Talk:Korean War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Korean War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 9, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
September 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Incorrect Facts[edit]

The USA did NOT "level all significant structures in Korea" as this lying rewrite of history suggests. Most of the tonnage of bombs were (somewhat wasted) bombing N. Korean supply trails where supplies and trooped moved toward S. Korea.

Also the war in Korea was not a UN action. The UN was weak after WWII (ie, England could not offer much help to USA's problem of Japan attacking). MacArthur decided Korea was important, at his sunset of protecting America, having been approached by Koreans. The UN (only a few allies at the time) agreed it be done: but (mostly) USA rendered.


Explanation:

The USA, as a "parting shot and warning to N. Korea" not to attempt to cross the map line, LEVELED HANOI (and Haiphong). (see Operation_Linebacker_II U.S.A.F. and Tower_of_Hanoi, the USAF used technology to run b2's bombing at a never before seen rate). However that certainly wasn't "all of N. Korea" structures. Had USAF strategically attacks all of N. Korea's public and military infrastructure as "being at war with Korea", the amazing tonnage of bombs dropped would not have been on supply trails but at the hearts of Korea's infrastructure (strategic bombing).

The article states USA used MUSTARD GAS (outlawed in WWI) against N. Koreans. Nothing could be further from the truth. USA used "agent orange" for defoliation of supply trails protected by forest, to expose the trails for arial photography of their troop movements. Some USA soldiers were also "effected" by it. The use of agent orange was debated after in the USA - but was still used during "the drug war" to defoliate Mexican marajuana fields - after which the use of it apparently stopped after many lawsuits. One has to know that in USA there was a chemistry chemical revolution - and and new (dangerous) chemical were being sold for household chores and "anti-polution" was not yet a law: the world believed chemical concoctions did not much harm. longterm effects not understood.

The USA (or MacArthur) decided at the end of WWII to strategically aid S. Korea in becoming a non-communist Government - as MacArthur was ever aware of the dangers to USA that existed then. The USA was not at war with Korea per say, S. Korea was, and USA provided "strategic support" which, after losses, became also some military support. Support but not full warfare. It was MacArthur's intention or hope that S. Korea win all of Korea not just half, but ultimately half was enough.

The article credits the "UN" with actions that USA mostly did. Infact part of the Allies of WWII (russia), attacked USA during the Korean war, Russia having stronger ties with their Oriental Express tied neighbor China (who USA fought for, to rid Japan out of China - who turned on USA and Korea).

The UN was not a "global state of money husslers" back then. It was composed of the few winners of the WWII, the Allies, to protect themselves from a quick regrouping by Germany, Japan, South America, Spain of a WWIII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:51F0:4FC:9534:B35E:22AB (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • With regard to levelling buildings, that is well-sourced, with quotations from General William Dean and Curtis Le May. If you have sources that say otherwise, please supply them.
  • The war was carried out in the name of the UN, and many countries participated, though the US supplied almost 90% of the troops. Perhaps this could be made clearer.
  • You seem to be confusing the Vietnam War and the Korean War. Hanoi is in Vietnam.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The US provided 90% of troops? I beg to differ. The country with the most troops committed for the UN side was South Korea, its total is nearly twice that of the US. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The US provided almost 90% of the UN troops that went to aid South Korea. South Korea was not a member of the UN till 1991.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
South Korea's status in the United Nations is utterly irrelevant. They not only provided the bulk of troops in the war (more than all of the UN troops combined, including the United States) they also suffered the highest proportion of casualties of all the coalition combatants. Saying that the United States provided 90% of forces is a gross misrepresentation of facts. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
South Korea's status in the UN is certainly relevant to which countries contributed troops to the UN command. The article states that the U.S. provided "88% of the UN's military personnel", not 88% or 90% the total forces. The infobox clearly shows that South Korea provided the majority of all forces on that side of the conflict. The casualties section also shows that the South Koreans suffered the most casualties. Since the article does not state that the US provided 90% of all forces, completely and correctly read, there is no misrepresentation in the article. Donner60 (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Which is not to say that the statement in the comment above, as contrasted with the contents of the article, is correct as the statement is written. Unfortunately, detail and precision seem to be required in every statement here to prevent misunderstanding. 90% of all the forces were not provided by the US, only 90% of the UN forces. However, the comment is very probably intended to refer to the percentage of UN forces, as the article does. It seems that lack of clarity, rather than disagreement, is involved here. Ironically, that seems to have been noted in the very same response. Far different from the comment to which the reply was made are the erroneous, almost farcical, comments that started the thread. Donner60 (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove it as Puffery, it should not matter how big a part of the UN contribution was.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not puffery. It is a simple statement of fact and a recognition of the large part the U.S. played in the far. The UN contributed a large and important part of the southern force during the way and most of that force was from the U.S. Indeed, it was a majority of the force that pushed back the North Koreans after the first few months of the war before the South Korean Army could be enlarged and reorganized. Note that the article states the South Korean force was down to 22,000 men after the initial attack and retreat. Should we eliminate all mention of the sizes of allied forces of different nations in various battles and wars? Donner60 (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
What that they made up the majority of a minority, that to me is puffery ("DO YOU KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THE US COMMITMENT WAS, THIS IMPORTANT!!")? If percentage of commitment is important then we should give the same coverage to the percentage of "Free world" forces that were not The us. It should be clear that this figure does not include the ROK forces (And what percentage they contributed to the war).Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
(1) I am concerned that this discussion is rather confused. The original objection (as you can see above) was to a passing comment I made about the US providing "90%" of forces, NOT to what is in the introduction. Of course, people can debate what is in the introduction, but this really should be a separate discussion. Otherwise people end up arguing at cross purposes, and it is hard to determine what the consensus is.
(2) It is not puffery. It is an important fact about the war. It is clear from the introduction that we are talking about the forces that came to the aid of South Korea, and this obviously excludes South Korea's forces. But perhaps that could be made clearer. It also reflects the body of the article, in which we spend a lot of time discussing what US forces did. I am not an American, and I am not trying to promote American pride in saying this. It's about being faithful to historical fact. It is ludicrous to suggest that the US involvement in the Korean war was minimal.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
And I have not understated such, but (I would argue) this is the fundamental problem with the article, it concentrates on what the US did when the UN forces were about 30% of the total. The article clearly has an issue with Americocenterism. And even the request to treat US troop levels in the same way as Koran is met with hostility. If we do not need to say "ROK made up X percentage of forces" because people can look at the troop totals and work that out the same should be applied to US forces, people can look at the totals we do not need to tell them.Slatersteven (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I will restrain myself from further commenting after this (with possible minor exception noted at the end.) I agree with @Jack Upland: in his previous comments that continuing this thread strays from the original point and would likely be unproductive. We may be reaching the point where further clarification is unlikely
In response to the substantive argument: Look at the casualty figures. The U.S. casualties are second most and not insignificant. (Rhetorical questions coming:) Also, who put up the defense and then led the breakout from Pusan when the ROK was down to 22,000 men? Who landed at Inchon and secured not just Seoul but the South from there, joining with the force from Pusan? Who pushed the North Koreans to the Yalu River and made the retreat from Chosin? If you think that was a "defeat" consider the casualty figures. Who led the push back to the 38th parallel after the initial Chinese surge? Indeed, who trained the huge Korean force when they had almost no one left in their own army to do it? This lead me to conclude that the argument in favor of minimizing the American contribution is off base. The US force made a major contribution and the article reflects that. It also includes some American mistakes. I would be surprised to see the principal events told without mention of the US role. Mere subtraction from the article will not do it unless it can be replaced with another description.
I entered this thread to try to help clarify the previous discussion not to stir up controversy. Nonetheless, I cannot accept the further argument to minimize the description of the American involvement as consistent with the facts. (I actually looked at the talk page simply to see if there had been discussion of another point stated in the introduction. I have some doubt about its accuracy but won't raise that different point here.)
I think that Mediatech may have misunderstood Jack Upland and taken his comment too literally. I don't think Jack needed to be more precise but noted that the missing detail might have promoted the misunderstanding. I probably would not have been any more precise myself so I don't come at this as if I am some genius at communication or in criticism of Jack. I merely point out that there seems to have been a misuderstanding but that the remark at issue did not carry over to the article in those terms.
As I just noted above but emphasize now, the solution here, if there needs to be one, is to add to and perhaps clarify the article. It is not to diminish the substantial and important US contributions.
I have meant no offense here and I hope my comments have not been taken that way. In an effort to avoid that unwanted possibility, as I noted, I will not comment further in this thread. Additional comments after the facts are stated and points made often seem to me to be not worthwhile. I'll make a minor, but I think sensible, exception that if something is addressed to me or significantly misreads my comments, I will not feel bound not to reply. Donner60 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is the portion on Chinese POWs edit-protected? It is badly written and relies on sources that very few readers of English Wikipedia would be able to check or critique. As well, the tone of it more resembles typical PRC propaganda than actual historical work. And since the distinction between propaganda and history is not clear in much PRC produced writing, I would strongly recommend deleting this section unless and until sources can be properly evaluated. I would suggest that an English speaking historian with an expertise in Chinese sources would be the person to do it. Note too that the section has a very sharp POV which it mixes up with its "facts," so this may be in violation of Wikipedia policy. Theonemacduff (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I second this concern. The "Chinese POWs" section is not neutral: It is poorly sourced (including sources that not only cannot be cross-examined in English, but which are of scarcely any historical consideration (Chinese language edition of "People Magazine"?), and includes overt grammatical errors and questionable claims. A section on Chinese POWs certainly would be of interest in the overall article, but not as presently constructed. VillageIdiot (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I will point out that there is no prohibition against non English sources (other questions aside).Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that there is no prohibition against non-English sources is really not the point, which is, that the sources are of extremely dubious quality. Would you use People magazine to establish an historical fact? Since no-one has stepped forward with decent sources, I will wait one week and then try to rewrite this as allegations rather than as fact.Theonemacduff (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Still at war[edit]

"However, no peace treaty has been signed, and according to some sources the two Koreas are technically still at war."

By wikipedia's own definition of armistice and the acknowledgement in the above that no peace treaty has been signed, then the war is still ongoing until such a document is signed by all parties involved. This sentence should be updated to reflect this. McFortner (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Indian involvement[edit]

Did India fight on both sides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.239.152 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the second references and it only talks about the South Korean president considering India to not be a neutral country during talks to discuss which country would provide troops to guard prisoners. I think it has been taken completely out of context. In any case India at the time was operating under the U.N mandate and only provided a combat medic team to the U.N sponsored forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.72.19 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Furthermore, it appears India was the chairman of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission and provided a custodial force of 6000 to repatriate prisoners of war. This is the action of a neutral player and should not be listed as "Other Support" on the side of the DPRK, since there was no actual support rendered, other than repatriating prisoners. I propose we remove India from the "Other Support" section under the DPRK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.72.19 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017[edit]

2602:306:C4C8:D160:3C13:6D5B:E90F:BCF3 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC) make 25 june, june 25th
Not done: Our Manual of Style specifies that all dates should have the same format throughout an article. All other dates in the article are DD-MONTH-YYYY so changing just this one would be inconsistent with the rest of the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

File:HA-SC-98-06983-Crew of M24 along Naktong River front-Korean war-17 Aug 1950.JPEG to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:HA-SC-98-06983-Crew of M24 along Naktong River front-Korean war-17 Aug 1950.JPEG will be appearing as picture of the day on January 13, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-01-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

M24 Chaffee in Korean War
Members of the United States Army's 24th Infantry Division with an M24 Chaffee along the Nakdong River front, part of the Pusan Perimeter, in 1950. During the Korean War, the Chaffee fared poorly against the T-34 medium tanks used by North Korean forces, which were better armed, better armored, and better crewed. As the war continued it was therefore used primarily in a reconnaissance role, with fighting handled by heavier, more capable tanks such as the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing, and M46 Patton.Photograph: Sgt. Riley, United States Army