Talk:Korean War

Reading this article makes me cringe

Sure it's using sources but reading this you would think it was just only Americans in Korea. There were 20 other countries in the UN forces! But from reading this American-centric article it makes you think only Truman was calling the shots from the White House. What United Nations huh? This article is the reason why the Wikipedia model is failure. If the sources being "selected" are being chosen for their favourable slant toward the writers POV then how can it not be POV? It is quite clear from this article it's written to in a manner pandering to an American audience! Even the English is in American spelling. How can that be even be remotely encyclopaedic beyond the borders of the USA? If people in the rest of the English-speaking world wanted to read this US propaganda maybe they should subscribe to an American "YOU ESS AY, YOU ESS AY" military history publication?!

These articles should carry a contributors code (incl. IPs) showing who are doing the most on a given topic and from which countries! In that way, the whole geopolitical nature of these articles would be lain bare and readers would be able to make up their own minds to the veracity and "neutral" nature of the contents. This article would not look out of place in an American history high school textbook but for the rest of the world? Nah! Quite frankly this article is on the same level as the equivalent American view that WWII didn't start till Dec 7, 1941.

Will it change though? Of course not. The article's blocked to any editors who are not part of the cabal who control this site. I see the block started in March 2012 when someone tried to add Chinese sources that challenged an American's perception of the war. The miscreant was shouted down and an indefinite block was started (so much for the open-source site where "anyone can edit"). Well those who join the religion and don't have ideas outside the box. But as long as consensus is a cover word for POV editorial line, that is how it will stay. Still if Americans want to take ownership of this war then maybe they should all man-up and accept the reason the peninsular remains divided today. 86.148.205.202 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Since when does People's Daily equals Chinese POVs? Furthermore when did history becomes regional opinions, not well researched facts? Then if the other 50 odd countries made their own research materials a little more accessible to scholars (like Chinese/North Korea stops marking their archives as "state secrets", while South Korean and US archives stop "accidentally losing" their records), do you think this problem would exist in the first place? Do some research (like visit your local university library and read every book under DS918 section) before ranting about how history is unfair okay? Jim101 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Sure it's using sources but reading this you would think it was just only Americans in Korea. There were 20 other countries in the UN forces!"

     well, just look at the number of dead -  37 Americans dead for every Brit and after
     the Turks all the rest the ratios are 100 or more American dead for every 1 of 
     whatever p!ss ant country you came from. After South Koreans,  Americans did the
     vast majority of the fighting AND DYING in the Korean War on the U.N. side. 

"But from reading this American-centric article it makes you think only Truman was calling the shots from the White House."

       that's because he probably was, and rightly so.

107.37.207.53 (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Capitalist

In the second paragraph of the summary ("The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides; the North established a communist government, while the South established a capitalist one."), I think describing the South Korean government as capitalist is incorrect, since capitalism is an economic system, not a political/governmental one. 69.174.58.132 (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A good point, it probably should say Democratic rather than Capitalist though I'm not sure how truly democratic the South Korean government was at that time. While Democratic governments tend to go with capitalist economies they are not necessarily two sides of the same coin. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A country that has a democratic government system, which in practice was controlled by an dictator...anyone can find a technical term for that? Jim101 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not just call it a "pro-capitalist" government?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Because South Korean government aren't pro-"insert your economic system here"-ist, they are die hard nationalist not unlike Chinese KMT. Beside, we are talking about government systems, not economics. Jim101 (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually we are talking about both government systems and economics, since both were fundamental elements of the Korean conflict. I don't think it's necessary to get into particulars of party politics though. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you want a breakdown:

1. Government: Nominally democratic, in practice dictatorial
2. Economic: Unknown (no studies on actual SK economy in 1950 was found during my research, for all I know it could be command, free or mixed)
3. Political Ideology: Nationalism, far-right wing, conservative and anti-Communism.

Take your pick. At least in North Korea we can pin number 1 and number 3 under Communism (maybe 2 if you are not a fan of political correctness). Jim101 (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, South Korea had a capitalist economy! And the North was nominally democratic as well. I would suggest the South's government be called "pro-Western" or "anti-Communist" if "capitalist" is objected to. If you are interested in the economy of this period, it is described by Bruce Cumings (1997) as "state led capitalism" with most of the population being poor peasants. Much the same as it was after the war.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Chinese POV

According to China's version of the war, they become involved mainly because the American air force bombed a cultural relics market in Dandong in early October of 1950. They ("they" being conservative Chinese historians) claim Chinese involvement was out of self-defense after being provoked by the U.S. The war is also called the 美國侵朝戰爭 in Chinese sometimes, which means "war of America's invasion of Korea." They also typically accept the North Korean version, that the south invaded first.

Granted, the bridge to Dandong was bombed, and there was likely some damage to the city in the process as well, but that was well after the Chinese were involved. Furthermore, Americans are famous for bombing ball bearing factories not cultural relics markets which would be an incomprehensible target to a military strategist. I am skeptical of these claims, but should they not be included in the article out of fairness to all points of view? -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a line or two at the beginning could explain that it's what Chinese and North Korean historians think, but the scholarly field seems to universally accept the record of events as the UN tells it, so it should be clear this account doesn't have much merit internationally. —Ed!^(talk) 13:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese claimed that they got bombed in September/October, to justify that their troop entering Korea in October 19, yet the real bombing campaign did not start until mid-November. That, combined with the fact Chinese government engaged in an extensive propaganda campaign to justify their entrance into the war, plus no third party source cross examine the claim, make the "bombing force Chinese to enter the Korean War" narrative to be more fiction than fact.

The real Chinese POV, scholarly wise, is that US Seventh Fleet entered Taiwan Strait constituted the official US entrance into Chinese Civil War on the Nationalist side as part of a master plan to roll back Communism, thus Communist Chinese involvement in Korea is a justified act of self-defense. Jim101 (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you both completely, but we still should attempt to be diplomatic in my opinion. Would anyone take issue with adding the following after citation 131?

• Official PRC history claims that at this point in the conflict a cultural relics market in the city of Dandong was bombed by the U.S. airforce, despite that no evidence exists of a bombing in the area at that time. Furthermore, its official position on the subject has been that the PRC's involvement in the war was primarily a response to "American aggression in the guise of the U.N."

And I do have a source for this. -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I hate to burst people's bubble, but when it comes to content disputes, Wikipedia strives to be factually accurate, not to be "diplomatic" and give 15 minute fame too all crackpot claims in existence. The only thing here that is on topic and verified here is that China can only claim US bombed first as part of pretext in enter Korean War. Whether there is a "cultural relic market damage" caused by the supposed "US bombing", or how official the bombing claim is serves no purpose other than diverting people's attention away from real facts. Aside from the statement "its official position on the subject has been that the PRC's involvement in the war was primarily a response to 'American aggression in the guise of the U.N.'" (which is an empty redundant statement anyway since China has been saying that since 1949), I don't see what else is there to add on this "bombing" topic without some real facts to back it up. Jim101 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree, but at the same time we should be neutral without undue weight. It's enough of a criticism of the Korean War topics that we rely too much on western sources, and I think it would benefit people to include this small line...that way we present the Chinese side and explain that it's wholly unsupported by the facts, and thus avoid accusations of a pro-western pro-UN bias. —Ed!^(talk) 15:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how we could be biased when renowned Chinese historian such as Chen Jian and Zhang Shu Guang, working with original Chinese primary documents and outside of Communist control, came up with the same conclusion. Just because people complain that this article "feels" biased, doesn't mean that it is biased. Anyway, back on topic, my own position on the bombing topic is that saying more than "Chinese claimed US bombed China during September/October as part of their reason to enter the Korean War" is undue weight. How does each editor want to word this statement is up to them. Jim101 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying that what the Chinese are saying is true, and it's not just any crackpot. There were a limited number of actors in the war, and each of them has a right to voice their opinion about what happened however ludicrous others find them. Were there to be a trial where the defendant was not allowed to speak because the prosecutor believed he was a crackpot for denying that he committed the crime then his rights to due process would have been violated and any verdict could be easily appealed. While this is not a courtroom, the same procedures for forming arguments apply. Objectivity demands that you entertain all sides of an issue lies and all. They can after all be just as revealing. -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia functions differently than a court house, we only record verifiable facts after it is decided by the court, not synthesis fact while listening to all sides' opinions. The heart of the matter is that any statement in the nature of "US bombed China during September/October which caused X amount of damage" is an unverifiable statement that was never taken notice of any serious Cold War scholars as motivation for Chinese to enter the Korean War. Nor has the claim has ever been cross examined by large numbers independent scholarships that demonstrated its notability to warrant an conspiracy theory mention such as this example. So in the end, the only reason why this statement should be included was because it is popular (or astroturfed?)...is this how we should write Wikipedia? I'll let other editors to decide. Jim101 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

China's official explanation for why it entered the war, even if created in retrospect, is inherently notable as that of a major combatant. You cited one or two Chinese scholars who ignore it, but strongly implied that they are exiles or opponents of the regime. Are you arguing that sources and scholarship from within China are inherently unreliable and necessary to exclude because of the censorship regime there? People have unsuccessfully made the same argument about Soviet sources for World War II, ignorant of the fact that American and international sources do rely on Soviet scholarship of the war. We absolutely should write Wikipedia without excluding major viewpoints for ideological reasons. Shrigley (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it an ideological motivation to exclude WP:REDFLAG statements not backed up/verified by independent high quality sources? The issue here is that someone tries to present the statement "US bombed China before China entered the Korean War" in the topic of why China entered the Korean War, while taking advantage of the fact that there is no cross examination from independent sources due to the irrelevance/non-notability of claim to the topic at hand (a.k.a Chinese motivation to enter the Korean War). So being neutral/ideologically balanced can excuse outrageous one sided claim with no research to backup? Don't you think that if the US bombed China before China entered the Korean War claim is valid/plausible, wouldn't there be multiple independent sources from several countries to backup the claim, as oppose to histories only sanctioned by the Chinese government? Or maybe we should start to insert all sorts of claim without judgement just because one side shouts loud enough? (Maybe I should start by inserting claims from official South Korean history that Chinese conscripted South Korean as human shields, even though US Army records describing the same event have no such recollections, etc...). Jim101 (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it is not the proposal of User:D.s.ronis to present such a narrative uncritically, and without context. Actually, I now have no doubt that opposition to this reasonable proposal is ideological, since I read your response to a previous samesuch proposal,[1] which included such words from you as "troll", "stupid", and "50 cent party". For me, this throws the veracity of all your contributions into doubt. Shrigley (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't care what you think of me (I could be a dog for all you know), both you and User:D.s.ronis show me how you can "critically bring context" with independent sources without invoking WP:SYN on the statement "US bombed China during September/October which caused X amount of damage". I'll be waiting for the final result. Jim101 (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, since you care so much about being "neutral": the bombing claim took 3.5 pages out of 1,135 pages of official Chinese history, so that is 0.3% of weight in official Chinese history. Since this article represents all world's opinions on the topic, and Chinese accounts for 20% of world population, so that means the weight of bombing topic in this article should be no more than 0.06% of text space. Since this article is composed of 14,525 words, that means this topic should be covered in under 9 words. The version you so keen on defending is composed of 71 words, while the revision I suggested is reduced to 18 words...you goddamn tell me who is not being "neutral" here. Jim101 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

To say this is WP:SYNTH or WP:POPULARITY is incoherent. It is a verifiable fact that official Chinese histories contain these unverifiable statements. It is not the statements themselves which anyone is presenting as verifiable fact, only the belief in those statements. It is important to historians and policy analysts to understand Chinese revisionist histories and how Chinese contemporaries view their place in history. This informs their opinions, influences their values, their identity, and thus behavior. This information is relevant and important to anyone studying the topic. Nothing about its inclusion implies its veracity let alone the existence of a conspiracy theory, but it does reveal much about Chinese beliefs about foreign policy. -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That is an case study of cultural/political impact of Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, not the history of Korean War. Taking information out of context and rambling off topic is not neutral either. Jim101 (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that what one of the major actors says was their reason for entering a war should be included in an article about that war, briefly, but it should be presented as critically as it is in reliable works of history. This is not difficult to present, nor biased. What wording is being being proposed? (Hohum ^@) 11:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Original wording: "Official PRC history claims that at this point in the conflict a cultural relics market in the city of Dandong was bombed by the U.S. airforce, despite that no evidence exists of a bombing in the area at that time. Furthermore, its official position on the subject has been that the PRC's involvement in the war was primarily a response to "American aggression in the guise of the U.N.""

Revised wording: "Chinese claimed US bombed China during September/October as part of their reason to enter the Korean War."

Then all hell break loose about how this is censorship against Chinese....because it did not state how much damage the Chinese accused US caused, even through nobody proved that US was there in the first place. Jim101 (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, before people started to accuse me being an ignorant redneck (or educate me on how publishing a book with Chinese government consent is a dissident act, or how using People's Daily/Why We Fight as reliable history source is a practice that should be openly encouraged amongst new editors, or how ideological balance should trump fact), I have a copy of official Chinese history (ISBN 7-80137-390-1), published by PLA Academy of Military Science right in front of me. The official history devoted 66 pages (Chapter 2-4, 6, 9) on why they intervened in the war, while the topic of bombing during August and September is only covered by three and half pages as a subsection under chapter 6 (page 86-89)...not to mention there are histories other than official Chinese history...WP:WEIGHT, anyone? Jim101 (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

How about something more along these lines, assuming reliable sources are available: China justified its entry into the war as a response to "American aggression in the guise of the UN",(reference) along with a claim that the US bombed a market in Dandong, China on [date].(reference + note that reliable sources reject that an attack occurred [on that date]) (Hohum ^@) 14:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you are just run after the statement "Later, the Chinese claimed that US bombers had violated PRC national airspace while en route to bomb North Korea before China intervened.[131]"...wouldn't be better to just reword that statement to "Later, the Chinese claimed that US bombers had violated PRC national airspace on three separate occasions and attacked Chinese targets before China intervened. [PLA Academy of Military Science pp 86-89]"? As for the statement "China justified its entry into the war as a response to "American aggression in the guise of the UN",(reference)" since even the official Chinese history did not present a direct link, wouldn't it better to be put it after the statement "On 4 August 1950, with the PRC invasion of Taiwan aborted, Mao Zedong reported to the Politburo that he would intervene in Korea when the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) Taiwan invasion force was reorganized into the PLA North East Frontier Force.", since according to official Chinese history, the Chinese started military preparation after US enter Korean War but before US "bombed" China? Jim101 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Due to the lack of activities for the last two days, I'm being bold and added the changes. If anyone still objects on the grounds of censorship, then they better come up with a wording with less than nine words per the weight calculation above (it is really a sad day in Wikipedia when math is brought in to calculate sentence length in order to settle WP:WEIGHT dispute...). Jim101 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Korean Timeline Animated GIF

The animated map showing the changes in power over time is fantastic. However, per Wiki standards of remaining unbiased, I would argue that red and green are not the colors that should be used.

I immediately looked at it as the good guys vs. the bad guys, and it took me a moment to realize that I had done so.

I realize that's a picky point, but it definitely does convey a certain marketing of the north and south. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.247.18 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Red is the colour typically associated with communism which is probably why it was chosen for the North, I'm not sure what the reason was for choosing green other than the fact that it contrasts well with red. I disagree with the conclusion that Green-Red logically equates to Good-bad, but any reasonably contrasting colour scheme would be just as good as far as I'm concerned. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In China/Soviet bloc countries, red is friendlies, blue is OPFOR...Jim101 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see the colors as being an issue. —Ed!^(talk) 00:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ed!; y'all are just overreacting. Anyway, if y'all think it's for the best, somebody can go ahead and change it to Blue-Red, Blue meaning United Nations, and Red meaning Communists. Y'all take care now, you hear? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

korean war

i am new but, i have a edit suggestion---

wiki's article 'korean war' has the war's casualty numbers. in it, number of american soldiers killed is seen as '36940 dead'. but in britannica.com article 'korean war' it is seen as '36568-american soldiers killed or wounded'.

Chukothesupreme (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

The "Aftermath" section has a lot of material that relates to events 50 years after the war (90s famine in North Korea etc). When this is removed it is reverted. How can this be justified? The main article on the "Aftermath" is totally different.

The statement that "North Korea remains underdeveloped" is misleading. It has suffered severe shortages since the collapse of the USSR, but it is not underdeveloped by Asian standards. By some sources, South Korea only passed North Korea in the 1970s or 80s. But it seems pointless to add this in as it hardly relates the aftermath of the war.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Background Section

The "Background" section seems overly long and includes details not directly relevant (such as the Koreans killed by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings). While it is good to get this background, particularly to counterbalance a simplistic Cold War framework, the proportion of the article that it takes up is excessive. Compare it to the small Bombing of North Korea section. I think it could be shortened without detracting from its substance, particularly as readers can simply click links to main articles if that is what they want.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Conflict Begins

In April 1950 Kim Il-sung travelled to Moscow and secured Stalin's support for a policy to unify Korea under his authority. Although agreeing with the invasion of South Korea in principle, Stalin refused to become directly involved in Kim's plans, and advised Kim to enlist Chinese support instead. In May 1950 Kim visited Beijing, and succeeded in gaining Mao's endorsement. At the time, Mao's support for Kim was largely political (he was contemplating the invasions of Taiwan and Tibet), and was unaware of Kim's precise intentions or the timing of Kim's attack. When the Korean war broke out, the Chinese were in the process of demobilizing half of the PLA's 5.6 million soldiers. Stalin created "detailed [war] plans" that were communicated to the North Koreans.

The last sentence sits oddly with the rest of the paragraph. If there is a disagreement among sources, we should say so. "Some say Stalin wasn't directly involved, some say he was." Alternatively, as I suspect, Soviet military advisers devised various war plans for the North Koreans to use in the event of war. In any case, the sentence is badly worded, and it's not clear who is being quoted.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no disagreement among the cited sources. Stalin "planned, prepared and initiated" the war (David Dallin). It was a "Soviet war plan" (David Rees). It was "preplanned, blessed and directly assisted by Stalin and his generals, and reluctantly backed by Mao at Stalin’s insistence" (Sergei N. Goncharov et al.). "Stalin had approved the North Korean attack" (William Stueck). "The detailed plans for the invasion were drawn up by the Soviets and then communicated to the [North] Koreans" (Douglas J. Macdonald). "Kim [Il Sung] got a green light from Stalin" (John Lewis Gaddis).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, then that disagrees with the rest of the paragraph, which was what I was saying.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it might contradict the part that says "Stalin refused to become directly involved in Kim's plans, and advised Kim to enlist Chinese support instead." However, that may depend on what is meant by "directly"--Stalin didn't overtly send troops to fight as did Mao.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, Mao didn't send troops until the UN reached the Chinese border. And such a definition of "directly" could not be found in any dictionary. I think the paragraph needs to be rewritten for clarity and coherence.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is debatable. From a political perspective, while Sergei N. Goncharov et al. argued that Mao's main focus was trying to retake Taiwan while ignoring Korea, Chen Jian counter argued that since Mao's long term goal was to create a string of Chinese satellite states as a counter both Soviet Union and US, he was relative enthusiastic about the prospect of a Chinese friendly North Korean regime to invade South Korea. Militarily speaking, the Chinese army was mobilizing ever since July 1950, but the task of shifting a million strong army stealthily from Southern China to Manchuria was extremely difficult given the almost non-existent Chinese transport infrastructure, that it was not until April 1951 did all the intended Chinese units managed to enter Korea. So the slowness of Chinese involvement could be more hampered by inability than unwillingness. There are two sides to every story. Jim101 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

But there does seem to be disagreement among those sources based on the brief quotes you have supplied: approval/green lighting is different from initiating. And planning is ambiguous. Is it contingency planning or planning for a specific war on a specific date? (And if the Soviet Union was so heavily involved in preparing for the invasion, why was it boycotting the UN on the day?)--Jack Upland (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

They assumed South Korea would fall swiftly and did not expect outside intervention because the US had previously stated it would not defend South Korea. The sources which refer to a greenlight without mentioning war planning do not explicitly state that there was no such planning.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet government would know the attack would come before the UN. With regard to the sources, I think you have to acknowledge what they say. Giving a green light is quite different from driving the car. I think the paragraph should say that Kim got support for the coming war but that there are differing accounts of what that support entailed. Bruce Cumings (1997), to the contrary of the sources you cite, suggests that the USSR told Kim not to start anything (p 251).--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Then, as usual, he is in the minority.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Cumings is a particularly reliable source. Mztourist (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Cumming is a famous, but a know revisionist, historian on the topic of Korean War, thus this falls under the scope of WP:Fringe. His view should be acknowledged, but it should not receive the same weight as mainstream scholars. Jim101 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

However, it is clear that there are a range of interpretations of Soviet involvement: provisional support, general support, a "green light", detailed planning, or initiating.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)