Talk:Korean War/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

suggestion for article

I was trying to find out if the US is still at war with the People's Republic of China but this article doesn't give an answer. I presume that North Korea is still at war with South Korea, though.

Any answers? Lakeshake (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As there was never any formal declaration of war by any party, no formal peace declaration was required to end hostilities. The two Korean governments never recognized each other legitimacy, so between them it was (And I gusess still is) a civil war, or something to that effect. For the US Forces it was only a "Police Action", and the Chinese troops involved were "Volunteers". Mediatech492 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Your question illustrates the falsity of the claim that the war continues (see above). If the war has not ended, then the US and the PRC should still be at war. But the war ended in 1953. However, the US is still involved in the wider Korean conflict and still has troops in South Korea. China, however, has minimal involvement, except diplomatically. The relationship between the US and the PRC has always been hostile, with the Korean War being the most hostile moment. Even after the US recognition of the PRC, the US continues to arm the ROC. There have been periodic hostile episodes such as the Hainan Island incident and the current South China Sea dispute. --Jack Upland (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem seems to be the Korean Armistice Agreement (1953) which ended the hostilities. It was specifically designed to "insure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved." The peaceful settlement was never reached, and 63 years later there are still open diplomatic questions.

And the parties to the agreement have since questioned or violated it. In 1957, the United States unilaterally "abrogated" (repealed) a term of the agreement which originally prevented it from introducing new weapons into Korea. The States then introduced nuclear weapons and missiles into the region. North Korea denounced several terms of the agreement in 1994, 1996, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2013. It apparently no longer considers it binding. North Korea violated a term of the agreement in 2016, by installing anti-personnel mines in a border area.

On the other hand, China has few reasons to get involved in a new phase of the Korean War. China and South Korea officially negotiated mutual recognition and the opening of international relations back in 1991-1992. They have since even negotiated a free trade agreement. The China–South Korea Free Trade Agreement was signed in 2015. The most recent incident in the China–South Korea relations, simply involves the case of Chinese fishing boats illegally fishing in South Korean Waters. Dimadick (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Technically Still at War

I know this topic has been discussed before — for example [1] — but I don't think the introduction should say: "However, no peace treaty has been signed, and the two Koreas are technically still at war." This is just another myth about Korea. And it's silly to say that war is a technicality. But since this is quoted so much it seems worthwhile to deal with it in the armistice section. Does anyone have a good source on this?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree its a completely ridiculous point that is endlessly repeated by the BBC unchallenged and so has entered popular usage. I'm not quite sure how we can address it however. Mztourist (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, maybe this phrase is universal. I've just found it in a North Korean report:[2]--Jack Upland (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The story is obviously designed for Western media consumption, because the official DPRK line is that the war is over and they won.Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Header comment of "88% of the UN forces were from the US"

There's a debateable comment from the header: "with the United States providing 88% of the UN's military personnel." This needs some citation, as it doesn't garner mention anywhere else in the article, and to my knowledge, this is an inaccurately overstated depiction of the efforts of US forces in the conflict. If it's true, given the enormity of the claim, it needs to be very clearly referenced. As the article is protected, I can't even edit it to add a {{fact}} tag. --118.209.140.50 (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That figure can be garnered from the infobox. If you subtract South Korean forces from the total on that side, you get 369,312, and the American forces are 89% of that. The sources I've looked at briefly give similar information:[3]. Do you have a source that says something different?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Jack Upland that the figure is broadly correct, though it could be better reffed. Mztourist (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2017

The strength of the UN forces should be reviewed because the numbers is not correct according to a danish documentary, other numbers on the web and the most of the Wikipedia articles in other languages about the Korean war Benj5378 (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be useful if you gave the correct figures, and some links to sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done for now: - please reactivate the request when you have added the reliable source and the figures it quoted, by editing "answered=y" to "answered=no" on the first line of this thread. - Arjayay (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed number of Dutch forces is incorrect. Compare numbers of casualties and wounded HuismanJ (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath overlap

There is a great deal of overlap between "Aftermath" and "Division of Korea (1954–present)". Perhaps the "Division" text could be merged into "Aftermath".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Origins of Korean War Have Been Disputed

Dear Wikipedians,

[1] claims, with about 70 footnotes, a revisionist view of the origins and onset of the Korean War. The author infers that the motivations currently ascribed to the Soviet, Chinese and North Korean actors are shallow and make no political sense, and that sufficient evidence shows that the U.S. manipulated the Korean War into being. In the spirit of scientific inquiry this account of the start of the war should for the time being be published as a competing narrative, until peer review either discredits this new script or discredits the existing script. What say you?

That account makes a lot of use of Bruce Cumings, which we also do here. With regard to the origin of the war, we do discuss the lead-up to war (both here and at Division of Korea) and Rhee's desire for war, and we do mention the North Korean version, and the fact that fighting started at Ongjin. If you have specific information that you think should be added, go ahead, but you should cite a scholarly source, not a political website.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
In several academic fields these days, I have trouble defining "scholarly" as "what everybody of course knows", versus "political" as "We actually quoted our sources." It's a historical axiom that winners write the history. Perhaps winners' history has just timed out in this case.--Paul Klinkman —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The idea that "history is written by the winners" is more fallacy than fact; however it is academic in this case since the Korean War ended in a draw at (more or less) the pre-war frontiers. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the Korean War is the forgotten war because there were no victors. Certainly, the narrative on the Vietnam War is different because (North) Vietnam won. On the issue at hand, what specific improvements are being suggested?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://popularresistance.org/the-long-history-of-us-abuses-to-korea/

Edit request April 2017

Change image caption "A B-29 Superfortress bomber unloading its bombs." to "A B-29 Superfortress bomber dropping its bombs." 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. RivertorchFIREWATER 22:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Strengths

The Strengths in the infobox need to be modified to make it usable as there is no popup when hovering over the flag to show what the country is. Keith D (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

Is one of the most important American names, if not the most, of that era. Please add the proper link to that was strategically left off.

General Douglas_MacArthur

Douglas MacArthur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:51F0:4FC:9534:B35E:22AB (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand we do link to his page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you are right. I searched but did not get the (first) occurrence: which as you said is linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:51F0:4FC:9534:B35E:22AB (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

better guide to acronyms?

I realize that this is a carefully watched article. But I found it hard to figure out what the acronyms refer to. Which acronyms belong to which side? This is especially important in the section regarding casualties. On the casualties section, I added internal links to some of the acronyms in the casualties because there is no key at the top to the listing of the armies/forces. Obviously this is impractical for doing in all mentions in this article, but maybe it should be easier for the article for the reader to see which acronyms refer to which organization (and which country). --Robert J Nagle (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017

"Russian Korean Zone of Occupation" should probably be "Soviet Korean Zone of Occupation". 194.151.16.33 (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternate name

Isn't the Korean War also called the "Forgotten War"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.83.199 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the term has also been used in reference to the Barbary Wars, the Soviet-Finnish Winter War, the invasion of the Baltic States, the the Rif War, the the Philippine Insurrection and the Donbass Conflict; to name a few... Mediatech492 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
...and it's used in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Time warp

Hansmuller, the reason for the time warp at the outbreak of war was is a difference in time zones. America is a day behind East Asia. Therefore Truman was able to react on Saturday to events that occurred on Sunday...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Second Korean War

Given recent events, I thought an article about what a second Korean War might look like would be worthwhile. It's pretty bare, but if you would like to take part, Second Korean War.Casprings (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

incompetence

How is it that 5-10 years after taking out nazi germany, we couldn't handle a tiny dictator? Pathetic. What changed was the UN management of it, which was probably incompetent and ineffectual, like everything else the UN does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:0:1530:1426:EAC7:3D2F:AD7C (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:FORUM - editors, this is not what the Talk Pages are for! 50.111.54.136 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
That's wrong. As you can see from the discussion above, the USA provided almost 90% of the UN troops. General Macarthur was the commander. However, very few US personnel had fought in WW2. (In any case, the Red Army played the major role in defeating Nazi Germany.) We don't provide much analysis of the war in the article. Perhaps we should.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Because Red China intervened - and everyone was trying to avoid a nuclear exchange - the circumstances of the Korean War and its political environment were very different from WW2. My advice to you is that you dive into some history books, and also take a course at your local college to erase your current vacuum on this topic.74.37.202.124 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Uneditable

There are multiple corrections needed to this page - some minor grammatical, some to clarify, and some to correct. But the page is not easily editable - the sections should be changed to actual sections so they can be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.245.220 (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

tHEY ARE.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

de jure and de facto in wrong place

Shouldn't the phases de jure and de facto in the date section by reversed, as the war officially ended in 1953, but really is still happening (albeit under the name of the "Korean Conflict") (24.205.83.199 (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC))

and that's them facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.87.25.58 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This refers to the theory, expressed in the lead, that the parties are still "technically" at war as no peace treaty has been signed - that is, de jure a war is still going on. This has been discussed before. Unfortunately a lot of sources say this, even though it is baloney. If this was true, then by the same token, from the point of view of the USA and Japan and others, WW2 would not have ended de jure until 1952 when the Treaty of San Francisco came into force. But we don't put that in the WW2 infobox because it would simply be confusing and misleading. De facto, a conflict started with the Division of Korea in 1945 and exists to the present day. However, all-out war only existed between 1950 and 1953. When war came in 1950, there was no formal declaration of war, and North Korea and South Korea did not recognise each other as sovereign states, nor were they recognised as such internationally. How then can it be said that a war began in 1950 de jure? Making this distinction in the infobox is confusing and misleading, and, as I said, we don't do this for other wars. I will remove it.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Still at war

"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

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

Incorrect Facts

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017

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

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
Archive – More featured pictures...

Indian involvement

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

change "number of US soldiers participated in the war" (see codes below)

326,863[1]


to

"US soldiers sent to South Korea 5,720,000" (see reference below)

Richard Whelan,Drawing the Line: The Korean War, 1950-1953,(Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990), 153.

also can be seen here https://www.shmoop.com/korean-war/statistics.html Q0p1 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way that 5,720,000 US troops served in the Korean War. If you are trying to say that 5,720,000 US troops have served in South Korea since 1945 or 1950 that is completely irrelevant as this page relates to the Korean War which started on 25 June 1950 and ended on 27 July 1953. Mztourist (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree this is a total up to the period it was published.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

information Administrator note The edit request is declined due to lack of consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Tim Kane (27 October 2004). "Global U.S. Troop Deployment, 1950–2003". Reports. The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 28 January 2013. Retrieved 15 February 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
    Ashley Rowland (22 October 2008). "U.S. to keep troop levels the same in South Korea". Stars and Stripes. Archived from the original on 12 May 2013. Retrieved 16 February 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
    Colonel Tommy R. Mize, United States Army (12 March 2012). "U.S. Troops Stationed in South Korea, Anachronistic?". United States Army War College. Defense Technical Information Center. Archived from the original on 8 April 2013. Retrieved 16 February 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
    Louis H. Zanardi; Barbara A. Schmitt; Peter Konjevich; M. Elizabeth Guran; Susan E. Cohen; Judith A. McCloskey (August 1991). "Military Presence: U.S. Personnel in the Pacific Theater" (PDF). Reports to Congressional Requesters. United States General Accounting Office. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 June 2013. Retrieved 15 February 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Comparison of forces

In my opinion this section is clumsily written. For instance, it doesn't clarify that the 274 tanks are not frontline strength, but rather the overall number of tanks available (thus the 105 tanks in reserve are already included in that number); it shows the number of aircraft available to DPRK, but doesn't mention the deficit of trained pilots. Also it would be nice if we included some numbers of american aircraft that became a factor in the war rather soon and helped stop the DPRK advance. If nobody is against those ideas, I will edit accordingly. Mudriy zmei (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

I would like to suggest a change in the right column, with title strength it says that the Netherlands had 819 soldiers, however this is incorrect. The Ministry of patriots & veterans affairs of The Republic of Korea (http://english.mpva.go.kr/upload/Contents/2010Netherlands.pdf) states on page 15 that a total of 5.322 soldiers fought in the Korean war. In an interview with the Dutch ambassador about the Korean war the ambassador also states 5.322 soldiers fought. (http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Society/view?articleId=110257). Furthermore in the book "Korean history in maps" on page 137 it is stated as well that 5.322 Dutch soldiers fought in the Korean war. (https://books.google.nl/books?id=46OTBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137)

I think this suffices to change the number of 819 to 5322 in the column on the right. Rekkedmjitram (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Misconceived. Source clearly identifies 819 as the force strength. 5322 is just the total number of combatants over time. sirlanz 23:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 Not done per sirlanz. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

Change the date of the end of the Korean war from Jul 27, 1953 to Apr 27, 2018 because it was a cease fire not a peace treaty RearAdmiralJohnFranklin (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Premature to say it's ended?

Until they sign a peace treaty, isn't it a bit premature to say that the war has ended? Imzadi 1979 → 22:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It ended in 1953. Please see the discussion above.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

De Jure ending?

An agreement to eventually sign a peace treaty is neither a peace treaty nor any change in any 'de jure' status, there should either be no second set of dates at all or indicate that it remains ongoing. 97.91.249.83 (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Remove the second set of dates.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I also agree. The ROK's official announcement was a promise for peace and an aim to sign a formal treaty later this year. Very different from actually signing a formal treaty; until such an event has happened, either the "de jure" section should be removed or, at the very least, keep the second set of dates with 25 June 1950 – present. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 08:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nice4What: Please contribute here before reverting. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 09:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, until the ink is on the paper any thing can happen.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree If this de facto/de jure approach is adopted here it would have to go everywhere. e.g. 6 Day War Israel and Syria... Mztourist (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, OP and @Nick Mitchell 98:. That's what I was trying to convey in my edits when they were reverted by Nice. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Question

How did Germany get involved in the Korean War and what was its strength? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

More mention of other UN Forces

Dear Editors,

This is a great article but I think would be even better with more mention of the other UN forces that contributed, since it was suposed to be a UN operation and actually was. EG over 100,000 British and Commonwealth forces participated, including those of my native New Zealand, with over 4,000 casualties including over 1,000 dead. Their naval and air contributions were especially significant, in the light of the antiquated US forces mainly involved including propeller driven planes like the Mustang (which incidentally used British Rolls Royce engines produced under license). Admittedly their contributions may have been small compared to the American effort, but it was not a negligible contribution. Likewise for other countries. Also realize they agreed to serve under MacArthur as part of US formations and commands that are credited in the article, leading to their contributions being even more buried and invisible.

I realize there are other sections in Wikipedia where one can look up specific info about these other forces, but do still think the main article should contain at least a passing reference to them. If it is not preferred to include more mention of their impact in the earlier sections of the main narrative, perhaps a new subheading lower down could be created about the participation of other UN allies, even if only a paragraph. EG "Contributions of other UN Members".

Yours respectfully

John Brabyn PhD, amateur student of history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabrabyn (talk • contribs) 05:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, the US provided about 90% of military personnel to the UN forces. I think we do mention the other UN participants. We even have a picture of NZ troops. By reckoning, we have 25 pictures relating to the US, and one for Britain, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. That roughly relates to military participation. Perhaps, in fact, there's an imbalance towards NZ!!! The real problem is that we have only about 13 pictures of or about Koreans — and this is supposed to be about the Korean War — and only two relating to the Chinese. Of course, we can only use the pictures that are available, but this does give a skew impression of the war. Perhaps fewer US pictures would be better...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
That 90% is of course problematic, whilst technically true that is because SK forces are not counted.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, they are not part of the UN forces as such. The comment above clearly did not refer to SK, though in fact SK is probably underrepresented in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Good comments and the 90% may be right if referring to UN forces, and it is great that NZ is over-represented!! I still think that although there are several other articles on individual countries' contributions, the spirit of the main article would be better served with more mention of the other countries supporting the US (and indeed serving under US command as part of their formations) was to be sprinkled throughout. Also as someone mentioned, the 5.7m figure for US troops has got to be fictitious. And, as also mentioned, more mention of ROK forces is needed. Thanks for considering my suggestions, John Brabyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.63.222.221 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The Korean War is over now

Hey guys, it looks like the war is over. They signed a peace agreement today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:81:C401:A982:A9AA:576D:1CCB:D19E (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Per CNN, "The two Koreas said they were taking a step closer to peace by signing a joint military agreement that removes the threat of conflict on the Peninsula."[4] A "step closer to peace" is not peace. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The Korean War ended in 1953: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Some people say that it didn't end because there was no peace treaty. This is bogus. WW2 did not end with a treaty, as discussed before. There is an ongoing Korean conflict which began in 1945 and has continued long after the war.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Fighting in the Korean War ended with an Armistice. No peace treaty was signed. There was no outright victor. In international law it is legal for either party to an open-ended armistice to re-open armed conflict (on submitting proper notice). This is very different from WWII. WWII in Europe ended with the invasion of Berlin, the suicide of Hitler, and the unconditional surrender of Germany. WWII in the Pacific ended with the explosion of two nuclear bombs, followed by Japan's unconditional surrender. Italy signed an armistice in 1943; along with some other minor Axis nations, they later negotiated and signed peace treaties in Paris in 1947.
You don't need to negotiate a peace treaty (a negotiated settlement) if you have completely defeated your enemy and forced their unconditional surrender. WWII mainly didn't end with treaties, because the major Axis powers were completely defeated and forced to surrender unconditionally. Nothing like that happened in Korea. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Jack Upland is correct. This issue has been discussed at great length before. Mztourist (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
True, Korea is somewhat unique. The problem with having a negotiated settlement to the war has always been there isn't an obvious settlement. Both sides fought for unification of the country under their government. Obviously those demands are incompatible. If they had a treaty recognising their land and maritime borders that would legitimise the division of the country, which neither side wants. I don't think this means that North and South Korea are at war, any more than China and Taiwan are at war. The PRC government and the ROC government never even had an armistice. They continue to have a military confrontation and to claim each others' territory. Is the Chinese Civil War ongoing? I don't think so. As Mztourist says, this has been discussed at great length.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
On a similar note, the Six-Day War isn't regarded as ongoing even though Israel and Syria have never signed a peace treaty. Mztourist (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The parties to the Six Day War never declared war, either. I agree that it is misleading to claim that it is therefore ongoing.
I agree that it is very confusing to say the Korean War ended in 2018. And because the Korean War was not a war between states - it was effectively a civil war - I suppose you can say it ends when either one side is victorious, or the fighting stops.
So how can you have a 'peace treaty' between two countries that are not at war, and have never recognized one-another? I must say, it is hard to find out what kind of 'treaty' is on the table. Perhaps mutual recognition, the ejection of US troops from the south, and some trade agreements? MrDemeanour (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Formal End of Korean War

Just wondering now that North and South Korea have agreed to officially end the war when the time comes that they sign the agreement presumably at the end 2018 at that time can we change the date in the InfoBox from 25 June 1950 to ?? Month here 2018 or does the 1953 date have to stick? or can we do something like 25 June 1950 to 27 July 1953 (Armistice Agreement) then ?? Month 2018 (Formal end). YborCityJohn (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Most historical works give the Korean War's dates as 1950-1953. That was the period of heavy fighting, as opposed to the low-level Korean conflict which has bubbled on since 1945. It is not normal to use the date of a peace treaty as the end date of a war. World War One ended in 1918, not 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles. World War Two ended in 1945, not 1951 with the Treaty of San Francisco (which many of the combatants didn't sign anyway). This issue has previously been discussed at length. If a peace treaty is signed, this should be noted, but it shouldn't obliterate the existing history of the war. Putting 2018 as the end date would be highly confusing to an uninformed reader. In any case, we don't know that a peace treaty is going to be signed. Surely the US has to sign too, and that means that ratification by Congress which is far from certain. And how long will such an agreement last - see the Agreed Framework? I don't agree with the current de facto/de jure dates. Under which law? There was no declaration of war by anyone as far as I know.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Most historical works also agree that the Korean War was never formally ended, as an armistice is very different from a peace treaty. WW2 was formally ended with Japan's surrender. The treaty of San Francisco ended American occupation of Japan, not the war itself. Not sure while you brought it up anyways, as it's clearly unrelated from the subject at hand. It would be much more appropriate to say that the war is still ongoing, until a formal peace treaty is signed. Le W 896343 (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly - just a formality. The war ended in 1953.50.111.19.178 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I must question the phrase "Most historical works..."; on the basis of accuracy. Is there any RS support for this assertion? Secondly, there is the counterpoint that there was never a declaration of war by any nation involved in the conflict. The two Koreas did not recognize each other's legitimacy, so as far as they were concerned it was a civil war. Likewise, Truman insisted that it was not a war, calling the UN involvement a "Police Action". The involvement of China and the other Communist states consisted entirely of "Volunteers", which were officially not part of their home country military forces. Therefore since there was no "war", then no peace treaty is required. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
True. The reason I brought up the Treaty of San Francisco is because of the notion that wars need to be ended with peace treaties. WW2, the biggest war in world history, was not ended by a peace treaty. The Korean War was ended by the signing of the armistice which has basically been observed ever since. The front line hasn't changed, and, while there have been clashes, these have been relatively minor. If there is a peace treaty, I think this should be a postscript, not a palimpsest.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
With regard to my claim that "Most historical works give the Korean War's dates as 1950-1953", please see my comment under "The Korean War is over now". There is a plethora of sources that say this.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we say the two countries are still at war in the main part of the infobox

Can we say the two countries are still at war in the main part of the infobox? We can swap the stuff in note c with the stuff in the infobox. Tigerdude9 (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

As the article indicates, the Korean War is the historical event that ended with the Armistice agreement in 1953. The Korean Conflict is the ongoing state of tensions between the two Korean governments. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"Chinese Civil War (01945 - 01949)" (中 Civil War)

¿What does the following sentence aktually⁵ mean?

"As a token of gratitude, between 50,000 and 70,000 Korean veterans that served in the PLA were sent back along with their weapons, and they later played a significant role in the initial invasion of South Korea.[88]"

Specifically⁵, what does it mean for 毛泽东 and 中 to "send back" (pp) Korean (Chosǒn) veterans to Chosǒn? The only way i kan process this is if they were 'kontraktually' enslaved to 毛泽东. Otherwise, they weren't 'sent back along with their weapons'; they returned home of their own akcord when their support of the civil war militarisms of 毛泽东 ended, while being gifted a rifle or without being required by law to return their rifles to the 中华人民共和国 Armory⁵.

Shouldn't this be, for example, relying on Imperial Standard English: gooogle.com "As a token of gratitude, between 50,000 and 70,000 Korean veterans that served in the PLA were discharged with their service weapons, and they later played a significant role in the initial invasion of South Korea.[88]"

i wouldn't write it that way in Branch English. i'd propose something nearer to this:

"As a token of gratitude for kolaborating in ⦝enter total number here⦛ civilian and military murders in the civil war in 中, between 50,000 and 70,000 Korean veterans that served in the PLA were discharged with their murder tools, most typikally ⦨enter model here̚⦛ rifles, and they later played a significant role in the initial invasion of South Korea.[88]"

My belief is that this deskriptive mutual akcountability⁵ for murder under State sanktion would help achieve kalm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamtheclayman (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope. The tone alone fails wp:npov.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
However, I think this sentence needs clarification. The Korean veterans were always going to return. How was that a token of gratitude?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Police actions and Resolution 377

From the lead:

As a war undeclared by all participants, the conflict helped bring the term "police action" into common use. It also led to the permanent alteration of the balance of power within the United Nations, where Resolution 377—passed in 1950 to allow a bypassing of the Security Council if that body could not reach an agreement—led to the General Assembly displacing the Security Council as the primary organ of the UN.[1]

Firstly, I can't see any evidence that "police action" is in common use. Secondly, I can't find any evidence that Resolution 377 altered the balance of power in the UN. This might be one historian's view, but that's all. And the resolution isn't mentioned in the body of this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There being no response, I have removed this.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cornwell, RD (1980). World History of the Twentieth Century New Edition. London: Longman House. p. 540. ISBN 978-0582330757.

Grammar in the comparison of forces section

The grammar in the comparison of forces section is not good and detracts from the clarity of the section. There are several uses of the conjunction "and" when it should be "but" as well as run-on sentence96.241.177.111 (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It could be better written.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

North Korean infiltration of refugees?

From Civilian deaths and massacres

In addition to conventional military operations, North Korean soldiers fought the UN forces by infiltrating guerrillas among refugees. These soldiers disguised as refugees would approach UN forces asking for food and help, then open fire and attack.

The citations in that section do not appear to justify the claim that such incidents actually happened outside the imagination of American commanders, yet it is stated as fact in the article. Zetaeta (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

True, none of those sources say that it actually happened. I will amend the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Having examined the sources in question, I agree with Jack Upland. I would not have reverted his deletion if he had mentioned this thread in his original edit summary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I forgot the edit summary. I still think that the paragraph could do with some improvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Treaty by the end of this year?

I can't find any source that says that was promised. The Panmunjom Declaration said they would work together this year to bring it about, but didn't set a deadline, as far as I can see. I have removed this from the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. --Daviddwd (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

Please change Commanders and leaders 

   First Republic of Korea Syngman Rhee
   First Republic of Korea Chung Il-kwon
   First Republic of Korea Paik Sun-yup
   First Republic of Korea Shin Sung-mo
   Harry S. Truman
   Douglas MacArthur
   Matthew Ridgway
   Mark Wayne Clark
   Clement Attlee
   Winston Churchill

   Kim Il-sung
   Pak Hon-yong
   Choi Yong-kun
   Kim Chaek †
   Mao Zedong
   Peng Dehuai
   Chen Geng
   Deng Hua
   Joseph Stalin  †
   Nikolai Bulganin

to 

  irst Republic of Korea Syngman Rhee †
   First Republic of Korea Chung Il-kwon †
   First Republic of Korea Paik Sun-yup 
   First Republic of Korea Shin Sung-mo †
   Harry S. Truman †
   Douglas MacArthur †
   Matthew Ridgway †
   Mark Wayne Clark †
   Clement Attlee †
   Winston Churchill †

   Kim Il-sung †
   Pak Hon-yong †
   Choi Yong-kun †
   Kim Chaek †
   Mao Zedong †
   Peng Dehuai †
   Chen Geng †
   Deng Hua †
   Joseph Stalin  †
   Nikolai Bulganin † 81.173.79.181 (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it the cross is only used if they died during the conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
To be accurate, it is not a cross. It is an Obelus, or Dagger icon. In this context it is used to indicate a death, however Wikipedia:Manual of Style seems to be unclear on whether or not it should be used for combat deaths only. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
If it denotes people who are now dead who once faught in a war that means a hell of a lot of articles are wrong (such as WW1 or WW2).Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Slatersteven, any other usage of the cross/Obelus would make it meaningless as most leaders in every conflict more than 40 years past are now dead. My understanding and approach has always been that it is only used to denote those leaders killed in the action described on the relevant page. Mztourist (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Lets not confuse the issue unnecessarily. The question was never about whether or not it was for people who are now dead. The question was whether or not it was appropriate for someone involved in the conflict who died in that time period, or was just for someone who died in combat in that conflict. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, that appears to be exactly what 81.173.79.181 is proposing. For example Syngman Rhee died in 1965, while Kim Il-Sung died in 1994. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't waste my time with rabbit trials. I couldn't care less about silly quibbles about Syngman Ree or Kim Il-Sung. The only issue that I'm concerned about is whether or not Stalin deserves an Obleus here. Thank you. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I think you're wasting time. Currently both Stalin and Kim Chaek have an obelus, but neither of them died in combat. The proposal here is to put an obelus against everyone who is dead.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
So (at the risk of repeating myself) does a non-combat death warrant an oblesus or not? Mediatech492 (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The symbol used is  † [KIA — Killed in Action]], so it isn't appropriate for Stalin. On the World War II page it is not used for Roosevelt, Hitler, or Mussolini.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Mediatech492 waste your time? "Rabbit Trials'? Try explaining your position clearly in future.Mztourist (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mztourist My question has already been was asked and answered. Ask Jack Upland to explain it to you if your still confused. Thank you and have a good day. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Malenkov

Under "Commanders and leaders" in the infobox, Georgy Malenkov currently appears as Stalin's only successor. According to his page, Malenkov became Premier of the USSR on 6 March 1953 after Stalin's death and he was effectively named First Secretary of the Party. However, on 14 March he was removed from the Party Secretariat, and Khrushchev became First Secretary (though he wasn't formally named as such till September). The Armistice was signed on the 27 July. Stalin only became Premier at the time of WW2, and it was the role of Party Secretary that was seen as the leading role from his time onwards. In reality, there was an interregnum between the death of Stalin and Khrushchev's succession of power. There was a collective leadership, but it appears that after the first week Khrushchev had emerged as the top leader. The article only mentions Malenkov once, and this is before 1953. The problem with infoboxes is they create factoids and disputes about nothing. Previously Molotov and Beria were listed, but strangely not Khrushchev. I think it would be better to just list Stalin.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

it would be better to list any and all leaders, or none.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
What specifically are you suggesting?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Evidence suggests that the South actually initiated the war

All of my revisions were deleted due to once citing another encyclopedia (I assume Britannica), but in fact this was not done by me and appears in the current version of the article. I would like to add these revisions again, so I started this entry. The revision included the following points:

-To make the article more neutral, I added the claim that the South may have started the war, supported by the research of Bruce Cumings, Karunakar Gupta, and Channing Liem (in addition to North Korean historians - I also added the point of view that, due to the frequent clashes, the war started earlier), and also added information to support the claim. Among the reasons that indicate South Korea started the war:

-According to the usual story, fighting started in the Ongjin area. This area had little military importance to the North if it were heading southward, but for the South, it was a good place to start for heading northward, for reasons that include its connection to Pyongyang, having the only area in North Korea at the time (Haeju) that had experienced any resistance to the government, and allegedly having the headquarters of the (South) Korean Workers' Party. (Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War, ch. 18).

-On the morning of June 26th, the day after the start of the war, South Korea announced that it had actually captured Haeju in a counterattack. However, because of the overall military situation (including the rapid retreat by the South) a counterattack by the South would be extremely unlikely - suggesting that South Korean forces had already launched an attack on the town at the outbreak of the war.

-South Korean dictator Rhee Syngman repeatedly expressed his desire to conquer North Korea by force, and asked for US authorization to do so.

-Before the war had even started, the US began to evacuate American wives. Based on a plan worked out in advance, The New York Herald Tribune of 26 August 1950 noted that the captain of the Norwegian ship Reinford had started evacuations : "The Norwegian captain told how he and his crew had evacuated 650 women and children from Inchon Port of south Korea just two-three hours before the north Korean communists invaded south Korea. When the captain, Johnson, awoke in the boat half past five in the morning, an American missionary asked him to help evacuate by his boat 650 women and children who wished to escape an imminent danger." (cited in "The US Imperialists Started the Korean War", p. 179-80) The evacuation plan is also mentioned in passing in IF Stone's "Hidden History of the Korean War 1950-1951" on page 1.

Other points: In prelude to war:

-I added notes by a reporter about the meeting between Dulles and Rhee, and added that the Weathersby documents do not actually prove that North Korea initiated the war (an important point, I believe). It is also important to note that all Soviet documents pertaining to the Korean war were given to South Korea (North Korea's enemy) in 1994 and are now located there.

In comparison of forces:

-The current version of the article says that North Korea had as many as 200,000 troops in June 1950. This is an extremely exaggerated figure and no source is provided - according to BBC, North Korea had at most 135,000 troops (https://www.bbc.com/news/10162283).

-The part on the South ignores the rapid expansion of the military by the South. I added that the numbers for the South do not include the reserves, police, and militia (including terrorist paramilitary groups like the Northwest Youth League), as the numbers for North Korea's reserves are added. To balance it out, I also added the point that, according to Cumings, "the two armies [were] at about equal strength by June 1950." Also, a minor point, but I believe there were actually 500 American military advisers and troops in the South, not 200-300.

These were the sources cited:

(appears in the current version of the article)Millett (PHD), Allan. "Korean War". britannica.com. Archived from the original on 24 April 2016. Retrieved 21 April 2016.

(appears in the current version of the article)"Korean War". History.com. History Channel. Archived from the original on 20 April 2016. Retrieved 21 April 2016.

Cumings, Bruce (1990). The Origins of the Korean War, vol. 2. Princeton University Press. chapter 18.

Liem, Channing (1992). The Korean War: An Unanswered Question. Albany, NY: Committee for a New Korea Policy.

Ho, Jong Ho; Kang, Sok-hui; Pak, Thae-ho (1993). The US Imperialists Started the Korean War (http://www.korean-books.com.kp/KBMbooks/en/book/politics/4025.pdf PDF). Foreign Languages Publishing House. Pyongyang.

"Setting the Record Straight on the Korean War" (https://monthlyreview.org/2000/10/01/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-korean-war/). Monthly Review. Retrieved 31 May 2019.

Bruce, Cumings (2010). The Korean War. Modern Library.

Simon, Geoff and Benn, Tony (1995). Korea: The Search for Sovereignty. St. Martin's Press. p. 187.

"North Korea attacks - June 1950" (https://www.bbc.com/news/10162283). BBC. 26 May 2010. Retrieved 31 May 2019.

Bruce, Cumings (2010). The Korean War (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/books/excerpt-the-korean-war.html). Modern Library.

Stone, IF. The Hidden History of the Korean War 1950-1951. Monthly Review Press. 

—  Comment added by Incogreader (talk 17:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
You are correct in saying you did not insert the encyclopedia as a source, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with citing an encyclopedia in any case. It was clearly wrong to revert you with that edit summary. However, I think your edits were too detailed for the introduction, and too partisan. The claim that the South started the war, and the information about Ongjin, are already included under "Course of the war". Rhee's threats of war are mentioned in "Prelude to war". The current introduction does not actually say who started the war, so I think it is neutral on this point. I don't think it is necessary to flesh out this controversy in the introduction. And without a source that suggests Weathersby's Soviet documents are dubious you shouldn't editorialise to suggest this.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but in the current version, it says that the "war began on 25 June 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea[41][42] following a series of clashes along the border" - which to me (if it doesn't say so explicitly), suggests that North Korea started the war (if South Korea attacked Haeju (if nowhere else) first, the war did not actually start with a North Korean invasion). If the introduction is not a good place to discuss this, my suggestion would be to change the wording to something similar to the Chinese version - "On 25 June 1950 war broke out, with North Korea crossing the 38th parallel on the grounds of counterattacks, following a series of clashes along the border" (this is loosely based on the Chinese version), or, alternatively, "On 25 June 1950 war broke out, with North Korea invading South Korea on the grounds of counterattacks, following a series of clashes along the border."
As far as Weathersby's Soviet documents, George Burchett, the son of renowned journalist Wilfred Burchett, noted (in regards to the handwritten documents relating to biological warfare, but the same could apply to the documents cited in "Prelude to war") that "Soviet ‘documents’ surreptitiously copied from an archive displaced from its original location into ‘enemy territory’ (North and South Korea are still technically at war – as we are reminded almost every day) cannot outweigh the compiled evidence of American guilt." Food for thought, but even if they are not dubious and are genuine, the Weathersby documents still do not prove that North Korea initiated the war. To be neutral, under "Prelude to War" I suggest adding to the first paragraph of the sentence "Kim began seeking Stalin's support for an invasion in March 1949, traveling to Moscow to attempt to persuade him, _according to Weathersby, whose work is based on Soviet documents given to South Korea in 1994._" and to the second to last paragraph,
"The documents cited by Weathersby do not actually prove that North Korea initiated the war. For his part, Syngman Rhee repeatedly expressed his desire to conquer the North, including when US diplomat John Foster Dulles visited Korea on 18 June.[1] The reporter William Matthews wrote after the meeting with Dulles one week before the start of the war that Rhee was "militantly for the unification of Korea. Openly says it must be brought about soon . . . Rhee pleads justice of going into North country. Thinks it could succeed in a few days . . . if he can do it with our help, he will do it." Mathews also noted that Rhee talked of attacking even if "it brought on a general war." [2] Dulles told Rhee that "You are not alone. You will never be alone as long as you continue to play worthily your part in the great design of human freedom."[3]"
Also, other points from a quick scan of the article: under "war crimes," where it says, the "Commission verified over 14,000 civilians were killed in the Jeju uprising (1948–49)", it should be noted that these are only verified cases investigated and confirmed by the Commission, other estimates put the number at 60,000 (or could even be as high as 80,000, according to Cumings, page translated into French (an English version does not seem to be available online)). Also, under "Bombing of North Korea," it says that "Conrad Crane asserts that while the US worked towards developing chemical and biological weapons, the US military "possessed neither the ability, nor the will", to use them in combat.[335]" There should also be some reference to the response to Crane by Endicott/Hagerman, which says that in "February 1950, Brigadier-General William Creasy, responsible for the biological weapons program of the Chemical Corps, notified the Department of Defence that three agents had been successfully tested in field trials with the most advanced munition (M33/M114 500lb. aerosol bomb) and that given three months notice supplies would be sufficient to place an effective dosage over 90 square miles every four days. This modest capacity could be expanded within a year to 500 square miles every four days." (https://www.yorku.ca/sendicot/ReplytoColCrane.htm) I suggest, after that sentence, to put "However, by early 1950, according to Canadian researchers Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman, the United States had successfully tested the M33/M114 500lb. aerosol bomb capable of dispersing biological weapons.' " Also, one more point: in the current version it gives "North Korean hangul." However, North Korea does not use hangul, it uses josongul/chosongul.
With regard to the supposed Soviet documents, surely they can be verified by consulting Soviet archives. It is of course true that any document — even in the repository of truth and wisdom that is Soviet archives — is not necessarily authentic, reliable, or relevant. But without a source that doubts the veracity of these documents, I don't think there's much we can do. We should not editorialise in the article, casting doubt on Weathersby. Regarding the bombing of North Korea and biological warfare, please bear in mind that these topics have their own articles and any extra information should be added there in the first instance.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Russia no longer has the Soviet documents (all documents relating to the Korean War were given to South Korea in 1994, so they are essentially verifiable only with documents provided by the South Korean government). I see that my original edit was wrong to question them without providing source for this (George Burchett questioned the authenticity of other Soviet documents from South Korea, but nothing specifically related to the ones cited in "Prelude to War"). However, I still think the changes I suggested (in my second post) are good changes.
The argument that South Korea and America started the war has been pushed by the communist side since its outbreak, along with probable lies concerning chemical and biological warfare. In countries with a free press, unlike China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union, it is generally accepted that this information was a propaganda tactic and a state sponsored lie. When starting WW2, Japan claimed it was protecting Asia. Few know what Japan was supposedly protecting Asia from. You have to consider the source and decide if that society, especially if it has a state controlled media, is actually trustworthy given historical circumstances.Zimm82 (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It's true that Rhee (like Kim Il-Sung) desired to unify Korea under his leadership, which is why the U.S. purposely avoided supplying South Korea with offensive weapons (for example, as noted in this article, South Korea had zero tanks at the time of the North Korean invasion). By contrast, the Soviets built up the North Korean military, and Stalin personally approved a North Korean invasion after being convinced that the U.S. would not intervene, even sending top Soviet generals to North Korea to help draw up the invasion plans. It's a complete inversion of the accepted historical narrative studied in detail by most RS to suggest that the U.S./South Korean side actually initiated the war, and while this view is not exactly so WP:FRINGE as to justify excluding it entirely, Wikipedia is certainly correct to treat it as a small minority view with one especially prominent proponent (Cumings). In addition, Incogreader's personal commentary on Weathersby 1993 constitutes clear-cut original research and was completely inappropriate in article space: It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to critically examine the underlying evidence cited by RS in order to "prove" said RS "wrong."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The obvious fact that the North was better trained, better equipped, better prepared, and better led does not prove that the North started the war. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
A few points: the argument that South Korea started the war, likely with US approval (this is one interpretation of Dulles' statement to Rhee a week before the war that "You are not alone. You will never be alone as long as you continue to play worthily your part in the great design of human freedom."), is not limited to the communist side or to Cumings (Karunakar Gupta also suggests this in "How Did the Korean Begin," as does Channing Liem, former professor at SUNY-New Paltz and retired SOUTH Korean diplomat, I.F. Stone raises questions about the origins of the war, among others (the article also cites Stewart Lone and Gavan McCormack) - not counting North Korea and North Korean historians, or for many years, China). Even Secretary of State Dean Acheson "never was quite sure that Rhee did not provoke" the Korean War. It is thus far from "generally accepted that this information was a propaganda tactic and a state sponsored lie" (it's true that it is widely believed in the West, but it still remains disputed by some mainstream Western historians). Cumings notes the "absence of independent observers" of the outbreak of the Korean War. The only evidence provided to the UN after 25 June 1950 to support the view that North Korea fired first was based on unconfirmed reports by the South Korean government/military (whose credibility was doubtful, even to the US, as Channing Liem observes).
As far as the militaries of North and South Korea, according to Cumings "the two armies [were] at about equal strength by June 1950." According to US senator Connally, before the outbreak of the war, the US had given significant aid to the South in the form of "weapons worth 57 million dollars at the original cost. The cost will double if old weapons are to be replaced with new ones. The equipment included over 100,000 automatic rifles and carbines, 2,000 machine guns, 50 million bullets (0.3 inch-calibre) and a considerable quantity of heavy weapons. They included 60-80 mm mortars, 105 mm howitzers, 57 mm and 37 mm guns. Further, we have handed over to them thousands of shell rockets and hand-grenades, 150 anti-tank guns together with 44,000 shells, various kinds of armoured cars, trucks, thousands of mines and other explosives, a fairly large quantity of communication apparatuses, 79 war vessels and liaison planes. In addition to these weapons, we have given them haulage tractors, motors, generators, barges, medical supplies and other instruments of military value, which are worth 85 million dollars." (this amounts to about 1.5 billion dollars of aid in current dollars)
Although South Korea did not have its own tanks and on its own may have been less equipped than North Korea in June 1950, this does not factor into consideration the massive military assistance provided by the United States starting from day 1, soon joined by 15 other countries providing a combined total of troops in the millions with dozens of countries providing the South with weapons (for example, by September 1950, the US alone had deployed 500 of its own tanks in South Korea, not to mention providing support with its air force, navy and ground troops). Rhee believed that it would be easy to conquer North Korea (in the meeting with Dulles on 18 June, reporter William Matthews noted that Rhee believed an invasion "could succeed in a few days," and wished to do so even if "it brought on a general war," and a high-ranking US intelligence official also believed that "if an outbreak did occur, the south Korean forces ('best army in Asia') could wipe out the north Koreans with no difficulty." Also, even if we accept all of the Weathersby/Soviet/South Korean documents, they have to be considered in the context of the frequent armed intrusions north of the 38th parallel by the South - according to Korean Military Advisory Group materials cited by Cumings, there were 5 border incidents and incursions near Haeju (north of the 38th parallel) in the first two weeks of June 1950, before the war had officially started (out of a total of 27 border incidents between 1-15 June 1950, that is, nearly 2 per day - many if not most clearly initiated by the South, with the ones counted as initiated by the North including contacts with South Korean guerrillas, rather than the Korean Peoples' Army). In fact, the clashes were so common that some researchers, such as Hugh Deane, suggest that the war actually started earlier (as early as 1945) - for its part, North Korea claims that there were as many as 5,150 intrusions by the South by land, air, and sea north of the 38th parallel between 1947 to 25 June 1950. Incogreader 3/6/2019
So, is there any agreement/objection to changing the sentence in the intro to "On 25 June 1950 war broke out, with North Korea crossing the 38th parallel on the grounds of counterattacks, following a series of clashes along the border" - I feel that this is more neutral, it doesn't place blame on any particular party, just states what happened (in the current version it says that the war began "when North Korea invaded South Korea"). If evidence is needed that sources beyond Cumings question the origin of the war, I would note Karunakar Gupta "How Did the Korean War Begin?" (according to Google, this has 55 citations), IF Stone's "Hidden History of the Korean War" (cited 256 times), as well as Channing Liem's "The Korean War: An Unanswered Question" and McCormack and the other author cited under "Course of war." Also noteworthy is the well-researched "The US Imperialists Started the Korean War" by North Korean historians, which I feel should appear in the article, if not as a citation, at least as further reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incogreader (talk • contribs) 19:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cumings 2005, pp. 249–58.
  2. ^ Bruce, Cumings (2010). The Korean War. Modern Library. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  3. ^ Benn, Tony (1995). Korea: The Search for Sovereignty. St. Martin's Press. p. 187.

Diversity of Photo Montage

Although really nicely done, shouldn't the montage be more diverse? There is not even one photo showing North Korean or Chinese forces (maybe Soviet?) or any UN troops, beside American. There are two photos from Incheon landing. Even refugees are in front of US tank... It gives very specific view of the conflict, a biased view I would say. PruskiZapasnik (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What actual images do you propose using? (Hohum @) 22:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it should be more diverse and look forward to seeing what is proposed. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Chinese volunteers swearing to fight before the Battle of Chosin Reservoir
Here's one I got from Chinese WP. It's not hi-rez, but as part of a montage, impressions matter more than details. Unlike battle scene images, you can see the soldiers faces and recognize the nationality. --A D Monroe III(talk) 00:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Result in infobox

People have been edit warring over the results in the infobox, with no attempt at reaching any consensus. Per Infobox military conflict guidelines for results: this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive".. Thus, I've changed it to "Inconclusive", and opened this discussion to see if any editor actually has any justification for going against guidelines.

Comments? --A D Monroe III(talk) 19:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

ReallyAgain (talk · contribs) changed "Military stalemate" to "Armistice". The result already has "Korean Armistice Agreement". So "Armistice" is redundant repetition. He then tried to argue it wasn't a stalemate by saying the US could've just nuked North Korea but didn't want to. Well, the war ending in a stalemate is well sourced. So not only does his edit go against that, but once you start arguing results based on what could have happened, that opens the door to all sorts of POV pushing. So Mediatech492 (talk · contribs) was right in reverting him. Now as for "inconclusive". I haven't been active lately so I wasn't aware of the latest guidelines. But an RFC resulted in no consensus to follow a strict interpretation of the infobox guidelines. Stalemate is clear and straightforward. Inconclusive is more vague and ambiguous, and is used if both sides can argue a victory. But that's not the case with this war. The infobox is a quick summary of the article. And it's clearly sourced that the stalemate led to an armistice. Spellcast (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It was a stalemate. Both sides decided they didn't want to go on fighting. Of course, Korea was a limited war. It could have gone nuclear, war could have spread into China and the USSR, etc, but no one wanted that. I find "inconclusive" confusing. The war was quite conclusive in a sense. It was a stalemate with the border basically returning to its original position. On the other hand, you could argue that no war is conclusive because history continues.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
First, I have a couple points.
  • "Inconclusive" does not mean there is disagreement; it is simply a lack of definite conclusion, which does apply to the Korean War. (And, BTW, some on each side currently do claim victory in the Korean War, but that's not significant here.)
  • The RFC on strict application of the guidelines on results was indeed no consensus, which goes both ways. It did not conclude we should not adhere to the guidelines. Effectively, there is no reason to bring up that RFC.
That said, I'm not going to insist on "inconclusive" and nothing else, but I will expect that arguments for "stalemate" (or other) be better than what's been stated so far. I would think that, rather than editors' opinions (however well-reasoned), it should be based only on reliable source consensus, right? Do a clear majority use "stalemate" over any other simple (non-nuanced) term? Can we list those here? ("Non-nuanced" is required because that's all that can fit in an infobox, both by design and purpose. It may be, as with other conflicts with less-than-decisive results, the sources don't agree on any non-nuanced phrasing; it's not really the sort of thing they like to do.)
If we can't get this sort of clear support for "stalemate" (or another simple term), I would say the guideline would then have to take precedence.
Or, as a last resort, we leave results out of the infobox and all move on to useful editing elsewhere. --A D Monroe III(talk) 02:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I think views about views should be based on more than views. As John Lennon said, facts are stubborn things.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Huh? What are you suggesting we base this on, then? --A D Monroe III(talk) 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, stalemate is a straightforward fact. The article has a whole subheading of "Stalemate (July 1951 – July 1953)". And if you want more detail, read the cited The Korean War: Years of Stalemate (2000). So I've restored the long standing version. If you want to argue otherwise, then the burden of evidence is on you to show that inconclusive is more widely used. And even if it is, which I doubt, that's still not an argument for using a more clearly defined, straightforward term. Spellcast (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course, saying it's a fact does not prove it's a fact. Evidence for an actual fact should be easy to find. Leaving out that last step makes the "fact" sound like POV, and actually undermines the argument. We should do better than that. --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Reading on a little in the infobox guideline: "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail". (Hohum @) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Stalemate does accurately describe the outcome. It's far more clear and straightforward than "inconclusive", which in this context seems to more or less mean "no outright winner". Which again, "stalemate" also conveys but in less vague terms. In any case, guidelines don't take precedence over policies. That is, verifiability and the due weight of how reliable sources generally describe it. Spellcast (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree on venerability. So, show me the sources that verify "stalemate" over other terms. That would actually settle this.
Also, "inconclusive" follows guidelines, so doesn't need more evidence than anything else, but is the default term if nothing else qualifies.
Seriously, aren't the arguments here weak and repetitive? How are they different from ILIKEIT? And editing the contentious term during the discussion is the definition of edit warring. This won't solve anything. Anyone could come along later and use the these arguments and methods to justify inserting any term. For the article's sake (and for the sake of not having us go through this again), please, just list the sources that support "stalemate". That will end this once and for all, and nothing else will. --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
It is clearly a more complex result than stalemate, inconclusive, or any other single word, so don't use one, and link to the relevant section. Cuts through all the ILIKEIT. For every source that states stalemate, another will be another found to say something else. Lets focus efforts on something better. (Hohum @) 22:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of what the result states, linking to the stalemate and armistice sections from the infobox results is a good idea, but having nothing else but the links would be a disappointing (if acceptable) compromise. It's basically admitting we (the editors) can't agree on anything. If we can't find a term per consensus of sources, then per guidelines we could (I'd even say should) go with "inconclusive". Then readers can follow links to expand on this if interested. Any better suggestions? --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see much difference between "stalemate" and "inconclusive" and either would be appropriate in the inbox. I definitely think one of the two words should be in the info box. Take your pick, but don't weasel out and leave the result blank. Smallchief (talk)
I'm not coming from a place of ILIKEIT. Both stalemate and inconclusive are OK. But if we're being pedantic and can ONLY pick one, I've already explained why I think the former is a more informative term. I'm not sure why you're asking for sources as if it's controversial. It's not. You can easily find a source using either one, but I find stalemate to be the more common term when characterising the end of the war. But whatever, here you go:
  • Max Hastings (1987). The Korean War. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. p. 228. Chapter subheading "Toward Stalemate" covering end of war.
  • Dr C. P. Neimeyer (2007). U.S. Marines in the Korean War. Washington DC: History Division, US Marine Corps. p. 3. "This was especially evident during the 'stalemate' phase of the war, 1952-1953."
  • Paul M. Edwards (2010). Historical Dictionary of the Korean War (2nd ed.). Lanham: The Scarecrow Press. p. vii. "the war ended in a stalemate, roughly where it had begun, not much to be proud of. But what a stalemate is was!". And on page 164, Douglas MacArthur himself called it a "military stalemate".
Spellcast (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for getting to sources. I have some replies to the statements that came before, however, to ensure we're on a solid footing for making actual progress here.
  • ILIKEIT was a comment on the style of arguments presented that were weak and lacked sources, not any editors' actual motivations, of which we don't know or care. We all AGF, of course ("pedantic" excused).
  • And again, editors explaining why they think what term is best is just the editors' opinion, and have no weight here; this is the style of argument that prompted the ILIKEIT allegory.
  • The results in infobox can only have one simple term, both per guidelines and the entire purpose and design of infoboxes. More detailed or nuanced explanations must go in the body, not the infobox.
  • The results are controversial as editors keep changing it and there's no consensus on a term. The fact we have this discussion is proof by itself.
  • We absolutely want sources; if this discussion arrives at consensus per sources, then any future editors can be shown this and readily dismissed. I, at least, don't want to keep coming back here to go through this repeatedly.
If that's settled, let's finally get to the sources.
They do indeed prominently use "stalemate", but nothing implies this is their dominate term for the results of the war. It's admitted that both "inclusive" and "stalemate" are used, with nothing indicating strong support of one over the other. And while these are respectable sources, nothing indicates there are significantly authoritative over other sources not mentioned. (Also, MacArthur is a primary source and has little standing here.)
In short, these sources don't show "stalemate" as significantly preferred over "inconclusive". If both are applicable and relatively equal in sources, then "inconclusive" can be used as if follows guidelines that do not require unique justification.
Unless we can find better sources? --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
If you knew sources use both, then what was the point of asking me for them? Evaluating the more common term in reliable sources is not an exact science, but I believe it leans more favourably to stalemate. You point to the infobox guidelines. But again the RFC showed they don't need to be followed strictly and policies take precedence over guidelines. Spellcast (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you are misapplying "due weight/verifiability" - which requires basically the same as the guideline for the infobox - that complex issues are fairly explained - which using a single word clearly does not do in this case. (Hohum @) 10:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree. If sources widely prefer a single term, then we must use that term. If they only "lean" towards a term while one or more other terms are used a significant minority of the time, then we are required to include all significant sourced terms in the article per DUE, but not in the infobox since only the most simply-stated facts can go there. "Inconclusive" is the guideline's default for result if there is no victory. I believe this is our only option at this point (assuming more and better sources aren't found). Of course, we can (and probably should) add a link to the "stalemate" or "armistice" sections after "inconclusive". --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. Busy irl. Due weight applies to any contested info. Not just complex ones. The infobox is meant to summarise the article. And the article obviously says the war ended in a stalemate. Both in heading and prose. I've already laid out my arguments and sources, and I believe they still stand. Feel free to invite third party opinions and if necessary an RFC. But an attempt should be made to resolve this directly with the editors involved first. Stalemate has been there for the last 4+ years. And the only person who changed it (ReallyAgain) hasn't even tried discussing it here. If anything in the infobox needs overhauling, I reckon it's the dot points mentioning each side's biggest gains. OK for an ongoing conflict. But not usually for wars that have ended. But given the past debate about whether this war is over or not, I guess it's understandable why it's there. Spellcast (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
As already stated, it's contested, so DUE applies.
Consensus can change.
The fact that other things could be debated or improved is not evidence for consensus on this point.
If there is nothing more to say on this issue, then we must end without consensus for "stalemate" and go with the default "inconclusive" per guidelines.
I don't think this issue merits an RFC; as noted, there's other things to work on. Others are free to start one later, of course, if some need for it is found.
I'll wait a few days; if there's nothing further to add, I'll revert the (technically disruptive) change made during discussion to "stalemate" and go back to "inconclusive", but add links to the article's sections on "stalemate" and "armistice", as suggested.
--A D Monroe III(talk) 20:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This is getting repetitive. Again the infobox guidelines don't always need to be followed strictly. The closing admin for the infobox RFC said "Whether editors should follow WP:MILMOS's guidance on the 'result' parameter can be discussed for each affected article". Three people have supported or restored stalemate (Mediatech492, Jack Upland, and myself). Two have opposed it (User:ReallyAgain - who is now blocked as a sockpuppet - and you). One is neutral (Smallchief). And one wants a link or note (Hohum). Stalemate has been the status quo for the last 4+ years. The one person who changed it didn't even want to discuss it. Yet it's disruptive to restore the long standing version? Yes consensus can change. But there clearly isn't a new one so far. And if there's no consensus, "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" is commonly retained. Spellcast (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Repetitive indeed.
Again, we're looking for an agreement on the results that is not based on mere editors' opinions. That either means based on consensus of sources, or on WP policy and guidelines. Per WP:NOTVOTE, we count reasoning, not numbers of editors, to reach consensus. No one has stated that any wording suggested is incorrect; they've only stated personally preference, which has no weight in WP.
Again the fact that an RFC on the guideline yielded no consensus means the RFC yielded nothing either way -- the guideline remains as the guideline. The RFC's lack of result means it didn't do anything, so there's no point in bringing it up repeatedly.
Again, with no reasoned argument against either "stalemate" or "inconclusive", and with neither having consensus of sources, we're left only with WP guidelines. Using the guidelines overrides editors' personal preferences, and that fact will end this debate now, and (the only point of this whole discussion) in the future when another editors wants to "improve" the results per their personal preference.
So, again, if no new reasoning is provided, I'll change to follow the guideline. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
To follow up, I've listed some sources. Instead of just Googling our preferred term, perhaps a more neutral way is to pick a book, look at all the refs it cites in the bibliography, and search those refs as a sample to see what's more common. I've used The Korean War linked above. Results: Stalemate (6). Inconclusive (0). Both (2). None/neither (4). Unavailable preview (1).
Sources
Bevin Alexander (1986). Korea: The First War We Lost. New York: Hippocrene. "stalemate had settled over the battle line".
Clay Blair (1987). The Forgotten War: America in Korea, 1950-53. New York: Doubleday. Not available.
Lester H. Brune, ed (1996). The Korean War: Handbook of the Literature and Research. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. "When the war stalemated...".
Paul M. Edwards, comp (1998). The Korean War: An Annotated Bibliography. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. "D. Stalemate (Jan. 1951-July 1953).
T. R. Fehrenbach (1963). This Kind of War: A Study in Unpreparedness. New York: Macmillan. Both. "From the fighting, however inconclusive at the end...". And "In Korea, it was a stalemate. Neither side could advance; neither side would retreat."
Russell A Gugeler (1970). Combat Actions in Korea. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History. Neither.
Max Hastings (1987). The Korean War. New York: Simon and Schuster. "Toward Stalemate" heading.
Walter G Hermes (1988). Truce Tent and Fighting Front. United States Army in the Korean War. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History. Both. "the action at the front from July 1951 to July 1953 was inconclusive". And "the stalemate in Korea remained unbroken".
Arned Hinshaw (1989). Heartbreak Ridge: Korea, 1951. New York: Praeger. None.
S.L.A. Marshall (1959). Pork Chop Hill. New York: Permabooks. None.
David Rees (1964). Korea: The Limited War. New York: St. Martin's Press. "From victory to stalemate".
William Stueck (1995). The Korean War: An International History. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. "With the trench warfare came stalemate on the battlefield ... All parties had been forced to abandon hopes of victory".
John G Westover (1987). Combat Support in Korea. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History. None
Spellcast (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Chinese Students

How many things are wrong with it, well for a start its hard to see what relevance it has to an article about the war. Secondly the wording is hardly Neutral "It was hysterically anti-communist and punitive." (also unsourced, and thus may well be OR). Also I am dubious about the source, as it seems to be by a nobody with no academic credibility. Hell even the placing in wrong, as its placement (in the course of the war section) seems to imply this was a one of the causus belli. In fact the source only talk about this as a response to Chinese intervention, and not as an even that either precipitated or was a reaction to the war itself.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Casualties - U.S. wounded figure?

Do we have a couple of Reliable Sources that we can add the 'wounded' to the battle deaths from? 50.111.55.51 (talk)

We do say how many US wounded there were.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggest adding new section on alternate theories of the war's beginnings

It is a minority view, but some, such as Cumings, still question who started the fighting in June 1950. Thus my suggestion is to add a new section of its own to the main article with several paragraphs dedicated to other theories. There is a little bit in the article already, but I think there is more that could be said. Regardless, my suggestion is to readd the following to the article under "Prelude to war":

"The reporter William Matthews wrote that after the meeting with Dulles one [sic] before the start of the war that Rhee was "militantly for the unification of Korea. Openly says it must be brought about soon . . . Rhee pleads justice of going into North country. Thinks it could succeed in a few days . . . if he can do it with our help, he will do it." Mathews also noted that Rhee talked of attacking even if "it brought on a general war." [1]"

This was deleted with the summary "revert North Korean POV pushing." I disagree that this pushes a North Korean point of view, and also don't think several sentences under a subsection is disproportionate. I confirmed the citation and that the quotation is accurately quoted, which is easy to do with the link provided in New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/books/excerpt-the-korean-war.html).

Another point in the article I partially disagree with from the same editor with the same summary is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&diff=prev&oldid=906027541

I confirmed the citation for the figure given through Google books (https://books.google.com/books?id=ASa9WCcIHFkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cumings+%22korean+war%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSvOKqstjjAhUmsVQKHSg-DuMQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=74%2C370&f=false - see page 5 to 6). I have seen similar figures in other places, too. For example, this article from BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45832777) says the Korean War began "with an incursion across the 38th parallel, the boundary between North and South Korea, by 75,000 troops from the Communist North in June 1950," and I.F. Stone says something similar to the BBC article in "History of the Korean War 1950-1951." It's true that this doesn't account for other factors the article mentions, and some sources do give higher estimates, as high as 135,000 (here, https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/world/asia/korean-war-fast-facts/index.html, for example). On the other hand, I have never seen any estimates as high as 200,000, unless this refers to potential rather than actual strength. Even 150,000 appears to be a high estimate. My suggestion is to adjust the range of the estimate of North Korean forces in "Comparison of forces" so that it says that it numbered between 75,000 troops (+ 20,000 border constabulary) to 135,000 troops, rather than 150,000 to 200,000. -UQal Struck comments by User:UQal, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Incogreader.–TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Its covered already and alternative claims are few and generally lack WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

:: It's true that there is already a bit in the article addressing this. However I think there is more that could be said, but maybe it could be added to the existing sections. There does not appear to be any definitive proof from independent observers for the claims made by either side, only circumstantial evidence. Some notable journalists and historians, such as Hugh Deane, I.F. Stone and Bruce Cumings (who I think count as RS), do question whether the North started the fighting in June 1950 and argue that the beginning is still an open question, if not explicitly that the South started it. The debate is highly politicized, for many it comes down to which side you find more credible. Moreover, some, including Deane and Cumings both argue that the Korean War started before 1950 anyway, with a guerrilla insurgency in the South and border incidents - which actually were often assaults beyond the border. UQal (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Struck comments by User:UQal, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Incogreader.–TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You can add WP:RS and see if you get reverted or not.Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I think this is already covered in the article. I don't think a separate section is a good idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bruce, Cumings (2010). The Korean War. Modern Library.

Gangwon Province

change ((Gangwon Province)) to ((Gangwon Province (South Korea)|Gangwon Province))

 Done aboideautalk 15:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

I agree it's wrong to have a literal translation into Korean which Koreans don't use. As this is covered under "Names", I suggest all these translation be removed from the first sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
While 한국전쟁 is a literal translation of Korean War it is the WP:Commonname used by South Koreans to refer to the war, with 6.25 전쟁 less so. Other wars are referred to in Korean by reference to who they were fighting or what dynasty was involved, so there is no confusion as to what war 한국전쟁 is referring to. If you look on Korean WP here: [13] its 한국전쟁 Mztourist (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

Request to add two photo files:

American POWs captured by Chinese PVA troops.
British POWs guarded by Chinese PVA troops.

Strangelove9999 (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now. Where, and also why? I.e., what do they illustrate in the article body? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Other UN militaries

Article currently reads in part Deaths from the other non-American U.N. militaries totaled 3,730, with another 379 missing. No attempt to allocate them according to country. I was interested in the Australian casualty figure, for example.

Similarly there is no mention of UN force leaders other than those of the US and UK. Horace Robertson for example played a significant and often controversial role. Andrewa (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I would assume that because doing so would make for a very long Infobox. If you look at World War II you will see the approach adopted for a conflict involving multiple belligerents.Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Intervention

I think we should include a more detailed description of Chinese intervention, including MacAuthor ignoring US and UN orders to not push too close to the Yalu river (Mao made it clear that they will risk war if US troops are too close for the fear of possible US invasion, also their national security). Also might want to include how this escalated the situation and pushed UN forces back to the 38th parallel. MacArthur was also removed from his position by President Truman after threatening to attack China with Nuclear Weapons if necessary.

In conclusion: consider including a more detailed description of the "push factor" of Chinese intervention, which was mainly for defensive purposes, to defend National Security.

I believe that all of that is already adequately covered on the page. Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

The number of UK soldiers displayed is incorrect, this official UK Gov page from the Ministry of Defence says approximately 100,000 British personnel served in Korea excluding the Commonwealth https://www.gov.uk/government/news/korean-war-60th-anniversary-events, I have seen other looser sources that said around 80,000. Either way, it is much more than the 14,000 displayed. 144.124.210.5 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That is total strength, our figures are for serving at any one time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Not sure which number should be the one included; in any case this needs to be discussed before making an edit request... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 15:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Germany official recognition as Medical Support Nation to the Korean War (1)

Although Germany’s contribution, a field hospital in Busan operated by the German Red Cross, reached its full operational capability (3),(4) as recently as May 17, 1954, almost ten months after the armistice had been signed at Panmunjom on July 27, 1953, Germany was officially recognized (2) by the Republic of Korea as Medical Support Nation in 2018 during the 68th remembrance of the outbreak of the Korean War. The Red Cross field hospital provided a capacity of 250 beds. Until its doors were closed March 31, 1959 its some 80 German and 150 Korean physicians helped to give birth to 6.000 children, performed 16.000 surgeries and 21.500 people were treated in the hospital while 230.000 people were given an outpatient treatment. The decision to support the war-stricken Korean people and contribute to the US led United Nation’s military operation was taken in early 1953 considering the following. After the End of World War II, the United States of America helped West Germany rebuild its country. US President Eisenhower had high expectations on the post-war newly formed young democracy and its leadership in West Germany to support the United Nations’ forces participating in the Korean War. However, there were no German armed forces as a consequence of World War II. During his first visit to the United States of America in April that very year (5) Germany’s Chancellor Konrad Adenauer announced the decision to deploy a mobile hospital to Korea. His primary motivation was to thank the USA for its help and to make a bold move towards the international community. After two wars that affected the whole globe, the Germans were war-weary; a contribution with armed forces wouldn’t have been an option anyway. So, a humanitarian mission in form of a field hospital was the solution Adenauer offered in Washington. Shortly after, containers with initial material were shipped to the Korean Peninsula. Germany’s contribution to the Korean War with the field hospital in Busan was forgotten long time. In 2015 the embassy of the Republic of Korea to Berlin started to dig out the story about the German field hospital and they were looking for doctors and nurses who had served there during 1954 and 1959. In November 2016 the Korean Cultural Centre in Berlin, in cooperation with the Korean embassy and the German Red Cross organized an exhibition titled „Dank nach 62 Jahren - Deutsche humanitäre Hilfe in Korea“ (6),(7). Korea’s president Moon Jae-in’s participation in the G20 Summit 2017 in Germany marked the next milestone. He took the opportunity to meet some of the Red Cross personnel identified so far. He expressed his deep gratitude and invited them to visit Busan and the Korean Peninsula later that year. In November 2017 some of the Germans accepted President Moon’s kind invitation and visited the harbor town of Busan, the place where they had served many years before. In 2018 the Military History Institute of the Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of Korea started an official investigation on that topic. Together with the German journalist and writer Stefan Schomann, a specialist in the history of the German Red Cross, Germany’s contribution to the Korean War was reviewed (8) from the scratch. On June 25, 2018 at the 68th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War, Germany was officially recognized as a Medical Support Nation. At the United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Korea (UNMCK), a unique cemetery worldwide, where veterans of the Korean War have been buried, the German Flag has been raised on October 8, 2019, along with the 21 other flags of the participating nations (9). This is a visible sign of Korea’s gratitude to the Federal Republic of Germany.

Links: (1) https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20180622007000315?section=search (English) (2) http://www.munhwa.com/news/view.html?no=20180510MW144450190564 (Korean) (3) https://www.drk.de/das-drk/geschichte/das-drk-von-den-anfaengen-bis-heute/1950/1956/ (German) (4) https://www.drk.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFs/Das_DRK/Geschichte/DRK_inform_Busan_DS.pdf (German) (5) https://pr-museum.de/personen/sonstige-funktionstraeger/adenauerpresse/fallbeispiel/ (German) (6) http://overseas.mofa.go.kr/de-de/brd/m_7229/view.do?seq=742641&srchFr=&amp%3BsrchTo=&amp%3BsrchWord=&amp%3BsrchTp=&amp%3Bmulti_itm_seq=0&amp%3Bitm_seq_1=0&amp%3Bitm_seq_2=0&amp%3Bcompany_cd=&amp%3Bcompany_nm= (German) (7) https://kulturkorea.org/de/magazin/koreanische-klaenge-mit-berliner-faerbung (German) (8) https://koreanwarlegacy.org/interviews/stefan-schomann/ (English) (9) https://www.unmck.or.kr:450/m_eng/bbs/board.php?bo_table=news_eng&wr_id=1886&page=3 (English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestimation 2018 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Dubious Massacre Claim

In the article, I found this blurb.

"During the first communist occupation of Seoul alone, the KPA massacred 128,936 civilians and deported another 84,523 to North Korea. On the other side of the border, some 406,000 North Korean civilians were reported to have been killed, 1,594,000 were wounded, and 680,000 were missing. Over 1.5 million North Koreans fled to the South during the war.[317]"

This seems to be a misreading on the part of the author of the source, as I've been unable to find any verification of this claim and upon searching the exact number, have only managed to find it listed as the death toll to massacres total in the war. My best guess is this may be from another older source attributing the deaths of the Bodo League massacre to the North, but even then only around 60,000 of the victims were in Seoul according to the wiki page on the Bodo League massacre. I've also been unable to find verification of the claim of 1.5 million fleeing from North to South, which I suspect may be misrepresenting a statistic on internally displaced persons in the South as the number to flee from the North, rather than Southerners fleeing the Northern advance. Further up on this talk page, it is also mentioned how the claim of tens of thousands of abductees is dubious, with only 55 having been confirmed. As such I'd recommend removing this from the "Civilian" section under "Characteristics", which is on its own already very short and only includes a single citation, so it likely needs rewritten anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5801:5100:4D77:2760:56E7:CED8 (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korean_War/Archive_11&oldid=1083520634"