Talk:Korean War

"North Korean atrocities"?

Anticipating this would controversial, I decided to create a new section here. The current version of the article is very problematic. First of all, of the most heinous atrocities of the war, such as the massacre of 200,000 Koreans in the South without trial in the first months of the war(https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-korea-bloodbath-probe-ends-us-escapes-much-blame-2010jul10-story.html), the devastation wrought by bombings (including of dams), and the use of biological weapons, all were committed by the South Korean and American side. Nothing attributable to North Korea (currently - more on that soon) belongs in the same category.

According to the current version of the article, "In occupied areas, KPA political officers purged South Korean society of its intelligentsia by executing every educated person—whether it be academically, governmentally, religiously—who might lead resistance against the North; the purges continued during the KPA retreat.[33] When the KPA retreated north in September 1950, they abducted tens of thousands of South Korean men. The reasons are not clear, but the intention might have been to acquire skilled professionals to the North."

A few points: the first citation references "Statistics of Democide" by Rudolph Rummel in 1997. First of all, Rummel notes that his estimates of "democide" by North Korea are just "guesses." He admits that they are largely based on defectors (whose unreliability is notorious - Iraqi defectors helped peddle lies about weapons of mass destruction, to give one example). His "one overall estimate of the minimum number of South Koreans that were murdered" comes from South Korean propaganda. Also, the massacre of 200,000 South Koreans without trial mentioned above was falsely blamed on North Korea until recently (https://www.smh.com.au/world/south-korea-owns-up-to-brutal-past-20081115-gdt2yw.html) - and given that the book is from 1997, this raises questions. All of the specific massacres he cites have since been demonstrated to be committed by South Korea, if not also the US: The Taejon massacre he cites has now been demonstrated to be the responsibility of the South if not also the US (https://apjjf.org/-Bruce-Cumings/2826/article.html). The Wonju massacre also cited there has also recently been demonstrated to be the responsibility of the South (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/asia/03korea.html), as has the Suwon Massacre (see Cumings, The Korean War, p. 175-6).

Additionally, even in the book cited, there is nothing that says North Korea "execut[ed] every educated person—whether it be academically, governmentally, religiously—who might lead resistance against the North." It does claim that North Korea "systematically massacred former South Korean government officials, anti-communists, and others deemed hostile to the communists; and such killing was intensified as North Koreans retreated from the South," but does not give a reference for this claim (and as already mentioned, the three specific massacres referred to have all since been shown to have been committed by South Korea).

Finally, with regard "tens of thousands" of abductees, a fact-finding commission in South Korea led by the prime minister reported that there were actually 55 wartime abductees, not tens of thousands (https://books.google.ca/books?id=DT4yAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=%22wartime+abductees%22+%22korean+war%22&source=bl&ots=tGOD8oGIG5&sig=ACfU3U0MScKbsyyiGx6xXxJHfHEuafOXNA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1kIC5zd_iAhUmiFQKHZ5ZB1I4ChDoATAJegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=%22wartime%20abductees%22%20%22korean%20war%22&f=false) - and even this I find questionable, since it comes from South Korea and does not provide a reason for the alleged abduction.

Based on experiences on the French version of Wikipedia, I wanted to post here first before editing the article, as I do not want any changes to be immediately reverted. For the reasons I have given, I removed references to "North Korean atrocities," as all the evidence given so far is questionable. Incogreader 10/6/2019

Collapsible lists

Hi.

Just wanted to say that it'd be better if the collapsible medical and other support lists would be non-collapsible and expanded by default, as, otherwise, content is simply missed by the viewer at first glance and it would be better for visibility.

Medical support

It'd be good if this article would have a medical support section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.16.173 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

IN what way do you mean?Slatersteven (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019

The Soviet Union withdrew, as agreed, from Korea in 1948, and US troops withdrew in 1949.

The "as agreed" is oddly placed. Could you reword this to one of the two statements below?

As agreed, the Soviet Union withdrew from Korea in 1948, and US troops withdrew in 1949.

Per its agreement, the Soviet Union withdrew from Korea in 1948, and US troops withdrew in 1949.

208.95.51.53 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done, although this whole sentence is sort of oddly placed here anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a source for this sentence? Do we have a source which says there was an agreement? Where else would you place it?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have removed "agreed" because there is no source to say there was an agreement.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

a bald attempt?

"President Truman interpreted the communication as 'a bald attempt to blackmail the UN'". Surely it was either a BAD attempt or a BOLD attempt... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.157.33 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it is "bald". Meaning plain, blunt.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Involvement In Korea War - Problematic?

Hello there, first attempt of editing in Wikipedia so I hope I'm doing things well.

I've read the article mentioned in the citation for the Spanish involvement in the war, basically says the following: "Spain entered the International Labor Organization and sent a contingent to fight with the anti-communist forces of the Korean War; and in 1955 Spain was admitted to the United Nations. Between 1953 and 1963 American economic aid (including credits) would come to $1,688 million, to which was added $521million in military assistance" This quotes, in the aforementioned publication; Gillespie (1993: 83); Heywood (1995: 728).

After reviewing the cross-citations and searching on google (in different ways) about the Spanish involvement in the Korean war I cannot find more than the willingness of USA to enhance its relations with Spain as a part of an anti-communist policy.

I might be shortsighted and I cannot find the right information, So I kindly ask whoever has the permission to review this.

Thanks for eveything.

Duk90 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Duk90, what changes are you suggesting for this article? As far as I can see, all we have is Spain listed under "Other support".--Jack Upland (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi :Jack Upland, the way I understand it is that Spain had no involvement at all in the war. The only thing that the Franco's regime did was to propose an anticommunist corp to fight, but the US never took a position on that.

Duk90 (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying the source is wrong? Just to clarify?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If Spain wasn't part of the UN and their offer of forces (a new Blue Division/Blue Legion?) wasn't accepted, what support did they actually give? Should they even be listed? Mztourist (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Source?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Division of Korea in the lead

As a product of the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States divided Korea into two sovereign states in 1948 with the border set at the 38th parallel. A socialist state was established in the north under the communist leadership of Kim Il-sung and a capitalist state in the south under the anti-communist leadership of Syngman Rhee. Both governments of the two new Korean states claimed to be the sole legitimate government of all of Korea, and neither accepted the border as permanent.

I don't think we've discussed this before, except in edit summaries. My concern centres on the first sentence (taken from the lead). I understand the concern for brevity, but I think this is misleading. Korea was divided in 1945, at the end of WW2, though I realise the ROK and DPRK weren't proclaimed until 1948. Our article on the Cold War puts the start of the Cold War in 1946 or 1947. Saying the division was a "product of the Cold War" is not entirely wrong, but it is bit confusing. As far as I can tell, the border was never "set" at the 38th parallel; that was just the demarcation line between the two occupation zones. The ROK was established in the south over protests from the USSR. It's also a bit misleading to talk about "two sovereign states" as both are claiming overlapping territory, and the DPRK wasn't recognised as a legitimate government by anyone except the USSR and its allies. I would replace this with:

In 1945, at the end of World War II, Korea was divided between the Soviet Union and the United States. A socialist state was established in the north under the communist leadership of Kim Il-sung and a capitalist state in the south under the anti-communist leadership of Syngman Rhee. Both governments claimed to be the sole legitimate government of all of Korea, and neither accepted the border as permanent.

This is actually shorter.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Good point--I fixed it but with a different phrasing. Rjensen (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but 1948 was not during WW2.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

it's mow During World War II the Soviet Union and the United States divided Korea into two zones that became sovereign states in 1948 Rjensen (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Korea still belonged to Japan de jure until they had signed the treaty in 2 September 1945, thus giving up the territory by de jure. The Soviets and Americans entered/occupied Korea and met each other at the 38th parallel at the end of World War 2 but that doesn't mean it was divided; the official division came during the Cold War when the DPRK and ROK were established in 1948 with the 38th parallel becoming the de facto border. Both the DPRK and ROK were sovereign states when they were established because one was recognized by the USSR and the other USA, which meets all criteria for them to be Sovereign States. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not called the '한국전쟁' in Korean

In Korean it's called the 6.25 전쟁 or 육이오전쟁. It's a simple fix, but apparently I'm not able to make it. 한국전쟁 literally means 'Korean' (as used in South Korea, but not in the North) + 'War' which would be... ummm... every war in Korea. Umyang (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)umyang