thesis statement on the korean war

Home — Essay Samples — War — Korean War

Essays on Korean War

Korean war essay topics and outline examples, essay title 1: the korean war (1950-1953): uncovering the origins, cold war context, and global implications.

Thesis Statement: This essay delves into the complex origins of the Korean War, the Cold War context that fueled the conflict, and the far-reaching global implications of the war, including its impact on international alliances and the division of Korea.

• Introduction
• Background and Historical Context: Pre-war Korea and Its Division
• The Cold War Setting: U.S.-Soviet Rivalry and Proxy Wars
• The Outbreak of War: North Korea's Invasion and International Response
• The Course of the Conflict: Battles, Truce Talks, and Stalemate
• Global Implications: The Korean War's Impact on East Asia and International Relations
• Legacy and Repercussions: The Division of Korea and Ongoing Tensions

Essay Title 2: The Korean War's Forgotten Heroes: Examining the Role of United Nations Forces and the Armistice Agreement

Thesis Statement: This essay focuses on the often-overlooked contributions of United Nations forces in the Korean War, the complexities of the Armistice Agreement, and the enduring impact of the war on Korean society and international peacekeeping efforts.

• The United Nations Coalition: Multinational Forces in Korea
• The Armistice Negotiations: Challenges, Agreements, and Ongoing Tensions
• Forgotten Heroes: Stories of Courage and Sacrifice
• Korean War Veterans: Their Post-War Experiences and Commemoration
• Peacekeeping and Reconciliation Efforts: The Role of the United Nations
• Implications for Modern International Conflict Resolution

Essay Title 3: The Korean War and the Origins of the Cold War: Analyzing the Impact on U.S.-Soviet Relations and Global Alliances

Thesis Statement: This essay explores how the Korean War influenced U.S.-Soviet relations, the formation of military alliances such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and the Cold War's evolution into a global struggle for influence.

• The Korean War as a Catalyst: Escalation of Cold War Tensions
• Military Alliances: NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and the Globalization of the Cold War
• The U.S.-Soviet Confrontation: Proxy Warfare and Diplomatic Efforts
• International Response and Support for North and South Korea
• The Aftermath of the Korean War: Paving the Way for Future Cold War Conflicts
• Assessing the Korean War's Long-Term Impact on U.S.-Soviet Relations

The Korean War – a Conflict Between The Soviet Union and The United States

The local and global effects of the korean war, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Role of The Korean War in History

The origin of the korean conflict, the role of the battle of chipyong-ni in the korean war, the korean war and its impact on lawrence werner, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Historical Accuracy of The Book Korean War by Maurice Isserman

Solutions for disputes and disloyalty, depiction of the end of the korean war in the film the front line, the impact of war on korea.

25 June, 1950 - 27 July, 1953

Korean Peninsula, Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, Korea Strait, China–North Korea border.

China, North Korea, South Korea, United Nations, United States

Korean War was a conflict between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South Korea) in which at least 2.5 million persons lost their lives. The war reached international proportions in June 1950 when North Korea, supplied and advised by the Soviet Union, invaded the South.

North Korean invasion of South Korea repelled; US-led United Nations invasion of North Korea repelled; Chinese and North Korean invasion of South Korea repelled; Korean Armistice Agreement signed in 1953; Korean conflict ongoing.

Relevant topics

• Vietnam War
• Nuclear Weapon
• Syrian Civil War
• Israeli Palestinian Conflict
• Atomic Bomb
• The Spanish American War
• Treaty of Versailles

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Korean War: History, Causes, and Effects Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Causes of korean war, the causes of korean war are generally, course of the conflict, effect of korean war to american foreign policy.

Bibliography

The Korean War which is termed as the forgotten war was a military conflict that started in June 1950 between North Korean who were supported by peoples republic of China backed by Soviet Union and South Korean with support from the United Nations and the American forces.

The war was an episode of cold war where by the United States of America and Russia were fighting ideologically behind the scenes by using South and North Korea as their battle zone. After the world war two, British and American forces set a pro-western government in the southern part of Korean Peninsula while the Soviet Union initiated a communist rule in the North. The net effect of these ideological differences was the Korean War.

The causes of the Korean War can be examined in two facets:

• Ideological

Politically, the Soviet Union wanted Korea to be loyal to Russia .This was because Korea was seen as a springboard that would be used to initiate an attack on Russia. Korean being loyal to Russia was a strategy to prevent future aggression.

The major cause of the war however, was difference in ideology between South and North Korea with Russia and America behind the scene. The two Korean zones established two separate governments with different ideologies. This were the major event that initiated the conflict In Korea.

American and Soviet military occupation in North and South Korea.

The American and Soviet forces occupation in Korea divided the country on ideological basis. These differences resulted to the formation of 38 th parallel which was a border between South and North Korea. This boarder increasingly became politically contested by the two functions and attracted cross boarder raids. The situation became even worse when these cross border skirmishes escalated to open warfare when North Korean army attacked South Korea on June 1950.The two super power majorly the American and Soviet Union acted by providing support and war equipment’s to the two conflicting sides.

Role of the America and Soviet Union in armament and military support to South and NorthKorea.

The Russians backed the communist regime in North Korea with the help of Kim Il-Sung and established North Korean Peoples Army which was equipped by Russian made war equipments. In South Korea, American backed government benefited from training and support from the Americans army.

Military and strategic imbalance between North and South Korea

The America and Russia failure to withdraw their troops by the late 1948, led to tensions between the two sides. By 1949, the American had started to withdraw its troops but the Russian troops still remained in North Korea considering that Korea lay as its strategic base.

This was followed by invasion of South Korea by the North Korean army because of the military imbalance that existed in the region. This forced the American to return back and give reinforcement to South Korea which was by then over ran by North Korean Army in support of the Russian troops.

Korea, a formally a Japanese colony before the end of the Second World War, changed hands to allied powers after the defeat of Japan in the year 1948. The Americans occupied the southern part of Korea while the Soviet occupied the Northern region. Korea by this time was divided along 38 th parallel which demarked the boarder of the two governments.38 th parallel was an area of 2.5-mile that was a demilitarized zone between north and South Korea.

In June 1950, the North Korean people army attacked South Korea by crossing 38 th parallel. On June 28 th the same year Rhee who was the then leader of South Korean evacuated Seoul and ordered the bombardment of bridge across Han River to prevent North Korean forces from advancing south wards.

The inversion of South Korea forced Americans to intervene and on June 25 th 1950, United Nations in support of South Korea, jointly condemned North Korea’s action to invade the South. USSR challenged the decision and claimed that the Security Council resolution was based on the American intelligence and North Korea was not invited to the Security Council meeting which was a violation of the U.N. charter article 32.

North Korea continued its offensive utilizing both air and land invasion by use of about 231,000 military personnel. This offensive was successful in capturing significant southern territories such as Kaesong, Ongjin, chuncheon and Uijeonghu.

In this expedition, the North Korea people’s army used heavy military equipment such as 105T-34 and T-85 tanks, 150 Yak fighters and 200 artillery pieces. The South Korean forces were ill prepared for such offensive and within days they were overran by the advancing Northern army. Most of Southern forces either surrendered or joined the Northern Korean army. In response to this aggression, the then American president Henry Truman gave an order to general Mac Arthur who was stationed in Japan to transfer the troops in Japan to combat in Korea.

The battle of Osan was the first involvement of the American army in the Korean war. The war involved a task force comprised of 540 infantry men from 24 th infantry division on July 5 th 1950. This task force was unsuccessful in its campaign to repel the North Korean army and instead suffered a casualty of 180 soldiers of whom were either dead, wounded or taken prisoner. The task force lacked effective military equipment to fight the North Koreans T-34 and T-85 tanks. The American 24 th division suffered heavy loses and were pushed back to Taejeon.

Between August and September 1950, there was a significant escalation of conflict in Korea. This was the start of the battle of Pusan perimeter. At this battle, the American forces attempted to recapture then taken territories by the North Korean army. The United States Air force slowed North Korean advances by destroying 32 bridges.

The intense bombardment by the United States air force, made North Korean Units to fight during the nights and hide in ground tunnels during the day. The U.S. army destroyed transportation hubs and other key logistic positions which paralyzed North Korean advances.

Between October and December 1950, the Chinese entered the war on the side of the North Koreans. The United States seventh fleet was dispatched to protect Taiwan from people’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong. In 15 th October 1950, Charlie Company and 70 th Tank battalion Captured Namchonjam city and two days later Pyongyang which was the Capital of North Korea fell to the American 1 st cavalry division.

The first major offensive by China took place on 25 October by attacking the advancing U.N. forces at Sino-Korean border. Fighting on 38 th parallel happened between January and June 1951 when the U.N. command forces were ambushed by Chinese troops. The U.N. forces retreated to Suwon in the west.

On July 10 th 1951, there was a stalemate between the two warring sides which led to armistice being negotiated. The negotiation went on for the next two years. The armistice deal was reached with formation of Korean demilitarized zone ending the war. Both sides withdrew for their combat position. The U.N. was given the mandate to see a peaceful and fair resolution of the conflict in the effort to end the war. The war resulted to about 1,187,682 deaths and unprecedented destruction of property.

The Korean War on the side of Americans perpetuated the Truman’s doctrine which was of the opinion that Russia was trying to influence the world with forceful communist ideology and therefore the United States of America would help any country that was under threat of communist.

The Korean conflict also brought into focus in future efforts to win communism from spreading allover the world. The United States realized that the best solution to stop the spreading of communism ideology was to be military in nature. The war also made America to recognize China as a powerful military might in Asia. Future diplomatic actions would need to take into account Chinas potential might.

After the war, military assistance was provided to Philippine government, French Indochina and Taiwan with the motive to contain the spread of communism in Asia. This military assistance would extend also in Europe to country under communist threat of occupation.

Feldman, Tenzerh. The Korean war . Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books, 2004.

Fitzgerald, Brian. The Korean war: American’s forgotten wa r. Minneapolis: Compass Point Books, 2006.

Stueck, William. The Korean war : An international history. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997.

• Ethic of War as the Way Avoid the Conflicts
• Burning Down of the Village in Platoon
• The Impact of Events in the Middle East on American Foreign Policy 1980s
• Homeland Security & Ethical Criminal Investigations
• Current Trends Affecting Global Hospitality Industry
• Why U.S. Troops Should Stay in Afghanistan
• An Individual’s Opinion Poisons a Nation
• The Libyan Conflict Explained
• Lehrack, Otto. First Battle: Operation Starlite and the Beginning of the Blood Debt in Vietnam Havertown, PA: Casemate, 2004
• The Significance of the Korean War
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 10). Korean War: History, Causes, and Effects. https://ivypanda.com/essays/lees-korean-war/

"Korean War: History, Causes, and Effects." IvyPanda , 10 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/lees-korean-war/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Korean War: History, Causes, and Effects'. 10 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Korean War: History, Causes, and Effects." October 10, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/lees-korean-war/.

1. IvyPanda . "Korean War: History, Causes, and Effects." October 10, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/lees-korean-war/.

IvyPanda . "Korean War: History, Causes, and Effects." October 10, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/lees-korean-war/.

• AsianStudies.org
• Annual Conference
• EAA Articles
• 2025 Annual Conference March 13-16, 2025
• AAS Community Forum Log In and Participate

Education About Asia: Online Archives

The korean war 101: causes, course, and conclusion of the conflict.

North Korea attacked South Korea on June 25, 1950, igniting the Korean War. Cold War assumptions governed the immediate reaction of US leaders, who instantly concluded that Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin had ordered the invasion as the first step in his plan for world conquest. “Communism,” President Harry S. Truman argued later in his memoirs, “was acting in Korea just as [Adolf] Hitler, [Benito] Mussolini, and the Japanese had acted ten, fifteen, and twenty years earlier.” If North Korea’s aggression went “unchallenged, the world was certain to be plunged into another world war.” This 1930s history lesson prevented Truman from recognizing that the origins of this conflict dated to at least the start of World War II, when Korea was a colony of Japan. Liberation in August 1945 led to division and a predictable war because the US and the Soviet Union would not allow the Korean people to decide their own future.

Before 1941, the US had no vital interests in Korea and was largely indifferent to its fate.

Before 1941, the US had no vital interests in Korea and was largely in- different to its fate. But after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his advisors acknowledged at once the importance of this strategic peninsula for peace in Asia, advocating a postwar trusteeship to achieve Korea’s independence. Late in 1943, Roosevelt joined British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Chinese Generalissimo Chiang Kaishek in signing the Cairo Declaration, stating that the Allies “are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.” At the Yalta Conference in early 1945, Stalin endorsed a four-power trusteeship in Korea. When Harry S. Truman became president after Roosevelt’s death in April 1945, however, Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe had begun to alarm US leaders. An atomic attack on Japan, Truman thought, would preempt Soviet entry into the Pacific War and allow unilateral American occupation of Korea. His gamble failed. On August 8, Stalin declared war on Japan and sent the Red Army into Korea. Only Stalin’s acceptance of Truman’s eleventh-hour proposal to divide the peninsula into So- viet and American zones of military occupation at the thirty-eighth parallel saved Korea from unification under Communist rule.

Deterioration of Soviet-American relations in Europe meant that neither side was willing to acquiesce in any agreement in Korea that might strengthen its adversary.

US military occupation of southern Korea began on September 8, 1945. With very little preparation, Washing- ton redeployed the XXIV Corps under the command of Lieutenant General John R. Hodge from Okinawa to Korea. US occupation officials, ignorant of Korea’s history and culture, quickly had trouble maintaining order because al- most all Koreans wanted immediate in- dependence. It did not help that they followed the Japanese model in establishing an authoritarian US military government. Also, American occupation officials relied on wealthy land- lords and businessmen who could speak English for advice. Many of these citizens were former Japanese collaborators and had little interest in ordinary Koreans’ reform demands. Meanwhile, Soviet military forces in northern Korea, after initial acts of rape, looting, and petty crime, implemented policies to win popular support. Working with local people’s committees and indigenous Communists, Soviet officials enacted sweeping political, social, and economic changes. They also expropriated and punished landlords and collaborators, who fled southward and added to rising distress in the US zone. Simultaneously, the Soviets ignored US requests to coordinate occupation policies and allow free traffic across the parallel.

Deterioration of Soviet-American relations in Europe meant that neither side was willing to acquiesce in any agreement in Korea that might strengthen its adversary. This became clear when the US and the Soviet Union tried to implement a revived trusteeship plan after the Moscow Conference in December 1945. Eighteen months of intermittent bilateral negotiations in Korea failed to reach agreement on a representative group of Koreans to form a provisional government, primarily because Moscow refused to consult with anti-Communist politicians opposed to trustee- ship. Meanwhile, political instability and economic deterioration in southern Korea persisted, causing Hodge to urge withdrawal. Postwar US demobilization that brought steady reductions in defense spending fueled pressure for disengagement. In September 1947, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) added weight to the withdrawal argument when they advised that Korea held no strategic significance. With Communist power growing in China, however, the Truman administration was unwilling to abandon southern Korea precipitously, fearing domestic criticism from Republicans and damage to US credibility abroad.

Seeking an answer to its dilemma, the US referred the Korean dispute to the United Nations, which passed a resolution late in 1947 calling for internationally supervised elections for a government to rule a united Korea. Truman and his advisors knew the Soviets would refuse to cooper- ate. Discarding all hope for early reunification, US policy by then had shifted to creating a separate South Korea, able to defend itself. Bowing to US pressure, the United Nations supervised and certified as valid obviously undemocratic elections in the south alone in May 1948, which resulted in formation of the Republic of Korea (ROK) in August. The Soviet Union responded in kind, sponsoring the creation of the Democratic People’s Re- public of Korea (DPRK) in September. There now were two Koreas, with President Syngman Rhee installing a repressive, dictatorial, and anti-Communist regime in the south, while wartime guerrilla leader Kim Il Sung imposed the totalitarian Stalinist model for political, economic, and social development on the north. A UN resolution then called for Soviet-American withdrawal. In December 1948, the Soviet Union, in response to the DPRK’s request, removed its forces from North Korea.

South Korea’s new government immediately faced violent opposition, climaxing in October 1948 with the Yosu-Sunchon Rebellion. Despite plans to leave the south by the end of 1948, Truman delayed military withdrawal until June 29, 1949. By then, he had approved National Security Council (NSC) Paper 8/2, undertaking a commitment to train, equip, and supply an ROK security force capable of maintaining internal order and deterring a DPRK attack. In spring 1949, US military advisors supervised a dramatic improvement in ROK army fighting abilities. They were so successful that militant South Korean officers began to initiate assaults northward across the thirty-eighth parallel that summer. These attacks ignited major border clashes with North Korean forces. A kind of war was already underway on the peninsula when the conventional phase of Korea’s conflict began on June 25, 1950. Fears that Rhee might initiate an offensive to achieve reunification explain why the Truman administration limited ROK military capabilities, withholding tanks, heavy artillery, and warplanes.

Pursuing qualified containment in Korea, Truman asked Congress for three-year funding of economic aid to the ROK in June 1949. To build sup- port for its approval, on January 12, 1950, Secretary of State Dean G. Ache- son’s speech to the National Press Club depicted an optimistic future for South Korea. Six months later, critics charged that his exclusion of the ROK from the US “defensive perimeter” gave the Communists a “green light” to launch an invasion. However, Soviet documents have established that Acheson’s words had almost no impact on Communist invasion planning. Moreover, by June 1950, the US policy of containment in Korea through economic means appeared to be experiencing marked success. The ROK had acted vigorously to control spiraling inflation, and Rhee’s opponents won legislative control in May elections. As important, the ROK army virtually eliminated guerrilla activities, threatening internal order in South Korea, causing the Truman administration to propose a sizeable military aid increase. Now optimistic about the ROK’s prospects for survival, Washington wanted to deter a conventional attack from the north.

Stalin worried about South Korea’s threat to North Korea’s survival. Throughout 1949, he consistently refused to approve Kim Il Sung’s persistent requests to authorize an attack on the ROK. Communist victory in China in fall 1949 pressured Stalin to show his support for a similar Korean outcome. In January 1950, he and Kim discussed plans for an invasion in Moscow, but the Soviet dictator was not ready to give final consent. How- ever, he did authorize a major expansion of the DPRK’s military capabilities. At an April meeting, Kim Il Sung persuaded Stalin that a military victory would be quick and easy because of southern guerilla support and an anticipated popular uprising against Rhee’s regime. Still fearing US military intervention, Stalin informed Kim that he could invade only if Mao Zedong approved. During May, Kim Il Sung went to Beijing to gain the consent of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Significantly, Mao also voiced concern that the Americans would defend the ROK but gave his reluctant approval as well. Kim Il Sung’s patrons had joined in approving his reckless decision for war.

On the morning of June 25, 1950, the Korean People’s Army (KPA) launched its military offensive to conquer South Korea. Rather than immediately committing ground troops, Truman’s first action was to approve referral of the matter to the UN Security Council because he hoped the ROK military could defend itself with primarily indirect US assistance. The UN Security Council’s first resolution called on North Korea to accept a cease- fire and withdraw, but the KPA continued its advance. On June 27, a second resolution requested that member nations provide support for the ROK’s defense. Two days later, Truman, still optimistic that a total commitment was avoidable, agreed in a press conference with a newsman’s description of the conflict as a “police action.” His actions reflected an existing policy that sought to block Communist expansion in Asia without using US military power, thereby avoiding increases in defense spending. But early on June 30, he reluctantly sent US ground troops to Korea after General Douglas MacArthur, US Occupation commander in Japan, advised that failure to do so meant certain Communist destruction of the ROK.

Kim Il Sung’s patrons [Stalin and Mao] had joined in approving his reckless decision for war.

On July 7, 1950, the UN Security Council created the United Nations Command (UNC) and called on Truman to appoint a UNC commander. The president immediately named MacArthur, who was required to submit periodic reports to the United Nations on war developments. The ad- ministration blocked formation of a UN committee that would have direct access to the UNC commander, instead adopting a procedure whereby MacArthur received instructions from and reported to the JCS. Fifteen members joined the US in defending the ROK, but 90 percent of forces were South Korean and American with the US providing weapons, equipment, and logistical support. Despite these American commitments, UNC forces initially suffered a string of defeats. By July 20, the KPA shattered five US battalions as it advanced one hundred miles south of Seoul, the ROK capital. Soon, UNC forces finally stopped the KPA at the Pusan Perimeter, a rectangular area in the southeast corner of the peninsula.

On September 11, 1950, Truman had approved NSC-81, a plan to cross the thirty-eighth parallel and forcibly reunify Korea

Despite the UNC’s desperate situation during July, MacArthur developed plans for a counteroffensive in coordination with an amphibious landing behind enemy lines allowing him to “compose and unite” Korea. State Department officials began to lobby for forcible reunification once the UNC assumed the offensive, arguing that the US should destroy the KPA and hold free elections for a government to rule a united Korea. The JCS had grave doubts about the wisdom of landing at the port of Inchon, twenty miles west of Seoul, because of narrow access, high tides, and sea- walls, but the September 15 operation was a spectacular success. It allowed the US Eighth Army to break out of the Pusan Perimeter and advance north to unite with the X Corps, liberating Seoul two weeks later and sending the KPA scurrying back into North Korea. A month earlier, the administration had abandoned its initial war aim of merely restoring the status quo. On September 11, 1950, Truman had approved NSC-81, a plan to cross the thirty-eighth parallel and forcibly reunify Korea.

Invading the DPRK was an incredible blunder that transformed a three-month war into one lasting three years. US leaders had realized that extension of hostilities risked Soviet or Chinese entry, and therefore, NSC- 81 included the precaution that only Korean units would move into the most northern provinces. On October 2, PRC Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai warned the Indian ambassador that China would intervene in Korea if US forces crossed the parallel, but US officials thought he was bluffing. The UNC offensive began on October 7, after UN passage of a resolution authorizing MacArthur to “ensure conditions of stability throughout Korea.” At a meeting at Wake Island on October 15, MacArthur assured Truman that China would not enter the war, but Mao already had decided to intervene after concluding that Beijing could not tolerate US challenges to its regional credibility. He also wanted to repay the DPRK for sending thou- sands of soldiers to fight in the Chinese civil war. On August 5, Mao instructed his northeastern military district commander to prepare for operations in Korea in the first ten days of September. China’s dictator then muted those associates opposing intervention.

On October 19, units of the Chinese People’s Volunteers (CPV) under the command of General Peng Dehuai crossed the Yalu River. Five days later, MacArthur ordered an offensive to China’s border with US forces in the vanguard. When the JCS questioned this violation of NSC-81, MacArthur replied that he had discussed this action with Truman on Wake Island. Having been wrong in doubting Inchon, the JCS remained silent this time. Nor did MacArthur’s superiors object when he chose to retain a divided command. Even after the first clash between UNC and CPV troops on October 26, the general remained supremely confident. One week later, the Chinese sharply attacked advancing UNC and ROK forces. In response, MacArthur ordered air strikes on Yalu bridges without seeking Washing- ton’s approval. Upon learning this, the JCS prohibited the assaults, pending Truman’s approval. MacArthur then asked that US pilots receive permission for “hot pursuit” of enemy aircraft fleeing into Manchuria. He was infuriated upon learning that the British were advancing a UN proposal to halt the UNC offensive well short of the Yalu to avert war with China, viewing the measure as appeasement.

On November 24, MacArthur launched his “Home-by-Christmas Offensive.” The next day, the CPV counterattacked en masse, sending UNC forces into a chaotic retreat southward and causing the Truman administration immediately to consider pursuing a Korean cease-fire. In several public pronouncements, MacArthur blamed setbacks not on himself but on unwise command limitations. In response, Truman approved a directive to US officials that State Department approval was required for any comments about the war. Later that month, MacArthur submitted a four- step “Plan for Victory” to defeat the Communists—a naval blockade of China’s coast, authorization to bombard military installations in Manchuria, deployment of Chiang Kai-shek Nationalist forces in Korea, and launching of an attack on mainland China from Taiwan. The JCS, despite later denials, considered implementing these actions before receiving favorable battlefield reports.

Early in 1951, Lieutenant General Matthew B. Ridgway, new commander of the US Eighth Army, halted the Communist southern advance. Soon, UNC counterattacks restored battle lines north of the thirty-eighth parallel. In March, MacArthur, frustrated by Washington’s refusal to escalate the war, issued a demand for immediate surrender to the Communists that sabotaged a planned cease-fire initiative. Truman reprimanded but did not recall the general. On April 5, House Republican Minority Leader Joseph W. Martin Jr. read MacArthur’s letter in Congress, once again criticizing the administration’s efforts to limit the war. Truman later argued that this was the “last straw.” On April 11, with the unanimous support of top advisors, the president fired MacArthur, justifying his action as a defense of the constitutional principle of civilian control over the military, but another consideration may have exerted even greater influence on Truman. The JCS had been monitoring a Communist military buildup in East Asia and thought a trusted UNC commander should have standing authority to retaliate against Soviet or Chinese escalation, including the use of nuclear weapons that they had deployed to forward Pacific bases. Truman and his advisors, as well as US allies, distrusted MacArthur, fearing that he might provoke an incident to widen the war.

MacArthur’s recall ignited a firestorm of public criticism against both Truman and the war. The general returned to tickertape parades and, on April 19, 1951, he delivered a televised address before a joint session of Congress, defending his actions and making this now-famous assertion: “In war there is no substitute for victory.” During Senate joint committee hearings on his firing in May, MacArthur denied that he was guilty of in- subordination. General Omar N. Bradley, the JCS chair, made the administration’s case, arguing that enacting MacArthur’s proposals would lead to “the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy.” Meanwhile, in April, the Communists launched the first of two major offensives in a final effort to force the UNC off the peninsula. When May ended, the CPV and KPA had suffered huge losses, and a UNC counteroffensive then restored the front north of the parallel, persuading Beijing and Pyongyang, as was already the case in Washington, that pursuit of a cease-fire was necessary. The belligerents agreed to open truce negotiations on July 10 at Kaesong, a neutral site that the Communists deceitfully occupied on the eve of the first session.

North Korea and China created an acrimonious atmosphere with at- tempts at the outset to score propaganda points, but the UNC raised the first major roadblock with its proposal for a demilitarized zone extending deep into North Korea. More important, after the talks moved to Panmunjom in October, there was rapid progress in resolving almost all is- sues, including establishment of a demilitarized zone along the battle lines, truce enforcement inspection procedures, and a postwar political conference to discuss withdrawal of foreign troops and reunification. An armistice could have been concluded ten months after talks began had the negotiators not deadlocked over the disposition of prisoners of war (POWs). Rejecting the UNC proposal for non-forcible repatriation, the Communists demanded adherence to the Geneva Convention that required return of all POWs. Beijing and Pyongyang were guilty of hypocrisy regarding this matter because they were subjecting UNC prisoners to unspeakable mistreatment and indoctrination.

On April 11, with the unanimous support of top advisors, the presi- dent fired MacArthur.

Truman ordered that the UNC delegation assume an inflexible stand against returning Communist prisoners to China and North Korea against their will. “We will not buy an armistice,” he insisted, “by turning over human beings for slaughter or slavery.” Although Truman unquestionably believed in the moral rightness of his position, he was not unaware of the propaganda value derived from Communist prisoners defecting to the “free world.” His advisors, however, withheld evidence from him that contradicted this assessment. A vast majority of North Korean POWs were actually South Koreans who either joined voluntarily or were impressed into the KPA. Thousands of Chinese POWs were Nationalist soldiers trapped in China at the end of the civil war, who now had the chance to escape to Taiwan. Chinese Nationalist guards at UNC POW camps used terrorist “re-education” tactics to compel prisoners to refuse repatriation; resisters risked beatings or death, and repatriates were even tattooed with anti- Communist slogans.

In November 1952, angry Americans elected Dwight D. Eisenhower president, in large part because they expected him to end what had be- come the very unpopular “Mr. Truman’s War.” Fulfilling a campaign pledge, the former general visited Korea early in December, concluding that further ground attacks would be futile. Simultaneously, the UN General Assembly called for a neutral commission to resolve the dispute over POW repatriation. Instead of embracing the plan, Eisenhower, after taking office in January 1953, seriously considered threatening a nuclear attack on China to force a settlement. Signaling his new resolve, Eisenhower announced on February 2 that he was ordering removal of the US Seventh Fleet from the Taiwan Strait, implying endorsement for a Nationalist assault on the mainland. What influenced China more was the devastating impact of the war. By summer 1952, the PRC faced huge domestic economic problems and likely decided to make peace once Truman left office. Major food shortages and physical devastation persuaded Pyongyang to favor an armistice even earlier.

An armistice ended fighting in Korea on July 27, 1953.

Early in 1953, China and North Korea were prepared to resume the truce negotiations, but the Communists preferred that the Americans make the first move. That came on February 22 when the UNC, repeating a Red Cross proposal, suggested exchanging sick and wounded prisoners. At this key moment, Stalin died on March 5. Rather than dissuading the PRC and the DPRK as Stalin had done, his successors encouraged them to act on their desire for peace. On March 28, the Communist side accepted the UNC proposal. Two days later, Zhou Enlai publicly proposed transfer of prisoners rejecting repatriation to a neutral state. On April 20, Operation Little Switch, the exchange of sick and wounded prisoners, began, and six days later, negotiations resumed at Panmunjom. Sharp disagreement followed over the final details of the truce agreement. Eisenhower insisted later that the PRC accepted US terms after Secretary of State John Foster Dulles informed India’s prime minister in May that without progress toward a truce, the US would terminate the existing limitations on its conduct of the war. No documentary evidence has of yet surfaced to support his assertion.

Also, by early 1953, both Washington and Beijing clearly wanted an armistice, having tired of the economic burdens, military losses, political and military constraints, worries about an expanded war, and pressure from allies and the world community to end the stalemated conflict. A steady stream of wartime issues threatened to inflict irrevocable damage on US relations with its allies in Western Europe and nonaligned members of the United Nations. Indeed, in May 1953, US bombing of North Korea’s dams and irrigation system ignited an outburst of world criticism. Later that month and early in June, the CPV staged powerful attacks against ROK defensive positions. Far from being intimidated, Beijing thus displayed its continuing resolve, using military means to persuade its adversary to make concessions on the final terms. Before the belligerents could sign the agreement, Rhee tried to torpedo the impending truce when he released 27,000 North Korean POWs. Eisenhower bought Rhee’s acceptance of a cease-fire with pledges of financial aid and a mutual security pact.

An armistice ended fighting in Korea on July 27, 1953. Since then, Koreans have seen the war as the second-greatest tragedy in their recent history after Japanese colonial rule. Not only did it cause devastation and three million deaths, it also confirmed the division of a homogeneous society after thirteen centuries of unity, while permanently separating millions of families. Meanwhile, US wartime spending jump-started Japan’s economy, which led to its emergence as a global power. Koreans instead had to endure the living tragedy of yearning for reunification, as diplomatic tension and military clashes along the demilitarized zone continued into the twenty-first century.

Korea’s war also dramatically reshaped world affairs. In response, US leaders vastly increased defense spending, strengthened the North Atlantic Treaty Organization militarily, and pressed for rearming West Germany. In Asia, the conflict saved Chiang’s regime on Taiwan, while making South Korea a long-term client of the US. US relations with China were poisoned for twenty years, especially after Washington persuaded the United Nations to condemn the PRC for aggression in Korea. Ironically, the war helped Mao’s regime consolidate its control in China, while elevating its regional prestige. In response, US leaders, acting on what they saw as Korea’s primary lesson, relied on military means to meet the challenge, with disastrous results in Việt Nam.

Share this:

• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

SUGGESTED RESOURCES

Kaufman, Burton I. The Korean Conflict . Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1999.

“Korea: Lessons of the Forgotten War.” YouTube video, 2:20, posted by KRT Productions Inc., 2000. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi31OoQfD7U.

Lee, Steven Hugh. The Korean War. New York: Longman, 2001.

Matray, James I. “Korea’s War at Sixty: A Survey of the Literature.” Cold War History 11, no. 1 (February 2011): 99–129.

US Department of Defense. Korea 1950–1953, accessed July 9, 2012, http://koreanwar.defense.gov/index.html.

• Latest News
• Join or Renew
• Education About Asia
• Education About Asia Articles
• Asia Shorts Book Series
• Asia Past & Present
• Key Issues in Asian Studies
• Journal of Asian Studies
• The Bibliography of Asian Studies
• AAS-Gale Fellowship
• Council Grants
• Book Prizes
• Graduate Student Paper Prizes
• Distinguished Contributions to Asian Studies Award
• The AAS First Book Subvention Program
• External Grants & Fellowships
• AAS Career Center
• Asian Studies Programs & Centers
• Study Abroad Programs
• Language Database
• Conferences & Events
• #AsiaNow Blog

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Korean War, a ‘Forgotten’ Conflict That Shaped the Modern World

By Liam Stack

• Jan. 1, 2018

The Korean War has been called “the Forgotten War” in the United States, where coverage of the 1950s conflict was censored and its memory decades later is often overshadowed by World War II and the Vietnam War.

But the three-year conflict in Korea, which pitted communist and capitalist forces against each other, set the stage for decades of tension among North Korea, South Korea and the United States.

It also helped set the tone for Soviet-American rivalry during the Cold War, profoundly shaping the world we live in today, historians said.

As tensions between North Korea and the United States continue to mount amid missile tests and taunts, here is a brief guide to the Korean War and the impacts that linger more than 60 years after its end.

How did the Korean War start?

The Korean War began when North Korean troops pushed into South Korea on June 25, 1950, and it lasted until 1953. But experts said the military conflict could not be properly understood without considering its historical context.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Essay Database
• world trade center
• Greek Food and Culture
• The Future Portrayed I…
• Intercultural Communications
• In Heart of Darkness, …
• Things Fall Apart by C…
• In J.M. Coetzee's Wait…
• The Criminals Of Profe…
• Socialization of Children
• The Poet of Nature, Wi…
• Leonhard Euler
• Articles of Confederat…
• About all Sharks
• Vietnam Poetry

The korean war.

What is paper-research.

• Custom Writing Service
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Biographies

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Korean War summary

Discover the causes and aftermath of the korean war.

Korean War , (1950–53) Conflict arising after the post-World War II division of Korea, at latitude 38° N, into North Korea and South Korea. At the end of World War II, Soviet forces accepted the surrender of Japanese forces north of that line, as U.S. forces accepted Japanese surrender south of it. Negotiations failed to reunify the two halves, the northern half being a Soviet client state and the southern half being backed by the U.S. In 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea, and U.S. Pres. Harry Truman ordered troops to assist South Korea. The UN Security Council, minus the absent Soviet delegate, passed a resolution calling for the assistance of all UN members in halting the North Koreans. At first North Korean troops drove the South Korean and U.S. forces down to the southern tip of the Korean peninsula, but a brilliant amphibious landing at Inch’ŏn, conceived by Gen. Douglas MacArthur , turned the tide in favour of the UN troops, who advanced near the border of North Korea and China. The Chinese then entered the war and drove the UN forces back south; the front line stabilized at the 38th parallel. MacArthur insisted on voicing his objections to U.S. war aims in a public manner and was relieved of his command by Truman. U.S. Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower participated in the conclusion of an armistice that accepted the front line as the de facto boundary between the two Koreas. The war resulted in the deaths of approximately 2,000,000 Koreans, 600,000 Chinese, 37,000 Americans, and 3,000 Turks, Britons, and other nationals in the UN forces.

The Korean War as a Civil War and Its Impact on Postwar Europe

• First Online: 29 August 2024

Cite this chapter

• Kyu-hyun Jo 2  

In 1981, historian Bruce Cumings published the first volume of The Origins of the Korean War , in which he argued that the origins of the Korean War could be traced back to post-colonial Korean politics, one which was dominated by the Right-wing Democratic Party of Korea, a handful of Left-wing sympathizers, and the American military government situated uncomfortably in the middle of a hullabaloo featuring intense violence from both the Left and the Right and a struggle for political supremacy which inherited both tensions arising from the colonial period—anti-imperialistic nationalism pitted against among former pro-Japanese landlords and police officers who served in the colonial regime—and tensions arising from the Cold War which had just arrived in Korea—Communism pitted against anti-Communism. The book was radical, at least for many Western audiences for its implicit suggestion that North Korea did not initiate the Korean War when it launched a “surprise attack” against South Korea on June 25, 1950. Deeper causes lurked within the colonial and post-colonial structures of traditional and modern Korean society, and it is within these frameworks that the ideological antagonism sharpened the two tensions, instead of creating a fresh and new setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bruce Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War, Vol. I: Liberation and the Emergence of Separate Regimes, 1945–1947 (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981).

Examples of such works include T. Fahrenbach, This Kind of War (Washington: Potomac Books, 2001); Max Hastings, The Korean War (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987); Callum MacDonald, Korea: The War Before Vietnam (New York: The Free Press, 1986); David Halberstam, The Coldest Winter (New York: Hyperion, 2007). A great synoptic volume which summarizes the main points from The Origins of the Korean War is Bruce Cumings, The Korean War: A History (New York: Modern Library Classics, 2010).

For a comprehensive survey of the “pre-revisionist” scholarship and Cumings’ works, see Lester Brune, “Recent Scholarship and Findings about the Korean War,” American Studies International , Vol. 36, No. 3 (October, 1998), 4–16. See also Kathryn Weathersby, “The Soviet Role in the Korean War: The State of Historical Knowledge,” in Stueck ed., The Korean War in World History , 63–64.

Arthur Marwick, “Two Approaches to Historical Study: The Metaphysical (Including Postmodernism) and the Historical,” Journal of Contemporary History , Vol. 30, No. 1 (January, 1995), 5–36; Alun Munslow, Deconstructing History (Routledge, 1997), 39.

Felix Gilbert, History: Politics or Culture?: Reflections on Ranke and Burckhardt (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990), 35 and 45.

Albert Cook, History/Writing: The Theory and Practice of History in Antiquity and in Modern Times (Cambridge University Press, 1988), 48–49.

Lowe, The Korean War , 24–25, 40, and 66.

Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2012), xxii.

Lee Harvey, “The Use and Abuse of Kuhnian Paradigms in the Sociology of Knowledge,” Sociology , Vol. 16, No. 1 (February, 1982), 86; Douglas Eckberg and Lester Hill Jr., “The Paradigm Concept and Sociology: A Critical Review,” American Sociological Review , Vol. 44, No. 6 (December, 1979), 928.

Harvey, “The Use and Abuse of Kuhnian Paradigms in the Sociology of Knowledge,” 87; Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 27.

Paul Roth, “Who Needs Paradigms?” Metaphilosophy , Vol. 15, No. 3/4 (July/October, 1984), 229–230; W. Percival, “The Applicability of Kuhn's Paradigms to the History of Linguistics,” Language , Vol. 52, No. 2 (June, 1976), 285–294; Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 19.

Calum Paton, “Of Paradigms and Precipitate Relativism: Kuhn and the Social Sciences,” Journal of Health Services Research and Policy , Vol. 19, No. 2 (April, 2014), 120. Robert Root-Bernstein, “On Paradigms and Revolutions in Science and Art: The Challenge of Interpretation,” Art Journal , Vol. 44, No. 2 (Summer, 1984), 111.

S. Barnes, “Paradigms—Scientific and Social,” Man , Vol. 4, No. 1 (March, 1969), 97–98.

Waltz, Theory of International Politics , 2.

Alberto Hirschman, “The Search for Paradigms as a Hindrance to Understanding,” World Politics , Vol. 22, No. 3 (April, 1970), 336 and 343.

Roth, “Who Needs Paradigms?” 231.

George Modelski and Kazimierz Poznanski, “Evolutionary Paradigms in the Social Sciences,” International Studies Quarterly , Vol. 40, No. 3 (1996), 315.

Kenneth MacKenzie and Robert House, “Paradigm Development in the Social Sciences: A Proposed Research Strategy,” The Academy of Management Review , Vol. 3, No. 2 (January, 1978), 7–23.

R. Johnson and Anthony Onwuegbuzie, “Mixed Methods Research: A Paradigm Whose Time Has Come,” Educational Researcher , Vol. 33, No. 7 (October, 2004), 14–26.

Eric Forrman, “Civil War as a Source of International Violence,” The Journal of Politics , Vol. 34, No. 4 (November, 1972), 1112–1113.

Forman, “Civil War as a Source of International Violence,” 1116–1117.

Forman, “Civil War as a Source of International Violence,” 1118.

Forman, “Civil War as a Source of International Violence,” 1122.

Forman, “Civil War as a Source of International Violence,” 1117 and 1123–1124.

Sheila Jagger, Brothers at War: The Unending War in Korea (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2013).

Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War , Vol. I.

For some examples of specific analysis of the April Third Massacre, see John Merrill, “The Cheju-do Rebellion,” The Journal of Korean Studies , Vol. 2 (1980), 139–197; Seong Nae Kim, “Lamentations of the Dead: The Historical Imagery of Violence on Jeju Island, South Korea,” Journal of Ritual Studies , Vol. 3, No. 2 (Summer, 1989), 251–285; Sungman Koh, “Trans-Border Rituals for the Dead: Experiential Relations of Paternal Relatives after the Jeju 4.3 Incident,” Journal of Korean Religions , Vol. 9, No. 1 (April, 2018), 71–103; Myung-lim Park, “Towards a Universal Model of Reconciliation,” Journal of Korean Religions , Vol. 9, No. 1 (April, 2018), 105–130; Hun Jun Kim, The Massacres at Mt. Halla: Sixty Years of Truth Seeking in South Korea (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2014). See also Jeju 4.3 Peace Foundation ed., The Jeju 4.3 Mass Killing: Atrocity, Justice, and Reconciliation (Seoul, Korea: Yonsei University Press, 2018).

Kyuhyun Jo, The Dawn of War in South Korea (1947–1950): The South Korean Workers’ Party and the April Third Massacre (Springer, 2024).

Townsend Hoopes, “Legacy of the Cold War in Indochina,” Foreign Affairs , Vol. 48, No. 4 (July, 1970), 603; for the north Korean army's historical origins, see Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War , Vol. 2.

Bruce Cumings, Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2005); Allan Millett, “The Korean People: Missing in Action in a Misunderstood War, 1945–1954” in Stueck ed., The Korean War in World History , 13–60; Kyu-hyun Jo, “For a More Perfect Communist Revolution: The Rise of the Southern Korean Workers' Party and the Twilight of Unitary Socialism,” UCLA Historical Journal Vol. 29, No. 1 (Winter, 2018), 1–32.

Hajimu, Cold War Crucible , 69.

Bruce Cumings, “Corporatism in North Korea,” The Journal of Korean Studies , Vol. 4 (1982–1983), 269–294.

B. C. Koh, “The War's Impact on the Korean Peninsula,” The Journal of American-East Asian Relations , Vol. 2, No. 1 (Spring, 1993), 57–78; Charles Hanley, Ghost Flames: Life and Death in a Hidden War, Korea 1950–1953 (New York: Public Affairs, 2021), 49; Haruki, The Korean War: An International History , 205–208.

Michael Hunt, “Beijing and the Korean Crisis, June 1950–June 1951,” Political Science Quarterly , Vol. 107, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), 464; Thomas Christensen, “Threats, Assurances, and the Last Chance for Peace: The Lessons of Mao’s Korean War Telegrams,” International Security , Vol. 17, No. 1 (Summer, 1992), 128. See also Chen Jian, “In the Name of Revolution: China's Road to the Korean War Revisited,” in Stueck ed., The Korean War in World History , 93–115. See also Chen Jian, China's Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American Confrontation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), xi, 178, and 214–215.

Chen, China's Road to the Korean War , 25–26 and 96.

Chen, China's Road to the Korean War , 21 and Lowe, The Korean War , 182.

Whiting, China Crosses the Yalu , 122 and 132–133; Meisner, Mao Zedong , 61.

Xiaobing Li, “China’s War for Korea,” in John Blaxland, Michael Kelly, and Liam Higgins eds., In from the Cold: Reflections on Australia’s Korean War (Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press, 2020), 64.

Lloyd Eastman, “Who Lost China? Chiang Kai-shek Testifies,” The China Quarterly , No. 88 (December, 1981), 658–668.

Odd Westad, Decisive Encounters: The Chinese Civil War, 1946–1950 (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2003).

Chen Jian, “The Sino-Soviet Alliance and China’s Entry into the Korean War,” Cold War International History Project Working Paper No. 1 (Washington, D. C.: June, 1992), 9; Westad, “Losses, Chances, and Myths: The United States and the Creation of the Sino-Soviet Alliance, 1945–1950,” Diplomatic History , Vol. 21, No. 1 (Winter, 1997), 114. See also Haruki, The Korean War , 128–135. See also Chen, China's Road to the Korean War , 198–199.

Shen Zhihua, “Sino-Soviet Relations and the Origins of the Korean War,” Journal of Cold War Studies , Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring, 2000), 62; Weathersby, “The Soviet Role in the Korean War” in Stueck ed., The Korean War in World History , 72; Lowe, The Korean War , 220. See also Vojtech Mastny, The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years (Oxford University Press, 1996). The image of a cautious Stalin is in stark contrast with a more belligerent and an aggressive Stalin presented in works such as Vladislav Zubok and Constantine Pleshekov, Inside the Kremlin's Cold War: From Stalin to Khrushchev (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1996) or John Gaddis, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History (Oxford University Press, 1997).

Chen, China's Road to the Korean War , 155.

Hanley, Ghost Flames , 299 and 311.

Chen Jian, “China's Changing Aims During the Korean War, 1949–1950,” The Journal of American-East Asian Relations , Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring, 1992); Whiting, China Crosses the Yalu , 58; Rosemary Foot, A Substitute for Victory: The Politics of Peacemaking at the Korean Armistice Talks (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1990), 20–21.

Chen, China's Road to the Korean War , 201.

Whiting, China Crosses the Yalu , 93–94.

On Mao's idea of “permanent revolution,” see Maurice Meisner, Mao's China and After: A History of the People's Republic (New York: The Free Press, 1999), 193–202; Stuart Schram, “Mao Tse-tung and the Theory of Permanent Revolution, 1958–1969,” The China Quarterly , No. 46 (April–June 1971), 221–244 and Schram, The Thought of Mao Tse-tung (Cambridge University Press, 1989). On the weaknesses of Maoism against modern technological warfare, see Chen, China's Road to the Korean War , 179.

Hao Yufan and Zhai Zhihai, “China's Decision to Enter the Korean War: History Revisited,” The China Quarterly , Vol. 121 (March, 1990).

Qiang Zhai, China and the Vietnam Wars, 1950–1975 (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and London, England: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 21 and 23.

Meisner, Mao Zedong , 49 and 51.

Hao and Zhai, “China's Decision to Enter the Korean War”.

Barry Naughton, “The Third Front: Defence Industrialization in the Chinese Interior,” The China Quarterly , No. 115 (September, 1988), 351–386; Whiting, China Crosses the Yalu , 49 and Chen, China's Road to the Korean War , 223. On the debate about whether Maoism was an original or an unoriginal ideology, see Karl Wittfogel, “The Legend of Maoism,” The China Quarterly , No. 1 (January–March, 1960), 72–86 and Benjamin Schwartz, “The Legend of the ‘Legend of Maoism,’” The China Quarterly , No. 2 (April–June 1960), 35–42.

Whiting, China Crosses the Yalu , 83 and 158; Masuda Hajimu, “The Korean War through the Prism of Chinese Society,” Journal of Cold War Studies , Vol. 14, No. 3 (2012), 3–38; Hajimu, Cold War Crucible , 174–175; Mo Tian, “The Korean War and Manchuria: Economic, Social, and Human Effects” in Morris-Suzuki ed., The Korean War in Asia , 49–52; Li Narangoa, “From One Divided Country to Another: The Korean War in Mongolia” in Morris-Suzuki ed., The Korean War in Asia , 67.

David Cheng Chang, The Hijacked War: The Story of Chinese POWs in the Korean War (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2020); Catherine Churchman, “Victory with Minimum Effort: How the Chinese Nationalists “Won” the Korean War” in Morris-Suzuki ed., The Korean War in Asia, 77–104. For more comprehensive discussions about prisoners of war during the Korean War, see Charles Young, Name, Rank, and Serial Number: Exploiting Korean War POWs at Home and Abroad (Oxford University Press, 2014) and Monica Kim, The Interrogation Rooms of the Korean War: The Untold History (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2019). For a critique of Kim's book, see Kyu-hyun Jo, “The “Civil War” Thesis and the Myth of Revisionism in the Historiography of the Korean War: A Critical Review of Recent (Post-Cumings) Scholarly Literature” Korea Journal , Vol. 62, No. 4 (December, 2022).

Whiting, China Crosses the Yalu , 166; Chen, China's Road to the Korean War , 193.

Heonik Kwon, After the Korean War: An Intimate History (Cambridge University Press, 2020), 4.

Kwon, After the Korean War , 6–7, 20, 23, 27, 34, 36, 37, and 62–63.

Hajimu, Cold War Crucible , 67.

Tony Judt, Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 (Penguin, 2005), 96–97.

Walter LaFeber, “NATO and the Korean War: A Context,” Diplomatic History , Vol. 13, No. 4 (Fall, 1989), 461–477. Lowe, The Korean War , 162; Judt, Postwar , 90–91, 95, and 114–115. Leffler, For the Soul of Mankind , 55, 68–69, and 77.

Lowe, The Korean War , 13; Yellen, The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere , 167. See also Michael Hunt, Lyndon Johnson's War: America's Cold War Crusade in Vietnam, 1945–1968 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1996), 7 and Mark Lawrence, “Explaining the Early Decisions: The United States and the French War, 1945–1954,” in Mark Bradley and Marilyn Young eds., Making Sense of the Vietnam Wars: Local, National, and Transnational Perspectives (Oxford University Press, 2008), 27–28, and 40; Bradley, Imagining Vietnam and America , 48, 56–59, 68, 70–71, 75–79, 84, 104, and 147.

William Fox, “Korea and the Struggle for Europe,” Journal of International Affairs , Vol. 6, No. 2 (Spring, 1952), 129–134; Judt, Postwar , 93.

Kwon, After the Korean War , 109.

Robert Jervis, “The Impact of the Korean War on the Cold War,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution , Vol. 24, No. 4 (December, 1980), 563–592. See also Foot, A Substitute for Victory , 4.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

Kyu-hyun Jo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyu-hyun Jo .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Jo, Kh. (2024). The Korean War as a Civil War and Its Impact on Postwar Europe. In: East Asian International Relations in History. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4832-7_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4832-7_6

Published : 29 August 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-97-4831-0

Online ISBN : 978-981-97-4832-7

eBook Packages : History History (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research