Talk:Korean War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Korean War article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Korean War was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: September 11, 2007

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea (History), a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australian military history task force British military history task force Canadian military history task force Chinese military history task force French military history task force Korean military history task force United States military history task force

Archives

Contents 1 Joseph Stalin 2 Framing the US for Use of Biological Weapons 3 Ethiopia casualites 4 Classification of Communist belligerents in the Korean War as Communists 5 Alleged war crimes of US in North Korea 6 Games 7 Suppression of People's Republic of Korea 8 "Free Elections" (music to mugabe's ears) 9 More US and Republic of Korea War Crimes 10 Inaccurate legacy 11 US/UN POV 12 U.S. estimate of PRC casualties

[edit] Joseph Stalin

Joseph Stalin - Soviet Force Comander during KW? You must be joking. Soviet forces present were air and AA units plus engineers and vetran officers educating local troops. They did not have a single "head" during the war, afaik, but as the most important combat role of Soviets were in air fights, their air unit commander should be named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montezubba (talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Framing the US for Use of Biological Weapons

I noticed that there isn't even a passing reference to this in the article. Perhaps something should be added? Here is a link to an online archive of cold war documents that shows China and North Korea conspired to frame the US: [1] 92.10.182.222 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something should be added since it is a major allegation and not just believed by random conspiracy theorists but by the biggest country in the world (china) and a number of western scholars. However, the documents you link do not say what you say they do, instead they say that certain members of the soviet bureaucracy conspired with some north Koreans to make a couple of false plague zones, but they did this after the initial outbreaks of plague had already started. Endicott and Hagerman have responded to this and shown that all it does is show that there were conflicts and shady dealings within the soviet government (at the time there was a fight between Beria and other sections) but it does not disprove other evidence they have gathered. The germ warfare article has a link to Endicott and Hagermans response defending their research. You should read their responses, and note that the writer of the main article recommended by the US government about this has himself changed his position from being sure that it was fabricated to the admitting the issue isn't settled. The soviet archives are now open but the US archives remain closed on this aspect.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman show multiple lines of corroborating evidence that is difficult to explain if the allegations are not true.

The United States denies this and argues "documents discovered in the Soviet archives in the 1990s reveal that the Soviets knew the charges were fraudulent as long ago as 1953." (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Nov/09-262154.html) Two of these documents, Explanatory note from Lt. Gen. V.N. Razuvaev to L.P. Beria from 13 and 18 April 1953, describe how Soviet advisors worked with the Korean Ministry of Health to create two false plague regions, sometime after 27 February 1952. The United States Goverment recommends the Weathersby article for the text of the documents and analysis and the Leitenberg article to accompany it.

Endicott and Hagerman have responded to arguments advanced by Weathersby, Lietenberg, and others: "The claim that two places were concocted to fool foreign visitors does not prove that all the sites of alleged biological warfare were also contrived. Our research in Chinese archives shows that the Chinese army in Korea and the Korean medical service serving with it identified occurrences of plague in 13 places during February and March 1952 as well as outbreaks of anthrax, encephalitis and other abnormal diseases."

US Government: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Nov/09-262154.html [2]

Endicott and Hagerman:

http://www.yorku.ca/sendicot/12SovietDocuments.htm [3]

http://www.yorku.ca/sendicot/ReplytoMiltonLeitenberg.htm [4]

http://www.yorku.ca/sendicot/ReplytoJohnvanCourtlandMoon.htm [5]

http://www.yorku.ca/sendicot/ReplytoColCrane.htm [6] -(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Ethiopia casualites

Why no lsiting of Ethiopian casualites-Kagnew Battalion-121 Killed 536 wounded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.143 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

'cause there's not enough space.Kfc18645 talk 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

it would make sense to put them in...if we're listing them by casualty number then they have more than the phillipines (geez, does that sound morbid or what?) 72.148.113.246 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of Communist belligerents in the Korean War as Communists

Just cause tail-gunner Joe would have said it doesn't make it untrue. They were all self-professed Communist states fighting to, among other things, advance world Communism. Why shouldn't they be classified as Communists? - Schrandit (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why aren't the UN forces labeled "Capitalists"? Surely they had the exact same goals: to advance world capitalism. My point is that it's an outdated worldview to label them as a monolithic bloc bent on global domination, or at least incredibly jingoistic to pretend the West wasn't doing the exact same thing. Bunching them all together as "Communists" is doing exactly that. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because that would be silly. Not all the nations fighting for the UN were strictly capitalists nor was their primary motivation the advancement of capitalism and they self-identified as the United Nations. All the nations fighting for "Belligerent Group 2" were communists, they were motivated by the advancement of communism and most importantly, these nations self-identified as communists. They were Communists, they called themselves Communists, they would have been proud to have been called Communists so why not just call them Communists? - Schrandit (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese were fighting for a buffer zone against American presence in Japan, not some idealistic "advancement of global communism", and the Soviets got involved because Mao wouldn't stop pestering Stalin about it, not because he particularly gave a crap one way or the other. There's no real need for labels for the belligerent groups in the first place; the situation is sufficiently complex that labeling them as "Communists" only serves to muddy the waters and reinforce false Cold War mythology. Their relationships should be explained in the text, not by one word in the infobox (which is where many readers look first, so we should take care to not oversimplify to the point of being wrong). Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That may have been one of their goals but the advancement of communism also was another and it was one they had no shyness about announcing. Most sources say Soviet involvement preceded Chinese intervention. There is some Cold War mythology floating around but the Cold War was very real, there was a world struggle against Communism and this was part of it. These nations fought under the banner of marxism and would have been proud to be called Communists, so lets call them Communists. - Schrandit (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Soviets were involved before China formally intervened, however, they did so at China's behest. I'm not saying the Cold War wasn't real, but that doesn't mean we need to look at the events of the Cold War through the eyes of the 1950s. As far as the advancement of communism is concerned, Mao was the only one who really cared about it; he later denounced Stalin and the Soviets as lacking the will to lead the so-called "world-wide communist revolution". Stalin's only real motivation was to create a buffer against American forces in Japan, just as he did against the West in Europe. Again, trying to reduce this complex alliance as being "they're communists, and were doing so to advance global communism" is at best overly simplified, and at worst, just plain wrong. Our job is to educate readers, not propagate out-dated Cold War mythology. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And now we enter the realm of speculation; Mao loved Stalin, the sino-soviet split only occurred after Stalin's death, Stalin already had a buffer between him and bases in Japan. I'm not trying to look at the events of the Cold War through the eyes of the 1950s, merely trying to look at the Cold War. The infobox serves as a simplification of the events, no one expects it to encompass the whole history and to say that an alliance of UN aligned nations fought an alliance of Communist nations is a fairly accurate simplification of the events. - Schrandit (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mao may have loved Stalin in the 30s, but tensions between the two were already brewing in the aftermath of WWII. Sino-Soviet relations actually improved to a slight degree following Stalin's death; it wasn't until Khrushchev formally rejected the concept of the inevitable armed conflict between capitalist and communist countries that the Sino-Soviet Split actually came about. None of that is directly relevant, in any case. In one of the seemingly endless discussions over the contents of the WWII infobox, someone said "The great vice of this place is that editors constantly try to pigeonhole and categorise, even when the material does not conform to a tidy schema. If you can't categorise accurately then don't mislead - let the article explain the complexities of the matter". That, essentially, is my point. Sticking a homogenizing label on an alliance only obscures what was actually going on. Yes, all three countries were communist societies, but that doesn't mean that that was what drove their decisions in participating in the war. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged war crimes of US in North Korea

North Korea is apparently claiming that the United States military massacred numerous townspeople at a place called Sinchon Ri, where they built a museum to back up their claim [7] ... However, as North Korea is apparently a backwards country, I haven't been able to find an official website, the most informative site being on Geocities. Anyone have more info on what exactly occurred at Sinchon Ri? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a clue, but geocities isn't a reliable source. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(Shrugs) well, let's face it, North Korea isn't exactly the most accessible country in the world. All the same, this lack of reliability is why I didn't log-in and put it in the article. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That hardly seems to be a reliable source. It's incredibly POV (labeling American forces as "imperialist aggressors" and referring to Kim il Sung as "the great leader"). It refers to the Pyongyang International Tribunal on US Crimes in Korea, which appears to be a kangaroo court conducted by the North Koreans. I wouldn't give it a shred of credibility, nor would I give it mention in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This article from a peer review journal has information on the Sincheon massacre. It says that while North Korea has believed that the massacre was carried out by US soldiers, evidence now shows that it was carried out mainly by South Koreans: a right-wing civilian security police and a youth group.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/1462352042000320592[8]

Dong Choon Kim. Forgotten war, forgotten massacres—the Korean War (1950-1953) as licensed mass killings. Journal of Genocide Research(http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713431069~db=all[9]), Volume 6, Issue 4 2004 , pages 523 - 544

"“Counter-insurgency” atrocities in North Korean territory were also terrible. When ROK police and rightist youth groups crossed over the 38th parallel following the US military, they found many “communists” and collaborators active there. The Sinchon massacre (a county located in southern North Korea) was a typical case. North Korea has long argued that American troops killed 35,380 civilians in Sinchon, but a newly released document disclosed that it was mainly the right-wing civilian security police and a youth group that were responsible for killing their neighbors"

The footnote to this says: "Some reporters argued that American CIC ordered the massacre, but it is not verified (Hangeore 21, April 25, 2002)." -(71.202.180.190 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Here is the DPRK government's website of the US Crimes Sinchon-Ri Museum. http://www.korea-dpr.com/users/thai/Us.htm -(71.202.180.190 (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

By CHARLES J. HANLEY and JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writers 4 minutes ago

There is more news out there today on the massacres ...Yahoo's World News Page - but it is an AP report. Credible.

DAEJEON, South Korea - Grave by mass grave, South Korea is unearthing the skeletons and buried truths of a cold-blooded slaughter from early in the Korean War, when this nation's U.S.-backed regime killed untold thousands of leftists and hapless peasants in a summer of terror in 1950. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.84.109.135 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the article the above editor is referring: [10]. It does not, however, back up what the initial post in this thread was talking about; the Yahoo article is about South Korean military and police forces committing mass slaughters, not American forces doing so. The article at the moment mentions the mass executions, but is without a source for the statement. This news article should be just fine, as it's from AP. Parsecboy (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The ABC version found here [11], while not alleging participation, states that US military officers were "sometimes present", and displays photographs taken by a US Army major now declassified from the US National Archives. The ABC article further claims that high-level US diplomats and officers (including MacArthur) knew of the massacres and were "ambivalent". 99.231.116.17 (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That much is already stated in the article; since the ABC article is the same AP article, it can't be another source, but it does have photos, so it might be the better article to use as the source. The photos are unfortunately pretty low resolution, but at the same time, the section on war crimes already has enough pictures, so it's not a major concern. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article should be more blunt that US commanders were not only present, but that they were in charge of South Korea's military at the time. For example, Fox News version of the AP article states:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008May19/0,4670,KoreaMassExecutions,00.html

"[O]verall commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur viewed the executions as a Korean "internal matter," even though he controlled South Korea's military."

The value of this phrasing is it communicates the fact that MacArthur was responsible as the military commander, rather than allowing someone to interpret that ROK might have had a separate military command he had no control over. The article does at one point mention MacArthur is commander of the UN forces, though that is higher up in the part about the details of the military conflict, which many people might not read who are interested in the war crimes aspect.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Also it should specifically refer to these massacres from the AP article as the "bodo league massacres" or "NGL (national guidance league) massacres" with a link to the wikipedia page on the subject. The article should also be changed to saying "tens of thousands, and according to one guy 100000", to instead say a hundred thousand, and possibly two or three times that amount, just for the Bodo League massacres. It should also say that the US and ROK have suppressed this story for over 50 years.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/1462352042000320592[12]

Dong Choon Kim. Forgotten war, forgotten massacres—the Korean War (1950-1953) as licensed mass killings. Journal of Genocide Research(http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713431069~db=all[13]), Volume 6, Issue 4 2004 , pages 523 - 544-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

This same Kim Dong Choon, author of the above mentioned Journal of Genocide Research article, is probably the same Kim Dong Choon that is the main source quoted in the recent AP articles who is a member of the South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission and is the leads that commission's subcommittee on "mass civilian sacrifice". -(71.202.180.190 (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Games

Some trusted user might wanna add Crysis to the "Games"-section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakkour (talk • contribs) 08:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mercenaries: Playground Of Destruction did not feature the Korean war as it's backdrop, rather, the game was set in a post-modern era wherein N. Korea was violently overthrown and sent to Overtake S. Korea. The gist of this post is that the game was set in an alternate reality, NOT the korean war. AiRsTrIkE1 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Parsecboy (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suppression of People's Republic of Korea

The Peoples Republic of Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_Korea), which the local Koreans had tried to set up as a government while overthrowing the japanese collaborators, should be mentioned by name and linked in the part near the beginning alongside the more vague "Many Korean people had organized politically prior to the arrival of American troops." This should again be mentioned by name in the part where "A second policy set forth by Hodge was to refuse to recognize the existing political organizations that had been established by the Korean people." It should say specifically that the de facto government of the People's Republic of Korea was suppressed.

If you search for "People's Republic of Korea" within wikipedia it currently links to "North Korea / Democratic People's Republic of Korea", and it seems the only way to find the page is to instead search for it in google. There should be a disambiguation on that page or it should be described within: the short lived attempt at a revolutionary republic which was part of the basis that developed into the DPRK in the north and in the south existed between the overthrow of japanese collaborators and the US restoration of collaborators. The suppression of the "people's republic" is a large part of the origin of the Cheju uprising/suppression.

It should say the People's Republic of Korea was the most popular and that the US favored the Korean Democratic Party, which consisted of large landowners and wealthy businessmen, while suppressing the PRK which had a broad base of support.

Here is an article from a Korean journal. It is covered in other sources though usually pro-US sources give it no mention. Given the bias of the US and ROK governments in helping suppress knowledge of the mass atrocities for over 50 years, we should view productions by them during that time as equivalent to "extremist sources" for the purposes of Korean war historiography, and similarly view their claims about "free elections" with the same suspicion that is used towards the North.

http://sociology.snu.ac.kr/isdpr/publication/journal/26-2/Hyesook%20Lee.pdf ``State formation and civil society under American occupation: the case of South Korea HS Lee - Korea Journal of Population and Development, 1997 - sociology.snu.ac.kr

USMGIK refers to the United States Military Government In Korea. KDP is the Korean Democratic Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"At first, there was Choson Konkuk Chunbi Wiwonhoe (Committee for the Preparation of Korea's Independence) led by Un-hyoung Yeo. Just before America arrived in Korea, it adopted the title of "the Korean People's Republic" (KPR) as a Korean government along with the People's Committees which were organized throughout the country (Hong 1985, pp. 57-103). Without foreign intervention, the KPR and the organizations it sponsored would have triumphed." In the meantime, the KDP, encouraged wiht the news that America would come to Korea, was organized. That party, which remained the strongest single rightist one, consisted of large landowners and wealthy businessmen (Sim 1982)." p. 7-8

"With the support of these bureaucrats in the USMGIK, the KDP elevated itself from a weak political group to the dominant party, helping the USMGIK suppress its political rival, the KPR. The KPR was forced to transform from a de facto Korean government into several political parties and finally to abolish itself. "p.8

"The process of grasping power for the KDP and Rhee was at the same time the process of exclusion for other political groups. In alliance with the USMGIK, the KDP and Rhee became the ruling party, whereas many other groups such as peasants, workers, leftist groups and also some nationalists were oppressed and excluded."p.9

"The main tools of USMGIK in controlling Korean society were the coercive resources such as police and military forces. The important function of the Korean National Police (KNP) was a political one, and the main reason that the USMGIK retained the Japanese colonial police system and its Korean personnel was to fight against the KPR and the People's Committees, considering them as communist forces."10-11

"Especially, in the fall of 1946, the Korean peasants and workers sought to reverse the effects of a year of American occupation, and their uprisings swept throughout the whole southern Korean provinces for three months. The people's opposition to the USMGIK was strongest in the Kyeongsang and Cholla provinces, which had powerful People's Commitees. Through the uprising the Koreans expressed their strong discontent over American rule, and brought into focus the failures of the USMGIK's political and economic policies (Chung 1988)... However, as a result of the USMGIK's violent suppression of the uprising, the People's Committees and the organizations associated with them were almost totally destroyed, and the reactionary Korean groups, particularly the KNP, became the dominant forces in the provinces."13

"Of course, the USMGIK introduced a procedure of democracy on the surface to Koreans... if democracy means, at the least, that the government is supported by the majority of the people, and that the people can freely participate in political activities and express their opinions, and be treated equally by the laws, there was much limitation. We have seen how strongly the majority of Koreans opposed the USMGIK through the general strikes and the October (Chung 1988) and Cheju uprisings."(my emphasis)p14

-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] "Free Elections" (music to mugabe's ears)

"Free Elections" in the opening paragraph is ridiculous. The US and ROK may spin it that way, but the fact is the elections in Rhee's Korea were less free than in Mugabe's Zimbabwe of today. For example, Rhee threatened to have people's food ration cards away if they voted against him, and there were frequent arrests or executions of political opponents. South Korean elections at the time were probably no more free than elections in the North.

Such claims reach the heights of absurdity, and would be like if Britain occupied the north of the US during the war of 1812 and suppressed all opposition, then ran elections where only Tories and a couple of other pro british parties run and claims they are "free elections". This cold war propaganda is completely inappropriate to have stated as if it is the truth, though because it has been repeated so much it would be appropriate to mention in the article that the US and ROK claimed "free elections" as a discredited fringe theory.

"Failing to strengthen their case in the elections" This assumes they even tried to compete in the elections, or that it would have been possible to. No leftist parties ran in the South Korean elections, which were widely considered rigged because left wing groups were being violently suppressed and because of the associated threats to people who vote the wrong way, and also because the majority of South Korea opposed separate elections even being held. The fact is the leftists didn't attempt to "strengthen their case" in the South Korean elections and anyone trying to would just have been executed, imprisoned, or force recruited into the bodo league/NGL "rehabilitation" program and mass executed later, so laying low and trying guerilla organization was probably the obvious strategy for them. This explains how even after elections, the Rhee regime had "little public support".

WP article currently says: "The Americans did not want a communist government in South Korea so they called for elections in all of Korea. Since the population of the South was double that of the North, the Soviets knew that Kim Il-sung would lose the election."

Instead, it should say that the soviets knew that Kim Il-sung would lose an election where the south was excluding and violently suppressing leftist parties, who were the majority at the time. Also it should say that the Americans feared that in real free elections the communists would win an overall majority, which is why they suppressed leftist groups while using the phrase "free elections" as propaganda. In fact, the Soviets thought that in real free elections the communists would win an overall majority, and so did the Americans, especially once the war started and the US bombed every city and killed mass civilians etc. The soviets were boycotting the UN in general and not free elections per se, but they were boycotting "free elections" where the UN would lie and say it was fair despite widespread suppression of the left and admissions in their own reports that said people were threatened with taking away their food rations if they voted the wrong way.

Some Myths about June 1950 Robert R. Simmons The China Quarterly, No. 54 (Apr. - Jun., 1973), pp. 354-361 http://www.jstor.org/stable/652006?seq=3 [14] Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the School of Oriental and African Studies "[t]he Syngman Rhee regime enjoyed little public support" p 356

I.F. Stone. The Hidden History of the Korean War. Monthly Review Press. 1971

The first part of this quotation refers to the soviet peace/election mediation offer in 1950, and the second part relates to the UN commissions on the two previous "free elections".

"The fear that the Communists would win such elections was reflected in a speech made by Warren Austin at Lake Sucess on August 17 [1950], which "revealed that the United States wants them [the elections] to be held on the basis that the Republic of Korea's jurisdiction would be extended over North Korea automatically."... If its jurisdiction were automatically extended over the North, it would supervise the elections. Already two United Nations Commissions had reflected unfavorably on the way the Syngman Rhee regime handled elections and manhandled political opponents; threats to confiscate rice ration cards were noted as one of the milder forms of coercion by the United Nations Temporary Commission which observed the elections establishing the Rhee regime.

""The difficulty," the New York Times correspondent at Lake Success explained, "is that there is a strong probability of an over-all Communist majority if the elections were held before the communization of North Korea had been undone, and before a UN reconstruction program had assuaged the bitterness of North and South Korea against the destruction of their homes during their liberation by UN forces. In that case communism would win by an election what it failed to obtain by an invasion." p117-118

Stone's citations for these are:

United Nations Document A/Ac 19/80, p.117: Cited by George M McCune, Korea Today, p.228.

New York Times August 24, 1950 -(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] More US and Republic of Korea War Crimes

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/1462352042000320592[15] Dong Choon Kim. Forgotten war, forgotten massacres—the Korean War (1950-1953) as licensed mass killings. Journal of Genocide Research(http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713431069~db=all[16]), Volume 6, Issue 4 2004 , pages 523 - 544 I am copying more quotations from this journal so that if you don't have journal access you can still see these relevant parts.

Although it may be futile to compare the number of the total victims killed by US, ROK and North Korean commands, it seems certain that the number of unarmed civilians killed under ROK and US command overwhelms those killed at the hands of North Korean command, contrary to the public knowledge about the Korean War atrocities.

Though the killings committed by both sides are often sometimes dismissed with a reference to their being wartime massacres, what makes the cases by ROK authorities different from those by the North Korean's is the character of the mass killings: they were aimed at unarmed civilians.

First, the ROK initiated the mass killings. ROK troops and police had already killed about 100,000 civilians before the outbreak of full-scale war. The executions of the “suspected communists” after the war were nothing but the extension of the Cheju and Yosun massacres of 1948 at the national level. The execution of NGL members was quite predictable when we recall Rhee's “rooting out” policy and white terror against the guerillas and his political opponents before 1950.

Second, the command to execute “suspected communists” almost came from top government officials or from Rhee himself, while violence against rightists and their family members came mainly at the hands of local communists who were not under control of the top. North Korea's Kim Il Sung strongly emphasized the prohibition against civilian killings, which seemed quite natural because the NKPA (North Korean People's Army), as a revolutionary army, had to win the hearts and minds of the South Korean people. Most eyewitnesses of the violence during the war cautiously admit the fact that the NKPA did not kill ordinary people, although local leftists arbitrarily harassed and killed innocent people.

Third, ROK troops and police often killed people without distinguishing the innocent, whether children, women or the elderly, from the enemy, while the NKPA primarily killed adults or family members of rightists on their retreat back to the north. The NKPA also killed many innocent children and women among the rightist family members once the war began, but ROK troops had already burned the villages and killed residents indiscriminately in Cheju, Yosu, Munkyung, and Yeongdug before the full-scale war had broken out. During the war, they repeated the same type of massacres in Guchang, Sanchung, Namwon, Kochang, and Hampyung, all in the name of “cleansing” guerilla areas.

The intention of the rightists was the cleansing of the “red-virus” looming in South Korea and they treated all residents around the mountainous areas, including children, women, and the elderly as potential “traitors” who had no right to live under the South Korean regime. This quasi-racist ideology of anticommunism, which often appeared in the genocidal policies of the rightists, created and justified mass killings against “suspicious civilians.” The illegal detaining and execution of the “suspected communists” may have inevitably occurred within the chaos of the emergency situations of warfare. However, these incidents took place under the official justification of the National Security Law and the Martial Law, both of which were enacted originally by imperial Japan and were then used again by the newly born “liberal” South Korean government, even after the imperialist rule ended.

It has been known that “saturation bombing” by American air forces and naval bombardment destroyed some North Korean cities like Wonsan and Pyangang, leaving them almost completely in rubble with no more than a few buildings standing. As British journalist Reginald Thompson testified, civilians died in the rubble and ashes of their homes. Alan Winnington, a correspondent for the British Daily Worker, when he saw how thousands of tons of bombs had obliterated towns and resulted in thousands of civilian casualties testified that “it was far worse than the worst the Nazis ever did.”24 According to the witnesses, US air and ground forces shot at children, women, and aged people who were easily distinguishable as unarmed civilians. North Korean authorities have long accused American troops of “criminal acts” before and after the outbreak of the Korean War.25 They maintained that the US army killed more than a million innocent civilians by bombing, shooting, and the use of napalm or chemical weapons.26 While it must be acknowledged that the North has politically exploited such claims, the facts on the ground force us to not discount their veracity. For example, though the No Gun Ri incident was reported to the world through the AP's report in 1999, this incident was first reported by North Korean newspapers and officially used as good materials for propaganda with other numerable cases.

Another factor that may have precipitated these mass killings by American troops may be related to the combination of deep racial prejudices of US soldiers on one hand and the relative isolation of the incidents on the other. With total ignorance of Asia, young soldiers regarded Koreans (and Chinese) as “people without history.” They usually called Koreans “gooks,” a term used during World War II for Pacific Islanders.28 The fact that many Korean women in the villages were often raped in front of their husbands and parents has not been a secret among those who experienced the Korean War.29 It was known that several women were raped before being shot at No Gun Ri. Some eyewitnesses say that US soldiers played with their lives like boys sadistically playing with flies.30 On the other hand, the “total isolation” of the Korean situation from the Western public; McCarthyism also emboldened US commanders to issue indiscriminate commands which would invariably bring mass death upon innocent citizens. With McCarthyism at its peak, US authorities tightly controlled the Western media and nobody could raise doubts as to the legitimacy of the US's military intervention or the US's responsibility for civilian deaths. Unlike other cases of genocide before and after the Korean War, it was not just international indifference but the US's unilateral power in the midst of the Cold War that constituted a condition in which mass killings were both probable and politically defendable.

By any standard, these indiscriminate bombings, strafings, and shooting of defenseless civilians may be ranked as massacres at least, or possibly even genocidal at worst.

Of critical importance, however, is the fact that the US soldiers killed civilian refugees lacking even a modicum of self-defense, including women and children, even when no North Korean soldiers or grass-root guerilla forces threatened them.

In September 1950, US troops under MacArthur's command landed at Inchon, a harbor city located behind enemy lines of combat. The North Korean People's Army (NKPA) was forced to quickly retreat from South Korean territory, but those North Korean forces denied access to retreat were encircled by US and South Korean troops. These remaining NKPA soldiers then engaged in guerilla warfare, blurring the difference between the military and civilians. As the battle lines of the Korean War cut across cities and towns, the combat developed into a typical “peoples' war.” Around 4 October 1950, the ROK Army, also under the command of MacArthur, launched massive rooting out operations against “bandits” dispersed around the Jiri Mountain (Jirisan) region of southern South Korea. As the war transformed into guerilla warfare, ROK commanders viewed the inhabitants of that region as “potential traitors” serving the enemy.

The mass killings committed by ROK soldiers in “cleansing” areas in which there was reported “enemy” activity were brutal and devastating. One of the most widely known massacres that ROK soldiers committed was the Guchang incident in February 1951. The ROK Army's Eleventh Division, which performed the mission of searching for and exterminating the remaining guerrillas active in the mountainous areas around Jirisan, were responsible for that incident. The commander of the Eleventh division was Choi Duk Sin, who had originally devised this concept of operations serving under Chinese General Chang Kei Shek's corps. Choi's troops killed unarmed civilians indiscriminately because they were believed to serve the guerrillas and refused orders to evacuate. In the end, several thousand civilians, including babies, women, and elderly, were killed during the operations named “Keeping the Position by Cleansing the Fields (hellip)”. That operation had been also been labeled the “three-cleanse-all” operations (kill-all, burn-all, loot-all), after tactics which had been developed by Japanese imperial forces fighting against anti-Japanese leftist rebels in China.

The Guchang incident, however, turned out to be a unique case in that it became officially recognized among the numerous undocumented mass killings at that juncture. This status is due to the fact that a South Korean lawmaker who represented that region “spoke out” about the massacres to the foreign wartime reporters who were present shortly after their occurrence. Similar mass killings committed by the same division at villages across North and South Cholla near Guchang, such as Namwon, Sunchang, Kochang, Imsil, and Hampyung, have not yet been fully revealed or publicized. In some regions, assaulted villages were abandoned and deserted as most of the inhabitants were killed, the survivors having fled. From the fall of 1950 to the spring of 1951, we can roughly guess that about 10,000 civilians may have been killed by South Korean soldiers in the mission of cleansing the base of left-wing guerrillas.34 Furthermore, remaining family members of the victims were treated as “reds” and could not enjoy full citizenship during the last half century under the anticommunist political atmosphere dominated by extreme rightists and the military elite. More recent South Korean governments have also stubbornly denied that ROK Army and police killed so many innocent people.

So here are a couple of things that the article needs to include for accuracy. Nos. 1-4 refer to the above quotations from the Journal of Genocide Research article.

1. For the US mass killing of Korean civilian refugees, "neutralize" is too tame a quote, when the AP articles that broke the story had the quote "kill them all" ordered from US command. Also notice that there are 3 pictures in the "War Crimes" section, with two of them being pictures of people killed by the north, and the one that is a picture of a document showing US wrongdoing has a caveat while the other two do not. I don't have any specific recommendations for changing the photographs to have more balance, but do you see what I am referring to in terms of how balanced it appears? Finding ways to balance things like that may be part of the road to improving the grade of the article. Especially since the US and ROK have done much higher scale of atrocities against civilians than the north during the war, the opposite emphasis would be more in tune with a NPOV.

2. The racism among US soldiers, their use of the term "gook" and rapes of Koreans in front of their families.

3. Civilian bombing by the US is not mentioned as a crime against civilians. It is in the world war 2 article, and should be here also.

4. That most killings of civilian by pro North forces were done by irregular groups acting against the orders of the North Korean government, while most killings of civilians by the South were done on orders from the top South Korean and US commands.

5. The bombing of dikes to destroy rice production and intentionally cause starvation by the US is not mentioned. This was viewed as a war crime in the Nuremburg trials, and deserves a mention here. Chomsky's book "Understanding Power" has citations for this in footnotes #63 and #64 in chapter 8, including official US air force documents describing it from Robert Frank Futrell, The United States Air Force in Korea, 1950-53 (Revised Edition), Washington: United States Air Force, Office of Air Force History, 1983., Quarterly Review Staff Study, "The Attack on the Irrigation Dams in North Korea," Air University Quarterly Review (Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama), Vol. 6, No. 4, Winter 1953-54, pp. 40-61., and a book by Jon Halliday and Bruce Cumings, Korea: The Unknown War, New York: Viking, 1988. Unless you have access to these originals, just cite Chomsky, Schoeffel, and Mitchell and say they refers to these.

Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (Paperback) by Noam Chomsky (Author), John Schoeffel (Editor), Peter Mitchell (Author) http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter8.htm [17]

6. Alleged US Germ warfare. This is a major charge, and is believed by the worlds biggest country (China). The research of Endicott and Hagerman should be mentioned, along with the US government's response and their reply. The wikipedia page on germ warfare already has an ok two sentence treatment of these allegations that you could copy or use as a model. -(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

As for the Germ warfare allegations, since the opening of the Soviet archives, that's been proven to be a hoax, see:1. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of this evidence from the Soviet archives, and it does not prove that the germ warfare allegations are a hoax. Instead it proves that elements of the stalinist bureaucracy conspired to create two false plague regions sometime after the initial outbreaks. This could be akin to corrupt police officers doing additional framing work on someone who may or may not be guilty to bolster their chance of prosecution. See the responses by the researchers Endicott and Hagerman, linked to in the earlier "framing the US for use of biological weapons". We should be trying to quote better sources to disprove worse ones, and since up there I posted a link to the US government which has links to two US government recommended essays by historians, and links to the responses by other historians, this US news article that references those historians is definitely a lesser source. Please review Endicott and Hagermans responses defending their research in light of the soviet archive evidence. Note that one of the writers of the essays the US government recommended, Leitenberg, has softened his initial conclusions and now says that questions about it remain open.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

I would also question the reliability and neutrality of any source that states "it was far worse than the worst the Nazis ever did." Surely, no legitimate, NPOV historian could possibly compare even the alleged figure of 1 million Korean civilians killed with the 12 million victims of the Holocaust, not to mention the 30+ million deaths directly attributable to Nazi aggression. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The author of the peer review journal article is not saying what you say he is saying, and you are correct that no real historian would say this. Instead, he is quoting the reactions on the ground from a communist who said this, not saying it himself, notice the quotation marks. The purpose of quoting this particular British correspondent from the Daily Worker is that he was one of the only people to report on this at the time, and was denounced as a liar for reporting it. He is talking about the concentrated civilian bombing he witnessed in Korea, and probably referring not to the Holocaust in Europe but to the Blitz he and his fellow citizens experienced in Britain, which was much less concentrated and killed maybe 40 thousand. We must remember that the western governments didn't publicize full knowledge of the Holocaust immediately after the war or for some years after. The recent AP articles also cover and vindicate this Daily Worker report. The fact is biased sources are part of the documentary evidence, though to be properly used they must be reviewed by historians. In addition, the author of the peer review journal article that you are doubting is the main source for the recent AP articles, and he works for the South Korean government on their Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The AP and South Korean government seem to consider him an authority. I wouldn't suggest the quotation of the opinion comparing to the nazis should be added to the article. Instead, the facts should be added. Please review.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Proof it is the same Kim Dong Choon and not just another guy with the same name: another article by him, which references a past article by him that is also referenced in the Journal of Genocide Research article: ::http://www.ekoreajournal.net/archive/detail.jsp?BACKFLAG=Y&VOLUMENO=42&BOOKNUM=3&PAPERNUM=3&SEASON=Autumn&YEAR=2002

"Kim Dong Choon (Kim, Dong-chun) is Associate Professor in the Division of Social Science at SungKongHoe University. He received his Ph.D. in Sociology from Seoul National University."

From the official South Korean Government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission page:

http://www.jinsil.go.kr/English/Commission/introduction.asp

Standing Commissioner Kim, Dong-Choon

Associate professor, Sungkonghoe University

Human Rights & Pease Center

Director, Sungkonghoe University

Policy President, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

There is no reason his article should not be taken as a good source, as it is in a peer review journal and he is a PhD employed by the South Korean government, and seeing as he was quoted as the main source in the recent AP articles, he seems to almost be the preeminent source on this aspect of the war. If you think his conclusions are incorrect, you will need to bring up another academic source of similar stature that debates these specific charges, and even then you cannot exclude his article as it is either the major viewpoint or a highly significant minority viewpoint. ::WP:Reliable_sources: "Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist".-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

The assertion that North Korean irregulars committed war crimes against orders is upsurd, it's totally point of view and an easy google search of north korean war crimes will say diffrent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.25.216 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can find lots of information about crimes by North Korea against POWs, but you are going to have to give an exact source for your claim relating to crimes against unarmed combatants, as you are disagreeing with one of the main experts employed by the government of South Korea, a government that has no reason to cover up for North Korea.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Inaccurate legacy

"The war eventually led to a strengthening of alliances in the Western bloc and the splitting of Communist China from the Soviet bloc." China did not split from the soviet bloc over the Korean War. They split because of a combination of Khruschev's speech against aspects of stalinism, the withdrawal of Soviet advisors after the debacle of Mao's Great Leap Forward, and Krushchev's refusal to support China in the border war with Nehru's India. I would be interested in hearing the chain of reasoning used to support the idea that it was really the Korean War where they were all cooperating that caused them to split and not those other events of extreme friction. But for now you should probably just take that out as it is far fetched, goes against most of the histories, has no source, links to an article that says nothing about it, and without additional support it is a form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

You are correct, I've removed the sentence in question. Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US/UN POV

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that all of the discussion of combat operations are from a US/UN perspective. Indeed, there isn't a single other unit identified by number (e.g., the Chinese 15th Army). DOR (HK) (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed previously, one old discussion can be found here. The main problem is the lack of reliable sources from Chinese or North Korean perspectives. If you've got the sources, by all means, add them to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are several books on the matter. I'll have to dig them out of my library. In the meantime, there's this:

The mainly Korean 164th and 166th Divisions of the PLA’s Fourth Field Army were sent into North Korea in July 1949, according to Chen Jian (The Sino Soviet Alliance and China’s Entry into the Korean War [Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington: April 2002), Cold War International History Project, Working Paper No. 1., p. 15]), and organized into the Korean People’s Army’s 7th Division.(p. 24) Source: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFAE7.pdf DOR (HK) (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I guess we just had to wait for the right person with the right books :) I'm a little busy at the moment, end of the quarter; exams, papers, and all that. So the best help I can offer is copyediting and such when I check my watchlist during breaks from the books. Parsecboy (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. estimate of PRC casualties

I dont think that the +400,000 dead "estimate" is a good source. The U.S. was on the retreat so how can they count the dead bodies of the killed Chinese? [Just like in Vietnam, the U.S. didnt have a good estimate of killed Vietcong nor Vietminh. The famous words "If he's dead and Vietnamese, he's VC".] Yes, the U.S. bombed Chinese positions but the Pentagon failed to realize that the Chinese used underground tunnels much like the ones use by the VC in Vietnam. So the Pentagon came up with an equation, something like "1 bomb dropped = 5 dead enemies". If the U.S. estimate is true then every Chinese soldier sent to Korea would be a casualty, since the entire PLA was about 3 million men and they couldnt send everyone to Korea (only 700,000 of constant rotation).

im just saying the estimate may be some what too ridiculous to be reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.102.151 (talk • contribs)

Not this again. Please review the ridiculously long discussion (over 178kb) in the archives here. As for your claims about military strength, China's PLA had 5 million regulars in 1950, and claimed a militia of another 5.5 million. The 5 million regulars were reduced to 2.8 million only by 1953, when the war was largely over. Therefore, the casualty figure is quite plausible. From my understanding, the PVA only started digging the complex tunnels during the stalemate portion of the war; most casualties undoubtedly took place during battles of 1950-51. As for your allegation about the Pentagon using some arbitrary formular, please provide a source that that actually happened. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the reduction in size of the PLA in the early 50's has anything to do with casualties in Korea, as casualties can easily be replaced, if deemed necessary, and as long as the manpower is there, an army can maintain its size regardless of the casualty, and since there were no catastrophic events that could lead to large casualties that can not be replaced, the reduction in the number of men in the PLA can only be the result of conscious downsizing. As to the capabilities of the PVA, You can read chapter two of the book Historical Perspective on Light Infantry by Scott R. McMichael, published by the US Command and General Staff College http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/historic/hist_c2_pt1.pdf --58.106.21.53 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about the strength of the PLA being decreased partially by casualties sustained in Korea (although it is an uncontestable fact; there were casualties in Korea, and they weren't replaced, you can't argue with that much). The statement that the PLA numbered about 3 million (and therefore couldn't have sustained the number of casualties alleged by the US govt.) isn't relevant, because in 1950, the number of soldiers in the PLA was well over 5 million (if you only count the regulars), and over 10 million in total. And, as you have stated, casualties can always be replaced if the manpower is available, and if any country has a seemingly endless supply of manpower, it's China. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The US forces seem to always severely over estimate the Chinese numbers and casualties during the war, a very good example would be the second battle of the hook from 26th to 28th October 1952, the first marine division claimed that over a thousand Chinese were killed and wounded in the two days of fighting, however, although there was no casualty figure from the Chinese for that one battle, the record does show that a total of 3 rifle companies participated in the fighting. While in the battles for Vegas and Reno hills starting on 26th of March 1953, the Chinese attacked the two hills on the evening of the 26th, 5th regiment, 1st Marine division claimed that it was attacked by the entire Chinese 358 regiment of 3500 men, however, if you checked the division history of the Chinese 120 rifle division, only two companies, 1st and 8th companies of 358 regiment actually participated in the attack.--58.106.21.53 (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've read the long discussion and it got nowhere. Back on topic, obviously I cannot provide a source for the "formula" since your government would want to save face and not tell the public about some of the bullshit "estimations calculations", but I did find some examples of the U.S.'s policies in exaggerating enemy dead like "If he's dead and Vietnamese, he's VC"; link [18]

A note on the alleged "human waves tactics". By what definition do you go by when saying "human waves tactics"? Do you mean by infantry charges? If that's the case then didn't every country use "human waves tactics"? Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, Stalingrad, Konigsburg, Iwo Jima, Gettysburg; I could go on for a really long time. So don't be suprised of "human waves tactics" since everyone used them when needed. You make the assumption, or by reading your "accurate" sources, that the PLA used "human waves tactics" all the time; I tell you now, that, is a false accusation by the U.S. to explain the defeats suffered by her military to an "inferior" race. This is an ok website, link[19]

By the way when I read the link I found that you're very ignorant of your own country's history, which you said that communists were the ones that distorts history and the supposed western sources is so uncorruptable that everything they utter is regarded as absolute "fact(s)". May I suggest you read some "true" U.S. history books once in a while, for example, "A People's History" by Howard Zinn; very good book by the way. Another link just for the hell of it, link[20]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.102.151 (talk • contribs)

No, the Chinese did use massed infantry attacks. When an opponent, on the defensive, has overwhelming advantages in firepower, equipment, technology, etc., the only way it can be defeated is through superiority in numbers. You state that massed infantry attacks occurred in the past; Pickett's Charge is a classic example of this, where massed infantry in fact did break a defensive line supported by masses of artillery, despite taking murderous casualties. That this has happened in the past quite frequently doesn't mean the Chinese didn't do it, or anything of the sort. That the Chinese attacked positions from multiple sides and using infiltration tactics doesn't negate the fact that these assaults were done with lightly-armed infantry against machine guns, artillery, and tanks. Again, human wave attacks against dug in defenders with overwhelming superiority in firepower sometimes results in victory for the attacker, but it also always results in the attacker suffering horrendous casualties.

Regardless of all of this, even if the Pentagon figures are exaggerated, remember that the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The figure is prominently labeled as being an American estimate and is properly sourced. There is no legitimate argument to remove it, because it satisfies the requirements for the core policy cited above. There is therefore no real need to continue this discussion. Also, the reliability of the sources you provided is questionable; it's over 10 years old, and still has the approx 800k number for South Korean casualties, which has since been revised.

Lastly, please do not call me (or anyone else, for that matter) ignorant; you don't know me, nor do you know what I do and do not know. It also borders on incivility. Communist countries are well known for distorting history when it suits them. Read Lenin's Tomb, a great book that in part describes Soviet attempts to rewrite history in their own archives. As for Zinn's book, it has been criticized as being too simplistic and in some cases, innacurate. Did I ever state that Western sources are perfect? No, I don't believe I did. As a student of history, I am well aware that historical works are often blurred by a lack of full information, or biased in a nationalistic fashion, either intentionally or not. Regardless of this, the US has a better track record than many countries; many Japanese think they attacked Pearl Harbor because the US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for god's sake. What I did say was that the American estimate of American casualties is probably 99% correct, and has been vetted by numerous independent scholars, while the Chinese estimate of Chinese casualties has not. On their own website, it states the figure is incomplete and a work in progress. So please don't put words in my mouth. Parsecboy (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)