by Rummel. For example, his claim that the North Korean army executed at least 500,000 civilians during the war is absolutely ludicrous and is several orders of magnitude too high. In fact, it was the Rhee regime that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Also, North Korean claims during ceasefire negotiations as to the number of POWs they held and that many POWs were dying from American air raids are both more likely to be accurate than the South Korean (i.e. the Rhee, i.e. the American) position. The article does accurately summarize the North Korean perspective, but without referencing the context of the American air campaign, it reads as unbalanced and misleading. I'm new here, but I have sources to back this up and would be willing to provide an edit. Antifa99 (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, before I created the "Bombing North Korea" section, the topic was hardly mentioned at all. I don't know who changed the LeMay quote, but I've changed it back. I think the bombing has to be dealt with as a fact, and readers can make up their own mind whether it was a war crime. You are quite free to edit the page, but you should bear in mind that war crimes are controversial and that other people are likely to edit your edits...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2014

The first mention of the KPA in this article doesn't mention what the KPA is nor does it link to the wikipedia page about the KPA.

"The KPA crossed the 38th parallel behind..." should probably read something like: "The Korean People's Army (KPA) crossed the 38th parallel behind..." with a hyperlink to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army 108.227.201.171 (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. Makes sense to me so I've gone a head and done it. Happy to discuss if others disagree. Anotherclown (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Another request : "French Premier René Pleven" should be "French Prime minister René Pleven" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.207.47 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Koreans at Hiroshima/Nagasaki

Article currently says:

In August 1945, when the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, around 25% of those killed were Koreans.

I thought this sounded a little categorical so I looked up the original source cited. It only says this:

Perhaps as much as a quarter of the total casualties at Hiroshima were Koreans.

Which is a much more couched and uncertain statement, only refers to Hiroshima, not Nagasaki, and is a statement about casualties, not fatalities. The article should be changed to reflect this unless there is another source. It gives no citation for this statement. --69.244.72.161 (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed it entirely. It doesn't really add anything to an article about the Korean War. In fact, I think the Background is unnecessarily long.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

biased selection of pictures from the civilians casualties

the article looks like a piece of propaganda, you guys only select pictures showing only death south koreans killed by north koreans, but you cant hide the truth that more north korean civilians died than south koreans. Everyone knows the genocidal bombings by americans in north korea just like they did in japan and germany during ww2, so stop change history.--Crossswords (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Then finde some fair use pictures and add yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.38.127 (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Potsdam Conference ?

This article states : "At the Potsdam Conference (July–August 1945), the Allies unilaterally decided to divide Korea[65]—without consulting the Koreans—in contradiction of the Cairo Conference" but the Potsdam Conference article does not mention Korea. We need articles to be mutually consistent and complimentary. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed this. William Stueck (Rethinking the Korean War, p 21-22) says Korea wasn't much discussed. Moreover, the division at the 38th parallel was decided on the hop on 10 August.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

US Deployment to Korea - Post Withdrawal

Hi all. I agree with one of the above sections, that there are gaps in the narrative. The biggest one I see while reading is that the article states all US forces were withdrawn from Korea before the war, which is true. Then after the war starts, the article tells about the actions of the 24th and 8th US divisions. Were these forces already in Korea? If not, when did they arrive? The article needs to be edited to state that "almost" all forces were withdrawn from Korea, or state when these troops arrived after MacArthur's materiel appropriation.

I also made a few minor grammar corrections. --Levontaun (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The troops were redeployed from Japan (having been removed from Korea). I've edited the text, but I agree this could be better explained.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Levontaun, if you are confident in the facts then please fix the problems you see. If other editors disagree I am sure they will let you know by reverting. Then a discussion follows, sources are reviewed, a consensus is formed and the article is changed to match. We cannot leave all the work in the article for Jack Upland to fix. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. If I seemed overly critical without adding anything I apologize. I was just trying to be respectful of Jack's narrative by letting him make the changes.--Levontaun (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking that was the case. I just wanted to be sure you knew it was okay to fix the article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am not responsible for this article. I've made a few minor edits and comments. I also think it's valid to make criticisms without editing, because it's not always obvious how to improve the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

3 September 1945

On 3 September 1945, Lieutenant General Yoshio Kozuki, Commander, Japanese Seventeenth Area Army, contacted Hodge, telling him that the Soviets were south of the 38th parallel at Kaesong. Hodge trusted the accuracy of the Japanese Army report.(Appleman,1998)

I have removed this because it needs further explanation.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Soviet boycott of the UN Security Council

Before my edit, the article stated that the Soviet representative boycotted the UN in response to events in Korea. The USSR boycotted the UN Security Council (not the UN) in January 1950, months before Kim Il-sung invaded the South. Their boycott was over the issue of communist China's representation (Taiwan was recognized instead of the CCP government). It was the USSR delegation's absence that allowed the UN action in Korea to proceed -- they would have vetoed it if they had been present. DoItAgain (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing Section

Hello all. This sentence: "The right-wing Representative Democratic Council, led by nationalist Syngman Rhee, opposing...." concerns events between 1946 and 1948, but there is a big gap in the narrative here. There needs to be more explanation (1946-1948) of exactly why the peaceful elections were never held, that is, how the polarization process took place. Gunnermanz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there really was a polarising process. Fundamentally, there was a lack of agreement from the beginning: Koreans did not want a trusteeship, the USSR did not want a hostile neighbour, and the USA did not want a Communist takeover.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you clean this communist filth up

the meat grinder is missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8241:5600:2DF2:5D93:1172:FFF5 (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

POV in the war crimes section

It appears to me that the war crimes section is considerably biased toward the Americans/South Koreans, when considering the statistics of civilians killed and POW's in the war. Considerably more North Korean civilians were killed/wounded and considerably more Chinese and North Koreans were held as POW's. Despite this, the section makes no mention of Chinese/North Korean POW's. The images shown are also uneven in their representation, as several images are shown of dead bodies due to North Korean actions, but no images of equal brutality are shown for atrocities committed by the South Koreans/Americans.

24.62.40.155 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources for UN war crimes put them inMztourist (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead should at least mention war crimes

Please do not duplicate the same debate across multiple pages

The war crimes from the Korean War have some staggering figures, like 100,000 for the Bodo massacre, and North Korea executing 500,000 civilians. This should at least be mentioned in the lead.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure that belongs there, looks POV to me. The US is guilty of commiting atrocities in South Korea too. Seems like you have something against Koreans. There are other notable battles that have more staggering figures. It wasn't only the Koreans. Kirothereaper (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Alright, take out the figures, if you think it creates POV. However, since the article has a war crimes section, the concept of war crimes deserves a mention in the lead. MOS:LEAD says that the lead should summarize the article and any prominent controversies. Well, war crimes are a prominent controversy. BTW I have nothing against Koreans, I just picked an atrocity with large number for each side. Regarding other wars having more staggering figures, the ones listed in this article sound like they pass the threshold for relevance. As such, I propose the sentence for the lead: "War crimes were committed by both sides of the conflict." This doesn't emphasize one country or side or the other.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC) I don't see a problem with that.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC) War crimes were not a prominent controversy in the Korean War. It would be considered prominant in World War II, and even that doesn't have it in the lead. "War crimes were committed by both sides of the conflict" would leave a reader either saying "so?" or "so what?" War crimes are commited in every war. And none of the other wars include it in the lead. Also can we please keep this discussion in one place? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) I am trying to advocate for the inclusion of war crimes in the lead of several war articles. I cannot raise the issue of Korean War war crimes and solicit views from editors of the Korean War article by using the Vietnam War talk page. I am trying to get more views than just my view and Supersaiyen312's view. We already know that we have opposing views on this war crime issue.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Nothing wrong with advocating that, you should have just clarified that at first. Personally, I support your proposed sentence of "War crimes were committed by both sides of the conflict." being added to World War II, but that's it. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Sorry but (again) this is not a defining aspect of the war.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC) I agree with Slatersteven. I don't think of war crimes as one of the most critical historical lessons from this war. But I might change my mind if sources were brought that declare war crimes had this level of significance. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC underway at Vietnam War: Should the lead state "War crimes were committed by both sides"? Please comment there. Alsee (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Combat units in infobox

Previously the infobox had a listing of countries that supplied "Combat support". This has been changed to "Combat units". In military jargon (US at least), "combat support" is a term of art that describes military police, aviation units, military intelligence, etc. ("Combat service support" units include Finance Corps, Medical Corps, type units.) The term "combat units" is needed because the supporting countries provided combat units, not combat support units. – S. Rich (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

India

India is listed as providing "medical support" to UN forces and "other support" to communist forces. What was India's role in the Korean War? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

In the lead, maybe link "armistice agreement" or "the armistice agreement" to Korean Armistice Agreement, and maybe link the second mention of "armistice" to armistice. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done – S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

War end date

Why is there an end date listed in the infobox? The war is still technically happening. Only a ceasefire was signed, not a peace treaty. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 04:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of discussion on this editing issue has taken place over the years – take a look at the archives. (Basically the war ended because the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed. This ended the fighting and the war. While a peace treaty was not signed, the "hot war" has ended. Saying the war "technically" continues does not help us resolve the editing concerns. Thus, for Wikipedia editing concerns, the war did end.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And this issue is only brought up in the context of bringing it up. No one says they fought in the Korean War if they were born in 1967. Most wars end with victory of one side, or some kind of deal to resolve the dispute. Since this dispute was about who ran Korea, it was impossible to achieve a deal short of total victory. The DPRK pushes for a treaty, but this is in the context of increasing its influence in the South, which is bitterly opposed by the ROK government (usually). A genuine peace treaty was probably impossible...--Jack Upland (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Soviets as combatants?

While the USSR supplied materiel and had forces along the Yalu (according to infobox VFW source), we do not have RS that says the Soviets actually fought. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

We know that the Soviet Mig-15 pilots participated, see List of Korean War flying aces#Soviet Union, so I think there may some justification for including the USSR. However I note that on the Vietnam War page, Communist countries that supplied fighter pilots to North Vietnam, such as the USSR, North Korea etc are only included in the "Supported by" section rather than as Belligerents Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite so. But let's be clear about this. See the recent edits (and my reverts). – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a cemetery in China dedicated to the Soviet pilots who died defending the DPRK. Perhaps they were combatants...???--Jack Upland (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Soviet pilots fought in the war, the issue that S. Rich is wanting to clarify (Redacted) that the Soviets were not ground combatants in the Korean War and he is correct on this point. The photo of Soviet soldiers on the main page dates from 1945 when the Soviets occupied Korea down to the 38th Parallel.Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the truth is the USSR did not openly fight in the war, and we have only learned of the pilots more recently. As it stands the sentence is misleading because of the omission of mentioning the pilots. The sentence could be amended to refer to the pilots, but this would blunt the thrust of the sentence. I would favour removing the sentence entirely. The idea that the Korean War was a "proxy war" is highly questionable. The USA was involved in the war, and therefore it was clearly not a proxy war from the American standpoint. Furthermore, there is no sense in which the war was a proxy for the USSR. The war started out of desire to reunify Korea, a desire that was held just as strongly in the south and the north. The war broke out after the American troops had left, and soon after the (almost complete) reunification of China under Communist rule (marked by the capture of Hainan Island in 1950). It is fairly clear that the Communist side did not expect US intervention, any more than the USA had intervened in the Chinese Civil War. What happened in Korea was that a civil war broke out as soon as the occupying forces left. The 38th Parallel was not respected by either side, and both the DPRK and the ROK claim (as they do today) to be the government of all Korea. America and other countries then intervened under UN aegis. China intervened when the DPRK was threatened with destruction, and when the US was threatening to continue the war into China. This was not a proxy war, and there is no source for that statement. I suggest the whole paragraph be removed as it is simply misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It certainly didn't start as a proxy war, but it was from the outset an ideological war between the socialist North and the capitalist South and as the war developed it was increasingly seen by the Chinese as a chance to damage the US. The Chinese didn't want the ceasefire, Kim Il Sung did because Korea was being totally destroyed. Interestingly Kim Il Sung was regarded by many Koreans north and south (even now) as a patriot for his role in fighting the Japanese occupation, while Syngman Rhee was regarded as an opportunist who had spent most of his life out of Korea and many officers in the South Korean army (including Park Chung-hee) were regarded as traitors for having served in the Japanese Imperial Army, this alloweed the NOrth to paint the Southern leadership as stooges for the US and Japan Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

True. Interestingly enough, some in the South claim that Kim Il Sung was a patriot and the man who ran the DPRK was an impostor. Unfortunately this interesting but absurd position has influenced Wikipedia's page on Kim.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to including the USSR in the list of nations providing support to the DPRK; that can be easily verified.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Soviet Union is included in the list of belligerents. This discussion started from an edit in relation to USSR participation in ground combat. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as it is verified. That being said, if it was for a limited period of time a small text should be included on what year(s) involved.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It is detailed in the aerial warfare section, and it ran for most of the war. Considering that both the US and the Soviet Union had combatants in the conflict, it certainly cannot be termed a proxy war. (And China was a combatant as well.) A proxy is someone who does something on your behalf. The Korean War has been mistakenly called a "proxy war", but this reflects a obsolete Cold War mindset, which downplays local issues, and an ignorance of the covert Soviet involvement. I have edited the intro to avoid any confusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The article states the ceiling of the F-86 as 42,000 feet, but Wikipedia's F86 article states that the ceiling is more than 49,000 feet. They can't both be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.250.22.6 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Jets were used in combat for the first time in history,

Obviously the Me 262 was used in combat 5 or 6 years previously. So not sure why this sentence is here.--81.142.205.170 (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think what was intended to say was Korea the first war in which jets fought against other jets. Jets were used in World War II but they never went up against other jets until Korea. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and the sentence should be altered to make that clear. I however will not be doing it. --81.142.205.170 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done – S. Rich (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

RoC & PRC

In recent good faith edits China was edited and the specification between the Republic of China and Peoples Republic of China appears to have been muddled. Is there consensus to support this? If I am wrong, please unmuddle my opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Per China article talk page, By default MOS China should be used for Peoples Republic of China and Taiwan should be used for Republic of China unless there a strong case to be made otherwise. Jim101 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

However, there is the historical context which this article is in, where China at least in American English was the Republic of China until the 1970s, and in British English it was the Peoples Republic of China after (1950). Therefore, I don't think that China should presume to refer to one China and not another China.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of the situation is that:

1) I believe WP:COMMONNAME did not use the concept of "historical common name" since it is a valid assumption that article's reader's frame of reference is relative to the current time.

2) The only situation I can think of on the confusion of China vs. Taiwan is in the context of discussing Taiwan's official representation of entire China to the United Nations (and most of the Western World) during the Korean War. But I don't believe this issue is prominent enough on the discussion of Korean War that warrants circumvention the current day English convention instead of explain it in a sentence in the article.

3) My personal opinion on the matter is be concise and easy to read. China vs. Taiwan is a lot easier to read than PRC vs. ROC if the main topic does not deal with Cross-Strait relations. Jim101 (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any confusion, and if anything enforces a bias against RoC, especially in this historical context if were to refer to RoC as Taiwan when RoC was not normally referred to as Taiwan in the western world during the time period of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, My argument based on the MOS guideline is not really about countering bias, but rather making the article easy to understand for readers using current day terminology. Furthermore, NPOV policy is technically "enforcing bias" by forcing editors presenting events based on current day POVs instead of POVs in the 1950s. Jim101 (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"enforcing bias"? It is about ensuring that the article and terminology is unbias, thus neutral. I am not saying that the RoC or the PRC should be referred to as China, which is enforcing a present day POV/bias. I am saying that to ensure that no bias is enforced that referring to either China by their formal names allows delineation and thus makes it easier to understand, which the edit in discussion IMHO does not.
It would be like calling the Soviet Union Russia (which is wrong IMHO).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe giving equal validity to different terms is not the point of WP:NPOV, it is about giving proportional preference to terms that majority of people is currently using.

Using the Soviet Union vs. Russia as an example, the reason why mixing those two terms is bad is because majority of English sources still treat those two terms as separate countries, and if by tomorrow people suddenly stopped to do that, then per policy of neutrality we have to replace all terms "Soviet Union" with "Russia" even if both of us agree that is not correct. The same policy is also in play per the discussions on China article talk page and Taiwan talk page, since it is actually the case that majority of English sources mix the term Taiwan/ROC and China/PRC indiscriminately, thus we have to give the preference to the majority. Jim101 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, having been in that discussion, it appeared to be a POV push by pro PRC individuals rather than adhering to NEU. But what can I do apparently Wikipedia is a democracy, as majority opinion ruled, rather than neutrality. Oh well.

I will stop following this page and others can make sure it isn't vandalized or that it doesn't lose neutrality, cause my opinion apparently doesn't matter.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusing and not neutral

US Army divisions are not clearly labelled as such, as opposed to Korean ones which are always preceded with KPA and Chinese ones which are always preceded PVA. This not only puts the neutrality of the article in question, but is also confusing to the reader. 202.166.68.240 (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The NK claims that they were attacked by the South prior to launching their attack. This is not mentioned anywhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.77.157 (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is mentioned in the "Outbreak of War" section.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is written from an American perspective, and should be more neutral.101.98.210.38 (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to make changes, which will of course be subject to review of their neutrality by other editors. Mztourist (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of military forces section

By mid-1950, North Korean forces numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 troops, organized into 10 infantry divisions, one tank division, and one air force division, with 210 fighter planes and 280 tanks, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft.[55] In addition to the invasion force, the North KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea.[55] Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.

The citation, [55], is cited seven times and is as follows: Appleman, Roy E (1998) [1961]. South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu. United States Army Center of Military History. pp. 3, 15, 381, 545, 771, 719. ISBN 0-16-001918-4.

At p. 8: "The North Korea People's Army in June 1950 constituted a ground force of eight infantry divisions at full strength, two more infantry divisions activated at an estimated half strength, a separate infantry regiment, a motorcycle reconnaissance regiment, and an armored brigade. Five of the infantry divisions and the armored brigade had well-trained combat personnel. "

At p. 10: "The North Korean ground forces-the NKPA and the Border Constabulary-in June 1950 numbered about 135,000 men."

At p. 10: "In addition to the 120 tanks of the 105th Armored Brigade, the better part of another tank regiment appears to have been available to North Korea in late June. Thirty tanks reportedly joined the N.K. 7th (12th) Division at Inje in east central Korea just before it crossed the Parallel. [13] This gave North Korea a total of 150 Russian-built T34 tanks in June 1950."

At p 12, it states: "North Korea began the war with about 180 aircraft, all supplied by Russia. Of these about 60 were YAK trainers; 40, YAK fighters; 70, attack bombers; and 10, reconnaissance planes. The North Korean Navy had approximately 16 patrol craft of various types and a few coastwise steamers reportedly equipped with light deck guns. [22]"

Reading this section, the conflict in the figures was apparent and had not been reconciled - ie, there had been no attempt in the text to explain the differences (or what appears to be inconsistencies). Without this, I then sought an explanation from the cited reference. I could not readily identify the claimed facts through the pages cited in the reference. I would observe that the citation should list the appropriate pages of the reference that verify the statement. Clearly, this citation/reference is problematic, both in this paragraph and elsewhere in the article where this citation is used. I am having difficulty unravelling the two uses of the citation in this paragraph, let alone the other five useselsewhere in the article. I was hoping that someone more familiar with the article might help clear up this problem. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

Can turkey be removed from its current position on the Korean war belligerents section and be put back under combat units, where it previously was. It shouldn't be classed as a main belligerent because it didn't make a significant contribution to the Korean war unlike the United States, United Kingdom and South Korea. Can the Turkish leaders be removed from the commanders and leaders section also, as it is pointless having it on there. Thanks

Thecorrector97 (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Already done by Spellcast. Stickee (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cuba in the Western side

Cuba is represented under the 'other support' section, sided by US and South. Any proofs? kazekagetr 07:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The Cuban President at the time was Carlos Socarrás who supported the US efforts against communism. In 1952 Carlos Socarrás was deposed by Fugencio Batista, who was also anti-communist. Fidel Castro's communists did not take power in Cuba until 1959. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No Gun Ri help

This is completely not the place to post this, but I don't know where the right place is. I assume there are editors on the Korean War article that speak Korean.

We are going through an overhaul on the No Gun Ri Massacre article, and I would like to include a translation of the name of the event in Korean. I don't speak Korean, nor anyone else working on the project, so I'm totally out of my depth. Any help is greatly appreciated.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Satellite image

Is the North Korea at night a current image or was the photo taken in 1991 after the Soviet Union collapsed causing a power outage (from what I've been told) despite the date it claims to be? Danotto94 (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

North Korea has continuing problems with power supply, mainly due to aging infrastructure. I was there in 2012. In Pyongyang at night there were street lights, but vacant buildings were in darkness (like Earth Hour). There were blackouts in Kaesong.

That being said, it is somewhat of a misleading picture, as it does not portray an immediate outcome of the war. Equally relevant would be a picture of Pyongyang, rebuilt after the war.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It is in the aftermath section and is a useful visual portayal of the relative economic success of the 2 Koreas. When I visited NK in 2007 I didn't see any power lines across the countryside and the drive from Pyongyang to Kaesong at night was completely pitch black.Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Since North Korea has hydro-electric (and coal-burning) power stations, and an electrified railway network etc, (as documented by Wikipedia), it clearly does have power lines, whether you saw them or not. According to Helen-Louise Hunter, a CIA analyst, all North Korean apartments have had electricity since 1968 (Kim Il-song's North Korea, p 196). If this image implies something else, then it is misleading. It is also misleading in that it reflects the aftermath of the crisis in the 1990s, rather than the way things have been since the war. By some accounts, the North Korean economy was ahead of the South Korean economy until the 1970s (Bruce Cumings, Korea's Place in the Sun, p 424). The image is "useful" because it portrays a particular point of view. A picture of Pyongyang would not be "useful" to this point of view, nor would a picture of a South Korean slum.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Jack you are welcome to look at Google Earth yourself and see if you can see a power grid across the country. I am not saying that NK doesn't have power generation, but from what I saw on the main highway between Pyongyang and Kaesong (travelling by night going there and day coming back) and on the main railway line from Pyongyang to Sinanjiu (travelling by day) no power lines were visible. In 2007 Pyongyang and Kaesong were almost blacked out at night (apart from the hotels where we were staying) and we even had a blackout when we were inside the Kim Il Sung mausoleum right next to his body. All of this speaks of a country that has poor electricity infrastructure which in the modern world is a sign of economic weakness and/or mismanagement. Mztourist (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe this photo taken by me from the railway between Pyongyang and China does show power poles:File:North Korean Countryside.jpg. In any case, the state of North Korea's electricity network in 2012 is a strange way to illustrate the aftermath of a war in the 1950s.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Jack Upland Mztourist exactly. Maybe we should link to another article/put another pic. Are there more recent satellite images of NK? socialistguy - when you make/review edits, please make sure they're neutral and cover/acknowledge multiple POVs. Thank you (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe its a perfectly legitimate visual aid depicting the relative success of the two opposing political systems that fought the war. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Mztourist I'm not denying the regime is probably evil but why should we be so quick to judge successes without acknowledging sanctions and other aspects that may have/be inhibiting development that may not have to do with the regime and how are we so sure that picture wasn't take during the power blackouts when the Soviet Union disintegrated? socialistguy - when you make/review edits, please make sure they're neutral and cover/acknowledge multiple POVs. Thank you (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Socialistguy I never said anything about the "evil" nature or otherwise of the NK regime, just that they have economically mismanaged the country. In relation to your comment about the date of the photo it is very clearly stated in the photo information that this was in 2012, i.e. about 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. In relation to your comment "when you make/review edits, please make sure they're neutral and cover/acknowledge multiple POVs" I haven't made any edits on the page on this topic Mztourist (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don`t see how the presence or absence of power lines in the 21st Century directly relates to the subject of the Korean War. It may relate peripherally but its relevance to the topic is minuscule. This article is about the Korean War. The current socio-economic situation in the two Koreas is another topic entirely. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The photo is in the Aftermath section, so it is relevant as it points to the relative economic success of the two side that fought the war Mztourist (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The term "Aftermath" refers to events immediately following the war that were a direct result of the conflict itself. The infrastructure situation 60 years later can hardly be called "Aftermath". Mediatech492 (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be general policy, e.g. if you look at the Vietnam War aftermath section you will see that it also details various events that occurred long after the war Mztourist (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Read it again, the events referred to in that article are dealing with activities that are directly related to events in the war. For example: Spreading of chemical defoliant during the war/clean-up of chemical defoliant now. You have not established that your claims directly follow as as a result of the events of the war. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you need to read it again, there are 5 subsections, ranging in time from 1975 to the present day Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I could read it twenty times, your point here will still be irrelevant. You need to explain how the Modern infrastructure in Korea "Directly Relates" to the Korean War. Otherwise please refer to WP:DTS before you respond any further. Mediatech492 (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Simple, as I have said above the Kim Regime have economically mismanaged North Korea since the end of the war, with the result that they have woefully inadequate infrastructure with electricity being one of the most basic deficiencies. Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2015

this semi-protected page was altered on 6/29/2015 indicating that south koreans started the war through various manuevers, but the material was not cited and the user had poor grammar. Could this revision be double checked for accuracy or at least could citations be provided? 198.49.6.225 (talk) 06:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree there appear to be multiple issues with those edits and have reverted [1]. In my opinion such a significant change would need to be discussed first and a consensus developed before being adopted (if at all). Anotherclown (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The now reverted changes reflect the North Korean version of how the war started, i.e. an invasion by the South which was repulsed by the North Mztourist (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The article currently covers the North Korean version under "Outbreak".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would Syngman Rhee express his desire to attack the North to John Foster when he was already attacking???

The page says Kim, Il Sung got invasion approval from Stalin or China so it concludes Kim, Il Sung is one who started Korean war.

But same is true for South Korea.

From the current wiki page,

"Syngman Rhee repeatedly expressed his desire to attack the North, including when American diplomat John Foster Dulles visited Korea on 18 June."

So for sure Syngman Rhee had same intention as Kim, Il Sung to start war.

Having intention of war does not mean he started war.

But you might interpret this as the evidence that Syngman Rhee didnt start the war.

You might think why would he ask Dulles that he wanted to attack the North if he was the one who started the war?

so you conclude Syngman Rhee didn't start the Korean war, Il Sung Kim did.

But the fact uncovered was Syngman Rhee was already attacking the North. He attacked more than 400 times!!

Then why would he ask Dulles to attack the North while he was already attacking?

So one of them is false.

Either Syngman Rhee didn't start the war or Syngman Rhee didn't ask to Dulles to attack the North.

Since attacks on North by Syngman Rhee is true, automatically that statement that Syngman Rhee asked to Dulles to attack the North is false.

My guess is that the actual fact would be Syngman Rhee asked to start war that allows American military intervene, but that's just a guess, and whoever brought up the information that Syngman Rhee asked to attack the North June 18th is lying.

and it looks like surely the liar is American diplomat John Foster Dulles.

Dongsoola (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

there is no doubt that both Lee and Kim each wanted to reunite Korea under their own leadership. The Americans knew this and so didn't provide the South with the heavy weaponry necessary to invade the North, while the Soviets eventually decided to support Kim's plans and equipped the KPA with the weapons (particularly tanks) necessary to invade the South. Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Americans knew this, but I am almost 100% positive, Koreans in South did not know this, because its very popular among old Koreans to say "Americans had not given us weapons (at the time)" as if they were not aware they were not given upscale weapons like tanks to counter. South Korean military trained and equipped by US were just bunch of inexperienced personals who really did not know what they are dealing with. Artilleries,ships, air planes, and guns supplied by US probably made them feel almost invincible, because most of them just did not have control of such weapons before. That's why Lee, Seung Man and military personals under him were certain they could advance into North.

In other words, what I am trying to say is that the truth is that they attacked North. Its just they were just too unsuccessful.

The reference is to an all-out attack to conquer the North, not to the border battles which were already going on. I will amend the text. Rhee said this to many people. Dulles is not the only witness. (By the way, I think the Soviet Union simply left their tanks behind when they withdrew.)--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the context of the time when he continued attacking North, its very likely he wanted American military support.

The regions Syngman Rhee attacked is not just couple of regions, it was all across 38th parallel from west to east.

Are you sure that what Syngman Rhee asked was permission to start total war and not American military support?

Why would he ask to start total war when he was already having total war? He sent planes, ships to atatck some place, etc..

As the head of the South Korea military he basically did everything to advance North.

Its more likely and makes sense if he asked for American military presence, because as he kept attacking, the North Korean counter attacking was getting larger and larger. The war was already going on. Just the Syngman Rhee was just too ignorant about North Korean forces who were experienced and knowledgeable than the puppet military of South Korea.

One more possibility is Syngman Rhee were attacking North without letting Americans know this.

Only other possibility is this case if Syngman Rhee was really asking to attack North to Dulles.

Your interpretation of events does not match the historic record as shown in WP:RS. South Korea lacked the heavy equipment (tanks, artillery, aircraft etc.) necessary to invade the North and this was clearly demonstrated by the ease with which the KPA defeated the ROKA and overran most of the South from June-August 1950. Contrary to your assertions, the ROKAF lacked any fighter/attack aircraft at the start of the war. Your assertions follow the North Korean view of the outbreak of the war, that the South attacked the North and then the North counter-attacked overrunning most of the South and then the US and its allies all entered the war and this was all part of a grand plot orchestrated by Syngman Rhee and the US. Mztourist (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My assertion didnt say South Korea had fighter jets but had aircrafts. Please dont misunderstand :::::my point. It's true that :::::South Korea lacked heavy equipments compared to North Korea. Its :::::true that North Korean military overran South Korea military at the beginning of war, but that :::::doesn't mean that at the time South Korea military believed that they were short of equipments to :::::attack North. Syngman Rhee never would have boasted to unify Korea, if he knew that.

And South Korea's equipment supplied by US was under powered compared to North Korea, but they were :::::not toys either and they were in great magnitude, and military build up in South Korea were much :::::greater than North Korea. You should also know South region Korea always had twice the population than North region. South Korea had reserves too.

107.14.56.128 (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Stories that just points to some writing on some books should be deleted.

For example, in the "Outbreak" section.

"Soviet generals with extensive combat experience from the Second World War were sent to North Korea as the Soviet Advisory Group. These generals completed the plans for the attack by May.[97] The original plans called for a skirmish to be initiated in the Ongjin Peninsula on the west coast of Korea. The North Koreans would then launch a "counterattack" that would capture Seoul and encircle and destroy the South Korean army. The final stage would involve destroying South Korean government remnants, capturing the rest of South Korea, including the ports.[98]:"

These stories seem to have come from Weathersby, Kathryn's books, but there is no way to see on what basis she wrote that claims on her book. In other words, actually there is no source of information here. Its just like telling a story some person dreaming about. This kind of stories should all be deleted here. Stories are not facts. Interpretation are not facts.

Dongsoola (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

it is well established in numerous WP:RS that Kim Il-Sung wanted to invade South Korea but that Stalin was reluctant to support this until 1950, there has been no need to provide any further RS for this because no-one has questioned it before but I will do so when I have time. Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but having intention to invade doesn't mean exactly Kim, Il Sung started the war.

This is especially true when Lee, Seung Man of South Korea had even stronger intention to invade the North.

If you know the real story, Lee,Seung Man started killing opponents much much earlier.

I think I am going to add new section about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongsoola (talk • contribs) 06:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide English language WP:RS for all your edits. You seem to be pushing a particular POV here so don't be surprised if you get reverted. Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I dont think thats the policy of wikipedia. Anyone can read different language texts with translate function of the web.

107.14.56.128 (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Kim, Jong Pil's interview with Monthly Chosun should be added.

Well. I am kinda afraid to edit things myself, so I wish someone else can add it somewhere.

You can find Kim Jong Pil in wikipedia. He is not North Korean. He is a South Korean and was a lieutenant and he was right at the office of South Korean military around the time of Korean war. What this guy testify is unlike any other. He was a prime mister twice in South Korea.

You can see what he said in an interview with Monthly Chosun in South Korea in 2011 below.

Its in Korean to someone's blog, but you probably can translate it English and read it.

http://m.blog.daum.net/danso302/347

In the interview, he clearly says that the war is caused by attacks by South Korean military led by Paek, In Yup on June 23rd.

He said they almost got GaeSung and advanced as much as 15km to North.

This is not skirmish. This is an planned attack.

Paek, In Yup seem to have led a battalion under 17th regiment in South Korean army.

I also found an information that a person in 17th regiment was ordered to prepare for war because there was going to be North Korean attack on the night of June 24th. (I will find a link tomorrow and add it here). Please do know that South Korea claims it was suddenly attacked on June 25th without any warning.

So in any case, this means South Korea already knew there is going to be some war before June 25th.

06:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

you will need to provide an English language WP:RS to support such a claim, not a link to a Korean language blog. At present this is just you telling Wikipedia about one person's view of the outbreak of the war. The page already makes it clear that there were numerous skirmishes (which could be anything from fist-fights to limited incursions) along the border initiated by both sides prior to 25 June 1950 Mztourist (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

ok. I dont understand why that matters when traslation is possible. Is that wikipedia rule? And that "one person" is not just these authors of books that this page references heavily about. This person was a leitenant who was at the South Korean army headqarter, and he is not just a soldier. He was head of Korean CIA and was prime minister of South Korea twice. There is no doubt, this is the most credible information.

If that is what he says, he is mistaken, because Kaesong (which I presume is GaeSung) was in the ROK before the war.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

GaeSung was in ROK, but the high mountain point area just above GaeSung was on northern side from 38th parallel. South Korea kept on attacking this point, because of its strategic importance. What Kim,Jong Pil means by "having Gaesung" probably means South Korea suceeded taking this point between some time between June 23rd and June 25th.

Jack Upland makes a good point, while you seem to reinterpreting Kim Jong Pil. 15km north of Kaesong is several mountain ranges away. Mztourist (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

no. the mountain point is right above Kaesong. I read you can see whole city at that point. Thats why South Korea kept attacking there and was successful in capturing in some time between June 23rd and 25th. That also make it sense that why capturing that point feels like capturing Kaesong.

107.14.56.128 (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of sea of japan is inaccurate

The use of sea of japan is not accurate. Sea of japan should only be used korean east sea during Japanese occuapation of Korean Peninsula, controling the korean east sea thus labeling as sea of japan. However korea was liberated and they got their territory back including Dokdo reef island which dominates east sea territorial. I ask wiki to correct the use of sea of japan to East Sea where bolongs to korea not japan and using sea of japan to mark as japanese territory is very inaccurate and manipulative as it adds more pressure to ongoing Japanese dispute over Korean East sea border. Rmskawk (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This entire issue is addressed on the Sea of Japan naming dispute page, in the unlikely event that there is an agreed change to the name we will make the corresponding change here. Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the article be rewritten in the present tense?

Particularly since N Korea claimed to invalidate the Armistice? Serendi^podous 13:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No. The article covers events in the 1950s. Any ongoing debate about the war not being technically ended can be in the present tense, only. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a single article that gives an overview the ongoing conflict. Currently there are several articles that deal with it in part: North Korea-South Korea relations,Division of Korea, Aftermath of the Korean War, Korean Demilitarized Zone, List of border incidents involving North Korea, Korean maritime border incidents, Korean DMZ Conflict (1966-1969).--Jack Upland (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Jack Upland I tried to do that a couple of years ago, but couldn't even get agreement as to what such a page would be called and given that there are already well-established pages that you have listed covering specific aspects of the ongoing Korean conflict its difficult to see how a single article could adequately cover all the diverse threads. I would certainly support a merger of some or all of North Korea-South Korea relations,Division of Korea, Aftermath of the Korean War, List of border incidents involving North Korea and Korean maritime border incidents. I believe that large-scale confrontations/incidents such as Korean DMZ Conflict (1966-1969) and the various sea battles warrant their own pages. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think those articles are needed because they cover different aspects, or particular incidents. But we don't have an article on the overall conflict. That's one of the reasons people keep coming here to write about contemporary events. I would propose an article called the "Korean conflict" which gives an overview from the division to the war and up to the present. I would retain the List of border incidents involving North Korea and merge the maritime article and the list from the DMZ article there. (That might seem redundant, but I think combining an overview and a list would be unwieldy.) I think having a overview would also deal with the recentism that sees the creation of articles like the 2013 Korean crisis that we discussed earlier this year. This way the periodic flare-ups would be put in perspective.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you regarding recentism and the two Koreas. If you look here: [#Consolidation/rationalization of Korean conflict pages] you will see my earlier proposal to rationalise the various pages. One of the objections was that Korean Coflict in some sources is regarded as the Korean War 1950-53, but I support it to describe the whole relationship since 1945. Mztourist (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Korean conflict currently links to Division of Korea. I think they are related but separate topics. I think the Division page could be limited to the original division, which is historically significant, and the change of the border after the war. The Conflict page could provide an overview of the whole conflict and include North Korea's missile and atomic bomb tests which strangely don't have their own pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Korean War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-stale/stale.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130523072128/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4854 to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4854
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130720042136/http://legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2003/07/canadians-in-korea/ to http://legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2003/07/canadians-in-korea/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131103062444/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/030623/23gulag.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/030623/23gulag.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request on 13 September 2015

In the 'Strength' section on the right-hand panel, UK strength is listed as 14,198 and referenced to references 9 and 10. Reference 10 clearly states that 14,198 was the UK "peak strength" in 1952, and that total UK deployment was 87,000. Request statistics corrected please.Steve1solution (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have agreed that the peak strength figure is correct - to use total deployment would give a false impression of the balance od forces - whilst even the peak strength has a caveat in the info box "Note: The figures vary by source; peak unit strength varied during war" - Arjayay (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The general tone of this article that Korean war is started by North Korea should be changed.

Korean war was started by North Korea is just a belief made by media and politics. This article is largely misleading because it just concludes this false idea. So I corrected the article to show some facts that Korean war was actually started by South Korea, but some editor reverted the article.

As I edited, there were hundreds of open firing attacks by South Korea before 1950 june 25th when communists started big counter attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongsoola (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No reliable sources support your view, only North Korean ones as detailed in the Outbreak sectionMztourist (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have lots of reliable sources. Where do you base your judgement that I dont have reliable source? What is your reliable source that Korean war was started by North Korea? I bet you don't have any, because all of your source is from US and South Korea who were opponent of North Korea. My source is from South Korean magazine Monthly Chosun, from an interview with South Korea luetenant at the time. I even gave link to who he is on wikipedia article. I have many more things and facts including reference, books, etc whose author is not North Korean. Unless you don't keep nuetral view I hope you know you are not qualified to edit wiki article.

Dongsoola (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted back my addition and did some more edit today. I work 12 hours everyday and I use my very few spare time to make edits here. Please dont delete or remove things added by me lightly. I am planning to provide links and references for every new information and change I make, but I need time and I need to do one by one, because I have such a short time to spare.

Also if you dont agree that South Korea's hundreds of attacks before June 25th are merely bunch of 'skirmish's, please discuss why They are series of 'skirmish' and not attacks.

Dongsoola (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your changes are against consenus and the numerous WP:RS cited on the causes of the war, if you continue to make such changes you will be blocked Mztourist (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should be neutral. There are plenty of sources which give some credence to the North Korean version, such as US historian Bruce Cumings. It is important to note that the border was not peaceful in the lead up to the outbreak of total war. Information that cites reliable sources should be allowed.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Certainly true, but it needs to be done in the appropriate manner which I think is the point that is being made here. The recent changes to the lead by User:Dongsoola are not helpful in my opinion in that they simply replace one version events with another. I've no issue with your proposal to mention in the lead the machinations on the border though if the information can be worked into the article and backed up with refs in the manner you're proposing. Anotherclown (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Dongsoola, please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors, or their neutrality and use of sources. You've been reverted twice by other editors, and I don't want to start an edit war. Just to be clear, I have no problem with adding info, but we need to adhere to the WP:BRD protocol. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

To me this issue is so obvious, it's hard to understand someone who just insists that the Korean war is started by north.

I have no problem discussing on this matter, but I wonder what happens if the person who reverted my writing simply ignore the discussion? I already made a point about using word 'skirmish' but nobody is talking about it.

Isn't that another way of just pushing your view on others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongsoola (talk • contribs) 06:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding snarky, it's not apparently obvious to everyone, and we'd appreciate if you could explain it, then. We now have the opportunity to discuss the changes. The editors have voiced willingness to perhaps add some of the content in a different form. With all due respect, the view that it was started by the North is fairly widespread, and is found in any number of sources. Not to say that you're wrong, but it's understandable if others make that argument. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I did revert but undid just now after I read about BRD, but I dont think I attacked anyone by saying that the person should keep neutral view, and I am the one being threatend to be blocked here. If you can block someone just because of that person has different view then.. oh well.. Ok. Thats another similar issue. The question that which side actually started Korean war can only be answered if we can clarify what exactly 'starting a war' means. As far as I know South Korea did attack North hundreds of times. The page, however, simply putting down those attacks as with word 'skirmishes'. So what exactly is a 'skirmish' and what exactly is 'attack'? We need to clarify that too. South Korea records of battle numbers 874 times while North Korea claims it has been attacked 432 times and these attacks not only involved guns but artillery, planes, gunning from ships! I dont think you can never call these attacks as skirmishes. I am not even mentioning massacre of opposing civillians unconditionally just because they think they are the other side. This is surely an act of war and act of attack. So what do you guys think? Dongsoola (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a fair point. I have changed "skirmishes" to "clashes". The term "skirmishes" is not used by one of the sources, Cumings. I haven't checked Stueck. I believe I added this passage into the article in order to provide some balance - definitely not to favour the pro-South point of view!!! I think, in line with the NPOV policy, Wikipedia should avoid saying who "started the war". As you say, it is not clear in this case. Neither side saw the border as inviolable, and both sides took part in clashes leading up to the outbreak of total war. I don't believe there is a definitive source about what happened on Onijin. However, another Wikipedia policy is that we need reliable sources. And we have to work together.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe its fairly clear who started the war: North Korea invading the South on 25 June 1950, if there is any suggestion that this was not the action that started the war this issue will get escalated fairly quickly. Mztourist (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying this issue never got escalated, so its clear North Korea started war as many people in US and South Korea believe?

I will give you one point that this issue can NEVER be escalated in South Korea. Before/during/after :::Korean war, any people who had doubt North Korea regime is evil were killed in South Korea. South :::Korea had a great progress in freedom of speech relatively recently, any South Korean who say good :::thing about North Korea will get arrested, questioned, and his room and computer will be searched to :::find evidence to arrest the person by national security act of South Korea.

107.14.56.128 (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Howard Buffett, father of Warren Buffett, who cannot be classiied as a Communist sympathiser, wanted to investigate who started the Korean War. (http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s042401.html and http://bastiat.mises.org/blog/metals-are-fairly-difficult-print off-hand i could recall) Syngman Rhee has rejected numerous offers from North Korea for truce; he never signed it, in fact! - Gopalan evr (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, arm conflicts were very prevalent before the war broke out. There is indeed no answer to the question who started the war75.92.147.127 (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC). Wikipedia needs to consider that.75.92.147.127 (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Anti war movement against Korean War

I just learned that there is a much forgotten anti war movement against the Korean War. You can find original documents at the Swarthmore Peace Collection. http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/conscientiousobjection/co%20website/pages/HistoryNew.htm Lugevas (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Jet aircraft were used in air-to-air combat for the first time in history

Surely false. In WW2 Germany had the Me 232/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.153.80 (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean the Me 262. It is correct. The only jet v Jet combat in World War 2 was an occasion when 616 squadron Gloucester Meteors destroyed two V-1 flying bombs on the 4th August 1944..The first manned jet v jet clashes were indeed in the Korean war. Hope this helps. Irondome (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Jet aircraft were used in air-to-air combat for the first time in history?

Galse. In WW2 Germny had the Me 262 and the British the Gloucester Meteor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.153.80 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

But they did not engage did they? I have answered your question above. Stop trolling Irondome (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The Korean War in South Korea is not known as 한국전쟁

A literary translation of Korean War is 한국전쟁, 한국 meaning Korea, and 전쟁 meaning war. However, in South Korea, it is known as 6·25전쟁, meaning War of June 25, because of the fact that the war started on June 25, 1950. Please edit the article to be consistent in how it is referred to. Jordanyubin (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanyubin (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Korean War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130523072128/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4854 to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4854
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080706062917/http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html to http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110501014757/http://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/08/06/2009080600689.html to http://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/08/06/2009080600689.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120106054156/http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/news/special_reports/documents/010228_punch_bowl_239.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/news/special_reports/documents/010228_punch_bowl_239.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120119204158/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123010176 to http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123010176
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111230030537/http://www.rt66.com:80/~korteng/SmallArms/hill303.htm to http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/hill303.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110427181506/http://contents.archives.go.kr/next/content/listSubjectDescription.do;jsessionid=jmfgMFYQZgWQRPYhm00vKLLpyKmGws6SWQJkqKJGB5QkdDhGTlvh!573492678?id=001465 to http://contents.archives.go.kr/next/content/listSubjectDescription.do;jsessionid=jmfgMFYQZgWQRPYhm00vKLLpyKmGws6SWQJkqKJGB5QkdDhGTlvh!573492678?id=001465
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120102130808/http://www.duke.edu:80/~myhan/kaf0501.html to http://www.duke.edu/~myhan/kaf0501.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111228082712/http://www.life.com:80/gallery/43961/the-korean-war-you-never-knew? to http://www.life.com/gallery/43961/the-korean-war-you-never-knew
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111228082712/http://www.life.com:80/gallery/43961/the-korean-war-you-never-knew? to http://www.life.com/gallery/43961/the-korean-war-you-never-knew
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080422040026/http://www.koreanwarexpow.org:80/info/jpac.html to http://www.koreanwarexpow.org/info/jpac.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110107204839/http://www.warmemo.or.kr:80/main.jsp to https://www.warmemo.or.kr/main.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Korean War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130523072128/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4854 to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4854
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111230030537/http://www.rt66.com:80/~korteng/SmallArms/hill303.htm to http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/hill303.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Content copied from source

Some of this content seems to have been directly lifted from this URL: http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/how-korean-war-almost-went-nuclear-180955324/?no-ist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19A:8101:87D5:B4F4:70:45:9743 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016

This line is confusing and out of place: "On 23 September, the 65th Infantry Regiment from the 3rd Infantry Division arrived at Pusan. The enemy made many attempts to encircle that regiment, but each time they failed because of the many casualties inflicted by the 65th. Because the 65th held their positions, this enabled the U.S. Marines to withdraw from the Chosin Reservoir.{{citation needed|date=February 2016}"

Chosin Reservoir and the US Marine withdraw did not happen till December of 1950. The 65th Regiment did not support any withdraw of Marines from Pusan. This is likely a mash up of two concepts inserted by someone with a specific agenda to note this regiment. The 65th did not participate in major combat operations in the Pusan Perimeter, and was not involved in supporting the Marine withdraw until several months later.

Djmc993150 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed this. It is clearly out of place. It's also confusing. The Chosin Reservoir is at the opposite end of the country from Pusan.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Korea peace

The war is not easy to forget . Anyway , there is huge sacrifice for the countries involved . That is the reason negotiation for peace become so hard ....... Icedawan (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is it that there is never any mention of the battles the 1st Marines engaged in on the MLR and the outposts we defended time after time, loosing so many Marines. To me it seems as though the infintry soldier and the Korean War has been forgotten.I was on Mainline of resistence,and spent weeks on outposts receiving heavy artillary,mortar,and small arms fire until the cease fire in July 1953, the 27th to be exact. We were sure thanked for service, it never gets mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:FF01:A00:5C32:5926:C325:F52C (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is it that there is never any mention of the battles the 1st Marines engaged in on the MLR and the outposts we defended time after time, loosing so many Marines. To me it seems as though the infintry soldier and the Korean War has been forgotten.I was on Mainline of resistence,and spent weeks on outposts receiving heavy artillary,mortar,and small arms fire until the cease fire in July 1953, the 27th to be exact. We were sure thanked for service, it never gets mentioned.

Sgt. William W. Freck USMC C-1-1-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:FF01:A00:5C32:5926:C325:F52C (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to write a page or pages on this topic provided it is written based on WP:RS and other Wikipedia policies, otherwise it will have to wait until an interested author decides to write on this topic. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2016

Source 10 link is broken, I recommend replacing it and checking other sources that link to the USFK Public Affairs office

121.222.16.211 (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Korea divided

I've reversed a couple of edits and I want to explain why.

• The People's Republic of Korea was suspected of Communist sympathies. We shouldn't say it was Communist. Lyuh Woon-hyung was not a Communist.
• The Soviet authorities and the Communists refused to participate in the election on the grounds that it wouldn't be fair. This means it was only held in the South. In addition, South Korean politicians, such as Kim Ku, boycotted it. I think this was because they didn't want to have an election in the South only, because they thought rightly that this would make the division permanent.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Judging by the policies outlined on the PRK article, it seemed pretty communist to me. How would you describe those policies? Why do you capitalise 'communist' but not other political descriptions? Alfie Gandon (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"Communist" should not be capitalized MOS:DOCTCAPS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

A republican is different from a Republican, and a democrat is different from a Democrat. I capitalised "Communist" because I was referring to the international Communist movement initiated by Marx and Lenin. The word "communism" refers to a system of common ownership. China today is not communist, but it is run by the Communist Party. Peter Kropotkin was a communist, but not a Communist. In this case, we have to distinguish between the Communists, who eventually coalesced into the Workers Party of Korea, and other leftists. Clearly, the PRK had a strong left-wing orientation, but at the same time it nominated Syngman Rhee as president. Lyuh was a socialist, not a Communist (in the sense that he was not an adherent to the Communist movement, unlike Kim Il Sung for example). Lyuh was trying to create a broad coalition of Korean political groups, including the Communists. Describing the PRK as "Communist" or "communist" would be misleading. By the way, I think all the articles on this period need work.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Insofar as "communism" refers to a form of ownership, those whose political motivations include promoting that form of ownership are "communists", with lowercase c, per MOS:DOCTCAPS. Exceptions are limited to proper names (Communist Party of China). If you want to emphasize the distinction between Marxist, Leninist, Marxist-Leninist and other kinds of communists, you will have to find another way. Altering capitalization makes no sense from either stylistic or other considerations. While that distinction exists (see Non-Marxist communism), I don't think it's terribly important to underline in this article, which is a general exposition of Korean War, not a discussion of the genealogy of communism. Though you are right in saying that simply labeling the Provisional government "communist" does no justice either. Whatever we do, let's follow the characterizations of our best sources (and our MOS). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that according to the MOS it should be capitalised, but there's no point arguing about that here. We don't have a source to say why the US authorities suppressed the PRK - here or on any other page that I can see. In fact, there is a bit of a contradiction, because it says that the PRK was suspected of Communist sympathies, but it also says that the PRK was suppressed because of riots against the trusteeship. The Communists supported the trusteeship. (By the way, the People's Republic of Korea is different from the Provisional Government.)--Jack Upland (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How would you describe the PRK's policies? Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I already answered that question, but it's not for us to put our opinions in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2016

Source 376 is broken and source 377 cites GDP purchasing power power parity rather than GDP per capita PPP as stated. South Korea ranks 48 according to CIA World Factbook in GDP per capita PPP (North Korea ranks 210). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.46.141 (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Republic of China and People's Republic of China mixed up

Korean War

• United Nations Security Council Resolutions

Semi-protection: Article incorrectly says that Soviet Union boycotted UN Security Council because it supported Republic of China (Nationalist). It actually boycotted the Security Council because it supported the People's Republic of China (Communist) and wanted the Republic of China out. The article in Wikipedia states: "The Soviet Union, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council."

Here is a contradictory source:

From the article: "For the second time in a week, Jacob Malik, the Soviet representative to the United Nations, storms out of a meeting of the Security Council, this time in reaction to the defeat of his proposal to expel the Nationalist Chinese representative." Nickdot (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you've misread the article. It says, as you have quoted above, that the Soviet Union was protesting that the ROC had the seat on the Security Council, not the PRC.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

Please revert an edit made by Jackfilm that changed some instances of 27 July 1953 to present.

208.163.168.228 (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. Information about the ongoing conflict can be found at Korean conflict.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Korean "War" was a Conflict!

The Korean War was a Conflict, which means that it is something that does immediately lead to a war. My grandfather, who did serve in this "war", was a conflict, because if it was a war, he would be designated a vet, but he didn't, because it was an event did not lead to exchange of weapons, or nuclear bombs. not only was my grandfather and my very fact giving dad help, but many historians say that because the Korean War didn't lead to full exchange of bombs and an invasion done not only by the U.S. and other countries, that I can confirm with the utmost certainty, that the Korean War was a Conflict. History Prof (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2016 (EST)

The agreed position on WP based on numerous WP:RS is that there is an ongoing Korean Conflict that started with the partition of Korea in 1945 and that the period from 1950-3 was a war. History Prof I suggest you read more deeply into the war, as relying on your grandfather and saying that it "did not lead to exchange of weapons" isn't a very convincing argument. Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Truman called it a "police action" for political reasons — he didn't think he would get Congressional support for declaring war. I think the Commonwealth countries followed this. But other countries (notably North Korea and China) did not. It is universally called the Korean War, and it was one of the bloodiest wars in world history.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)