Best korean war history books according to redditors

Per Krivosheev, out of 1 836 562 of POWs who got back into USSR (and about the same number emigrated), 233 400 were sentenced to various terms in GULAG. That's ~12%.

You need to distinguish several major POW categories:

1. POWs, freed from extermination camps. Almost never got harsh sentences.
   
   
2. POWs who fled from camps and broke thru (or so they claimed) enemy lines or joined guerilla bands ('Partisans'). Were they turncoats, trained for spying and terrorists attacks? Or were they honest soldiers? That was the question for SMERSH ("СМЕРть Шпионам" - "Death to Spies") operatives. Some of Brandenburgers were indeed placed into camps, then staged breakthrough with 'real POWs' to gain credence - see Shellenberg memoirs:
   
   ---
   Thousands of russians were picked in POW camps, who were infiltrated by paradrops into russian territory. Their primary goal was political propaganda and diversions. Other groups were targeting Partisans (e.g. pro-Soviet guerilla)
   ---
   
   (I have access to russian-translated Shellenberg book, that's quick translation into English)
   
   
3. POWs who changed sides and were captured while fighting along with germans - Hiwi. Kinda self-indicted and well, real traitors - but not all of them were shot on spot by troops. Many were, yes - and they weren't counted.
   
   
4. (Not strictly POWs) soldiers, who were left behind enemy lines and who either broke thru enemy lines or were living on occupied territory which were freed and then all populace filtered. This is by far the largest category - and some of them served as Hiwi or took part in nationalistic guerilla bands (Ukranians, Chechen and Crimean tatars mostly), which were conducting acts of terrorisms. Brandenburgers were also mixing up with (окруженцы - encirclee)
   
   Toughness of interrogation and chance of being acquitted depended a lot on personality of an interrogator.
   
   >how accurate Soviet methods for assessing treason were?
   ---
   
   I am not aware of any 'accurate' methods for assessing treason...
   
   So it was inaccurate, of course - if interrogator was able to get in touch with your unit and it could provide a glowing recommendation - you're free. If your CO was alive and asshole or great, but KIA - you might get a long sentence - depending how well you were holding up on interrogations. Mostly circumstantial evidence was used in convictions - like lack of serious wounds, general attitude to USSR, any inaccuracies in accounts how you've been captured, whether personal papers were saved or lost etc.
   
   Sources:
   
   
5. Schellenberg, Walter (2000) [1956]. The Labyrinth: Memoirs Of Walter Schellenberg, Hitler's Chief Of Counterintelligence, translated by Louis Hagen. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0306809279
   
   
6. Russian Wiki - Soviet POWs in Great Patriotic War
   
   
7. G.F. Krivosheev - Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century Hardcover
   

It is

https://www.amazon.com/002-Revolutionary-Transformation-Military-Symposium/dp/1879176165

Still, it's a cool picture

The most comprehensive source on this is Krivosheev's Grif sekretnosti snyat, which has figures for all Russia's/USSR's 20th century conflicts with WW2 of course being most prominent among them. Here is the text in Russian, the WW2 chapter is the fifth one; the wealth of information is summarized in the tables, and I think you'd be able to get at most of it via Google Translate. (The book has an English translation, but appears to be both abridged and highly expensive to boot).

As for your specific question, the answer is - not long. As was pointed out, 1941 was an extremely deadly year, accounting for slightly more than 25% of total irrecoverable despite being only half a year. 1942 - another 25%. So, ~55% in 1941-42. The statistically most likely fate for a soldier called up in 1941 was to be captured in one of the great encirclement battles, and die in a Nazi PoW camp. If he survived through to 1943, his risk profile would slowly converge and, from 1944, begin to look better than his equivalent in the Wehrmacht. In particular, his risk of capture would drop dramatically henceforth; the risk of being killed would substantially fall, though it would still remain extremely high relative to most armed conflicts; and his risk of getting wounded would start exceeding the risk of getting killed by several factors (a high WIA-to-KIA ratio is a sign of a well organized military).

Also worth pointing out that risk profiles differed quite radically for different branches of the armed forces. I don't recall the source, but I remember reading an estimate of "life expectancy" (that is, from induction until KIA/MIA/WIA/POW) in 1941 for them: It was around 3 months for infantry vs. 3 years for artillerymen, with intermediate numbers for tank men, airmen, etc.

Here what I've picked up
On War by Clausewitz

MCDP 1 Warfighting

FMFRP 12-18 Mao Tse-tung on Guerrilla Warfare

FMFRP 12-13 Maneuver in War

On Grand Strategy

The Art of War by Baron De Jomini

Just and Unjust Wars (apparently it's on the Commandant's reading list too)

Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep Battle

Out of the Mountains: The Coming Age of the Urban Guerrilla

Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century

The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan

Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The Evolution of Operational Warfare

Why Air Forces Fail: The Anatomy of Defeat

Deep Maneuver: Historical Case Studies of Maneuver in Large-Scale Combat Operations (Volume 5)

JP-1 Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States

DoD Law of War Manual

The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics

Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS

Napoleonic Warfare: The Operational Art of the Great Campaigns

The Air Force Way of War: U.S. Tactics and Training after Vietnam

Strategy: A History

LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media

The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World

MCTP 3-01C Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery

Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis

The U.S. Army in the Iraq War – Volume 1: Invasion – Insurgency – Civil War, 2003-2006

The U.S. Army in the Iraq War – Volume 2: Surge and Withdrawal, 2007-2011

Illusions of Victory: The Anbar Awakening and the Rise of the Islamic State

Concrete Hell: Urban Warfare From Stalingrad to Iraq

The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy

Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime

This is all I can name off the top of my head right now

I must hold back the Chinese fan boy in me. Keep in mind this is a pan-Asian sub. We built this place to bring all Asians together. Talking up our Asian superiority is fine, but never alienate our Asian bro and sis[s].

 

The sources you were referring to

Africa - https://np.reddit.com/r/CIWO/comments/3o7faq/china_is_colonizing_africa/

India 1962 border war - https://np.reddit.com/r/CIWO/comments/3o7i2f/china_waged_a_border_war_against_india_in_1962/

Tibet - https://np.reddit.com/r/CIWO/comments/4vmr9c/tibetan_genocide/

Penis - https://np.reddit.com/r/CIWO/comments/3pj0d6/small_penis_stereotype/?ref=search_posts

 

Pollution [thought you might want this. USA pollutes at 4x the rate per capita despite China developing and being the world's factory lol] - https://np.reddit.com/r/CIWO/comments/3o7gf0/china_is_the_biggest_polluter_in_the_world/

 

Korean War quotes. These will serve you well.

>Panic among troops during wartime is common. In the early months of the Korean War, many U.N. troops were gripped by panic described as "bug out fever." Many frightened soldiers ran away rather than staying and fighting. They left behind their wounded comrades, their weapons, and anything else that might slow them down.

The Korean War: America's Forgotten War p.27

 

>In late 1952, the U.S. 2d Division compiled a volume of data on the Chinese in battle, which the Eighth Army considered worth reproducing. The following excerpts are from this study...[sic] The Report then sums up:
>
>The Chinese soldier is not a superman. He is well and courageously led at the small unit level and the results of actions at this level offer definite proof that he is thoroughly disciplined. His industry is shown by his thorough fortifications. His conduct of the defense is accomplished in spite of UN air superiority, UN liaison aircraft, lack of his own liaison aircraft and inferior communications equipment. He is operating on a shoestring basis as is evidenced by the hodge-podge of equipment picked up on the battlefield after every encounter.
>
>To these encomiums might be added the observation that the enemy was not only brave and resourceful, but also tough.
>
>Growing up in an underdeveloped nation, where famines were common, the Chinese could subsist on very little and endure great privation...
>
>Pitted against against opponents who had attained a high degree of technological skill and who were able to bring superior materiel into play against them in the air, on the ground, at sea, and in matters of communication and transportation, they still managed to hold their own by the prodiious use of manpower...

TRUCE TENT AND FIGHTING FRONT p.511

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0084FXCF8

 

Imperial Japan was the West's creation

>China is confronted with two very different groups of foreign Powers, on the one hand the white nations, on the other hand Japan. In considering the effect of the white races on the Far East as a whole, modern Japan must count as a Western product; therefore the responsibility for Japan's doings in China rests ultimately with her white teachers.

Source: The Problem of China by Bertrand Russell

 

Review of your post: There is some exaggeration, but relatively speaking yes, Asians and especially the Koreans are very peaceful compared to the West. They are more inclusive, maybe not open borders inclusive, but will not murder you with humanitarian intervention inclusive.

 

China and East Asians have problems with gambling, extreme patriarchy in some regions [improving though], arrogance, greed, corruption, excessive focus on status/money leading to under-utilized creativity, but these are minor problems when it comes to world governance [except the corruption and greed parts. those must be kept in check]. Where the West excels is in its daring, which I think is also why there are higher rates of psychopathy. Hopefully, Asians can change culturally a bit to embrace a more open-minded approach and be less instantly judgmental. Not everything has to make us high status and rich. My biggest concern is that should Asia lead, they must never share potentially powerful tech. I don't want to ever see a gunpowder 2.0 fall into the West's hands again.

You could try The Korean War: A History by Bruce Cumings. It gives a good introduction into the conflict and is very critical of the USA's role and behaviour in the war. Or you could try his "Origins of the Korean War". I've heard good things about those two volumes but haven't read them myself.

I can't give you much on American public opinion, but I can address your third point.

In the few years of division before war (1945-50), North Korea implemented a lot of really popular policies. This included land reform that parceled out property to the common people; empowering women to work outside the home; schools and daycares; and public work projects. At the same time, South Korea was busy attempting to stamp out leftists and prevent a left-leaning state from springing up and ousting the pro-American dictatorship in place.

After the war, South Korea was still a dictatorship attempting to stamp out leftist opposition. Remember, this is the height of the Cold War. Priorities being what they were, the leadership in South Korea was more concerned with maintaining power than rebuilding. North Korea, with the support of both China and the Soviet Union, was able to immediately turn attention to reconstruction. South Korea remained under dictatorship/military rule for decades. They didn't elect a civilian president until 1993. It's difficult to imagine, because South Korea today is a massive developed economy, but North Korea was doing objectively better for a long time.

The cult-of-personality didn't really begin until the transition of power from Kim Il-Sung to Kim Jong-Il. While the elder Kim had legitimate credentials for leading the party and the state, Kim Jong-Il... not so much. So the veneration of Kim Il-Sung was designed to legitimize Kim Jong-Il's succession. That amazing state education implemented in interwar years turns out to be a perfect vehicle for indoctrination. The economic descent of North Korea is more linked to the winding down of the Cold War: without the Soviet Union and China providing resources and manpower, North Korea's economy stuttered. The country became isolated from the global economy (the same global economy that finally pulled South Korea into Asian Tiger status). This was followed by a famine in the 1990s and the collapse of the state distribution system. North Korea hasn't recovered.

It's hard to imagine how sudden this shift must have seemed. Imagine someone born in Korea, say, in the year 1910. This person is born the same year that the Korean king is ousted, and Korea annexed into the Japanese empire. If they were left-leaning politically, they might go to China in their late teens/early twenties and fight in the Chinese civil war, or perhaps join an anti-Japanese guerilla organization. Age thirty-five, their country is split in two, and they probably have relatives on either side of the border. Age forty, open war between countrymen. The literature from this period is heart-wrenching. Some parents had children fighting for opposing sides, and loyalties were divided.

After the war, if this person is in North Korea, they enjoy an adulthood of fairly secure living, with work and education and land to own. But by the age of eighty, this person will have also seen their grandchildren starving to death, and their children possibly hauled off to re-education or work camps.

If this person is in South Korea, they will have watched as Americans slipped into old colonial institutions and continued the persecution of leftists. They will have worried about getting work and getting food; education is a luxury. But by age eighty, they will have seen successful democratic protests, and seen their grandchildren buy cell phones, and go to world-ranked universities, and never worry about food.

Twentieth-century Korean history is fascinating. So many changes within such a short period of time.

Some random thoughts inspired by the video:

• I disagree with the characterization of Kim Il-Sung as a "Soviet puppet." He was an anti-Japanese guerilla fighter prior to the war, with combat experience in China, and solid socialist credentials. There was significant friction between Kim and the Comintern in Russia, which is probably best exemplified by the obvious example given in the video: Kim Il-Sung was intent on unifying Korea with or without Soviet approval. And he made the attempt without Soviet support. During rebuilding, Kim Il-Sung often played China and the Soviet Union against each other to gain benefit. Hardly a puppet; he played his role to his own advantage.
  
  
• I really appreciate that the phrase "Northern aggression" wasn't used to describe the invasion. While North Korea's invasion is undoubtedly the spark for the war snowballing into a Cold War proxy conflict, it helps to consider the context. Skirmishes had been on-going for months. Both sides were actively calling for unification by military means. North Korea was flourishing, supported by powerful allies (China, Soviet Union), and was implementing the promised policies that people had wanted under Japanese rule. From the northern perspective, South Korea had exchanged one colonial rule for another, and were no better off for it. It's inaccurate to paint North Korean motives as simple aggression. And I wish that was more well known.
  
  My sources:
  
  The Korean War: A History by Bruce Cumings
  This is the book on the Korean War, one of the earlier "revisionist" academic works. It might give some insight into American perceptions of the "Forgotten War." It's the book that I would recommend to anyone wanting to get a decent overview of the Korean War, because it addresses the issues with American scholarship (i.e. it's very biased about socialism).
  
  "Everyday Life in the North Korean Revolution, 1945-1950" by Suzy Kim
  This looks at the interwar years in North Korea, with particular focus on land reform, education, and women.
  
  "The Destruction and Reconstruction of North Korea, 1950-1960" by Charles K. Armstrong
  This looks at the socialist "fraternity" of states, and how Chinese/East German/Soviet aid was integral to North Korea's rebuilding and economic success in the immediate post-war period.
  
  This entire issue of Cross Currents on "(De)Memorializing the Korean War: A Critical Intervention" is a useful look at how different players recollect the war in the aftermath.
  
  If you can find it, I also recommend "Socialist Korea: A Case Study in the Strategy of Economic Development" by Ellen Brun and Jacques Hersh. It was written in the 1970s, and might give an interesting perspective on how people were explaining North Korea's progress at the height of its success.

I would strongly suggest checking out Bruce Cumings and his work on the Korean War: The Korean War: A History (Modern Library Chronicles) https://www.amazon.com/dp/081297896X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_WrGeAb5MKNTAV

He does a great job talking about US war crimes, how MacArthur underestimated the fighting ability of the North Koreans (many of whom had fought on the communist side in the Chinese Civil War and were crack troops) because of racism, the atmosphere of McCarthyite USA, and more.

Here is a free YouTube interview with him: https://youtu.be/ba3dgDUtE9A

http://www.amazon.com/Breakout-Chosin-Reservoir-Campaign-Korea/dp/0140292594

Talk about hell on Earth.

Just read 'On Desperate Ground' 2 weeks ago. About the USMC defense of North Korea. Not sure if you read this yet, but it's pretty good. The Corps at this point had faced almost every enemy and every terrain. Except extreme cold and 250,000 Chinese. At the 'Frozen Chosin', they got introduced to both. They did amazing, but it was too mucb for them. check it out of you get a chance. great book.

After the war, what the Japanese did was mostly ignored, and communism became the new scary boogieman. The biological weapons created and used by the Japanese were hushed up, and because orientals were discriminated against in the US, and oriental languages were rarely taught in schools, it was very hard for what was happening in Asia to get to the media, or even common people.

Two books that can probably be found in your local library are:
The Korean War: A History
Korea's Place in the Sun

The response by the US to the Korean War was to drastically raise the amount of military spending (which had dropped to almost nothing after WW2) and this rise of the "military industrial complex" drove all the subsequent wars. Cumings is rather controversial for making the claim that the Korean War was the most important war that the US ever fought, as well as being controversial for not calling the North Koreans total loonies.

If you look at current NK propaganda, you'd think that they were still at war with Japan and the US. The NK regime considers their beginning about a decade prior to the semi-official recognition of NK being a country because 1937 is when the Kim family started fighting the Japanese - who had been occupying Korea with the blessing of the west for more than a quarter century.

To hit a few that haven’t been mentioned:

Colder than Hell is a pretty good autobiography about Korea.

Semper Fi Vietnam gives a pretty good overview of our actions Vietnam. Made me realize how heavy some of the fighting was, and how inaccurate the popular conception of the war was.

No True Glory and The Strongest Tribe are both pretty good accounts of Iraq. The former mostly deals with Fallujah and the latter with the Awakening.

If anyone wants to read a book about what actually went down during Operation Redwings here you go.

https://amazon.com/gp/product/042523259X/

This is by far the best book I have read on the Korean War and is definitely in my personal top five favorite war books: Breakout: The Chosin Reservoir Campaign, Korea 1950

The book gives a historical account of Chosin Reservoir Campaign in which 12000 Marines + personnel broke out of an encirclement by some odd 60 000 Chinese troops.

It goes into detail and provides first person accounts of the campaign by different Marines as well as an overview of the whole campaign.

If you're a military history buff, you need to read this book.

I won't give away how awesome the book is, but in one instance it gives an account of a Marine who, having expended all his ammunition cutting down a wave of Chinese, picks up an M1 Garand w/ fixed bayonet and hurls it into the chest of a final enemy soldier who was about to over run his foxhole. I couldn't put the book down after that.

It amazes me that many people do not even realize that the Chinese and the Americans actually killed each other in combat in the 20th century. The Korean War is the most overlooked conflict in recent times.

The USA already fought a war supporting South Korea, and the war between both Korean sides actually has never officially stopped.

It was the first war the USA did not win.

And the border between the two Koreas has the bigger concentration of landmines in the world.

Ugh, not at my fingertips. Wikipedia gets its source here. The battlefield was larger than many European countries and the scale boggles the mind. According to the estimates, the Soviets lost more tanks than they started the battle with.

To hang all tank losses on any one individual is rather trenchant tendentious, though I don't know who would be a likelier target than Zhukov.

I think of Kursk as the high point of "total conventional war" doctrine. It didn't really have anywhere to go after that and I notice that superpowers lost all vigor for fighting each other since then.

EDIT: Trenchant is the wrong word.

This is an amazing book about the breakout from the Chosin Reservoir. God, what a hard battle that was.

Here are my recommendations for readings on Korean history. The list is somewhat heavy on Chosŏn (1392-1910) history mainly because it is my main research interest. If you are interested on more readings on Chosŏn history, feel free to shoot me a message.

Textbook Histories

• Eckert, Carter J. et al. Korea Old and New: A History. Seoul: Ilchokak, 1990.
  
• Seth, Michael J. A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
  
  Academic Monographs
  
  
• Duncan, John B. The Origins of the Chosŏn Dynasty. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2000
  
  • Solid study on the nature of the 1392 dynastic transition. Duncan looks at the prevalence of Koryŏ (918-1392) elites in the new Chosŏn government as evidence of systemic continuity. The main argument covers the late Silla (668-918,) Koryŏ, and Chŏson eras.
    
• Deuchler, Martina. The Confucian Transformation of Korea: A Study of Society and Ideology. Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 1992.
  
  • Description available in the reading list.
    
• Yi Tae-jin. The Dynamics of Confucianism and Modernization in Korean History. Ithaca: Cornell University East Asia Program, 2007.
  
  • Translation of a number of scholarly articles written by professor Yi Taejin (Seoul National University) on the issue of Neo-Confucianism and development in Chosŏn history. The final chapters provide an interesting rebuke of Japanese colonialist and Korean nationalist historiography.
    
• Palais, James B. Confucian Statecraft and Institutions: Yu Hyŏngwŏn and the Late Chosŏn Dynasty. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996.
  
  • Monumental study of Yu Hyŏngwŏn's (Pan'gye) Pan'gye surok. In it, Palais discusses intellectual developments in the late Chosŏn period that challenged orthodox Zheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism.
    
• Eckert, Carter. Offspring of Empire: The Koch'ang Kims and the Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism, 1876-1945.Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996.
  
  • Study on the Koch'ang Kim family, owners of the Kyŏnbang Spinning and Weaving Company. The monograph raises the issues of the Japanese "modernization" of peninsular economy during colonial times, Korean collaborators with the Japanese administration, as well as Korea's place in the larger Japanese imperial structure.
    
• Cumings, Bruce. The Origins of the Korean War, Vol. I.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.
  
  • Seminal study on the causes of the Korean War (1950-1953.) Cumings proposes that the Korean War cannot be simply understood as a provocation by the North. Instead, Cumings argues that division by the Allied Powers in 1945 led to armed conflict.
    
    Primary Sources
    
    
• Lee, Peter H. and Wm. Theodore de Bary, ed. Sources of Korean Tradition, Vol. I: From Early Times Through the Seventeenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. and Ch'oe, Yŏng-ho and Wm. Theodore de Bary, ed. Sources of Korean Tradition, Vol II: From the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Centuries. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
  
  • Anthologies of translated primary sources. The sourcebooks include literature ranging from official dynastic histories, philosophical treatises, and memorials to the throne to private correspondence, political manifestos, and speeches.
    
• Choi Byonghyon, trans. The Annals of King Taejo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014.
  
  • Complete translation into English of the Veritable Records of King T'aejo (r. 1392-1398.) The Veritable Records (K. *Chosŏn wangjo sillok*) are the posthumously-compiled official records kept for every Chosŏn monarch. They register court activities, diplomatic writings, as well as other administrative affairs.
    
• JaHyun Kim Haboush, trans. The Memoirs of Lady Hyegyŏng. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
  
  • Translation of Lady Hyegyŏng's (1735-1816) four memoirs. Lady Hyegyŏng was the consort of Crown Prince Sado (1735-1762,) the son and heir of King Yŏngjo (r. 1724-1776.) Crown Prince Sado was locked on a rice chest until his death on the orders of his father.

Hello, I highly recommend that you read Bruce Cuming's amazing The Korean War: A History for a more nuanced understanding of how many Koreans, both North and South, feel about the Korean War.

Different parts of Korean society view the War differently, just like how even to this day different parts of American society view the Civil War differently.

Having said that, the conventional and triumphalist view of the Korean War being a great victory for the South and US is not the entire picture! Like anything in history, it's a more complicated and nuanced matter that has many different angles to it. Many in South Korea, to this day, are still very upset at the South Korean government over the many massacres it conducted during the War against it's own civilian population. The book I mentioned above delves more into this, but in the years before and during the Korean War, the South Korean government conducted a campaign of "anticommunism," where many innocent South Koreans were brutally murdered, especially in the provinces of Jeolla do and Jeju do.

Because of these tragic events, even to this day, there is visible division within Korean society geographically, where the Western provinces of Korea have a deep seated distrust of conservative governments, such as the current Lee Myung Bak administration.

Under the previous Korean administration when Roh Moo Hyung (yes, he's the dude who killed himself, although many Koreans think it was the current president, Lee Myung Bak, who drove Roh to suicide) was president, there was a [Truth and Reconciliation Commission] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Korea)) established to help uncover and come to peace with the darker parts of Korean history. Under it, more has come to light as to how horrible and common these massacres were.

EDIT: hyperlink issue seen below

Its the 5th grade version because this is a reddit comment and I didn't feel like writing a wall of text. I've read plenty of books on the subject as I find it a fascinating and under-discussed topic.

There were plenty of reasons that led to the actual hostilities, as you have outlined in part above. But the bottom line is that the North invaded the South on June 25, 1950, which began the series of events that brings us to today. What caused the North to take those actions is beside the point, in the end the North was the aggressor. That is black and white.

We seem to be on the same page regarding history, so again I ask, if the North was the aggressor, what is not black and white?

Since we both seem to be interested in the same topic, I'd like to recommend a couple books I have read recently and very much enjoyed, so you can "do some reading":
Conflict: The History Of The Korean War, 1950-1953, by Robert Leckie

The General vs. the President: MacArthur and Truman at the Brink of Nuclear War, by H. W. Brands

And if you have any recommendations of your own, I'm all ears, I love a good history book.

Edit: links

> I don't want war on the peninsula at all but there is no denying the North started the WAR (Not civil war)

How the fuck was the Korean War not a civil war? Korea was united for about a thousand years. The best evidence for the Korean War being a civil war is that right up until the eve of the war, thousands of Koreans were travelling north and south of what would become the border, just like right before the American Civil War Americans commonly crossed what would become the border between the USA and CSA without a second thought. You would not expect this behavior if these Koreans expected to lose their homes and be unable to go back (which is exactly what happened, and families were ripped apart as a result). In fact, as late as 1956 some of these migrants thought they might still be able to go home. In Barbara Demick's book "Nothing to Envy" she refers to a South Korean conscript name Tae-Woo who was trapped north of the border; he was holding on to hope he might be able to go back until 1956, when the DPRK issued him and others like him official citizenship documents.

Your entire comment talks about the two Koreas like they're as different as France and Germany. This is, again, like talking about the Civil War as "the War of Northern Aggression" except even more laughable because at the eve of the Civil War America was still brand spanking new, whereas Korea had been a unified country for a fucking millennium.

>I don't want war on the peninsula at all but there is no denying the North started the WAR (Not civil war) and push south Korea down to Busan. At which point the UN intervened and sent a majority USA force to help the south Koreans.

SK only existed because of US support. The DPRK wanting to drive out American imperialists isn't an invasion, it's a brilliant fucking idea actually.

>You either a troll or uneducated on the politics and history of the Korean peninsula.

Lmao I'm actually highly well read on Korean history, unlike you. It's simply not the opinion of many or most Korean war scholars that the North unequivocally "started" the war, and it's laughable to claim it didn't start as a civil war.

If you want to talk politics and history, read a fucking book. Here's a good start.

Maybe they're not.

The Sinchon Massacre really happened but it was carried out by South Korean troops against the people they saw as communist sympathizers. The Americans just stood aside and let it happen. And then, once the North Koreans re-took the county they massacred most everyone of any consequence left alive assuming they must've been collaborators with the ROK troops. The 35,000 figure is disputed but would be the total murdered by the troops of both sides. But the North Koreans pretend it was all done by the Americans which is pretty much untrue.

But a few years ago this book was published and in the review in the New York Times it is written that:

"The most eye-opening sections of “The Korean War” detail America’s saturation bombing of Korea’s north. “What hardly any Americans know or remember,” Mr. Cumings writes, “is that we carpet-bombed the north for three years with next to no concern for civilian casualties.” The United States dropped more bombs in Korea (635,000 tons, as well as 32,557 tons of napalm) than in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. Our logic seemed to be, he says, that “they are savages, so that gives us the right to shower napalm on innocents.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/books/22book.html?_r=0

If what he says is true, that the U.S. dropped more tons of bombs on North Korea in three years than were dropped in the entire Pacific Theater of WW2, would it be surprising that 10% of North Korea's civilian population at the time, 3,000,000 people, in such a small country, were killed in B-29 attacks?

Hey I am back, and here are the sources you asked for. First one is from wikipedia though I would point out that apparently citations are needed for the section in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II#Land

The wiki gives about 42,000 losses of T-34s

Here is another from a blog that uses this book as a source.

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

They give 44,900 losses

And another which also gives 44,900 as the total losses:

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/#Conclusions%20Regarding the T-34’s Overall Performance as a ‘War Winner’

Here is a discussion of casualty figures from Zaloga, and from the author of the book I linked:

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000024.html

I admit I rounded up to 45,000 when I made the album.

Hope that was helpful!

Ah knew it would be one of the two. Not sure exactly what subjects they cover in the first year at Sheffield but at SOAS we start with 20th century Korea.
The main two books we used were A New History of Korea and Korea's Twentieth Century Odyssey. These two books cover the whole recent history in general and then we had readings within this for each section (colonial time, war, Park Chung-hee rule etc).
I will try and give some of the titles I can remember.
Colonial Era- Colonial Modernity in Korea,

Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea,


Offspring of Empire: The Koch'ang Kims and the Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism

War: The Korean War: A History

Park Chung Hee- Korea's Development Under Park Chung Hee,

Reassesing the Park Chung Hee Era

And we finished on a section on Korean identity. Unfortunately the only book I can remember from that was Ethnic Nationalism in Korea.

Hope this helps a little. You do a year abroad in your second year right? Some of my classmates in my year abroad were from Sheffield Uni.

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

http://www.amazon.com/Korean-War-History-Library-Chronicles/dp/0679643575

is supposed to be good. mediocre Amazon reviews probably because it is not complimentary of the US role.

quick blog review of it from Marginal Revolution

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/08/the-korean-war.html

I'm going to post this here for anybody else who might be interested.

The Trident by Jason Redman - Autobiography of a SEAL who fucked up majorly and repeatedly (he ragequitted US Ranger course after being sent there as a "punishment" for a previous mistake), then came back from it. If you've heard of the story about the note outside the hospital ward which goes like, "do not come into this room to pity me", it's this guy.

SEAL Team Six by Howard E. Wasdin - One of a handful (two?) of SEALs who participated in the infamous Operation Gothic Serpent and Battle of Mogadishu. Despite all the experiences, he says the biggest success over there was when he defied orders in order to treat a child's rotting leg.

And of course, Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell. Do take note that he has been criticized for many inaccuracies in the book, and the general consensus seems to be that a more reliable account would be Victory Point.

A few anecdotes:

Lt. Michael Murphy, while severely wounded from falls, cuts, gunshots, and shrapnel, and having lost two of his men, made a satellite phone call for help in an open area exposed to gunfire. He finished the call with a "thank you".

Marcus Luttrell received a service dog to help grief his fallen teammates. The dog's name was formed by combining the initials of his teammates. That dog was shot dead, for fun, by a bunch of young punks who didn't know who its owner was. He chased them in his truck across the state and when he finally caught up with them, he handled the situation professionally, even though he was armed and completely capable of laying the smackdown on the punks for shooting his dog.

> if you haven't read up on the "Chosin Reservoir" you motherfucking need to. 15,000 marines were surrounded by some (50,000?) Chinese and fought their way out in the most horrible of conditions.

Regarding Chosin, I feel compelled as an Army veteran to recommend two books on the subject of the Battle of Chosin, and the Korean War in general: East of Chosin by Roy Appleman details the experiences of the Army 7th ID's RCT-31 in defending the Marines' right flank, and The Forgotten War by Clay Blair jr. Both texts avoid the perpetuation of the myth that RCT-31 displayed cowardice at Chosin. For many years after the battle, USMC "middle management" allowed their parochialist dislike of the Army to color their interpretation of RCT-31's actions at Chosin to the point of accusing them of throwing down their weapons and running away from the Chinese. In reality, RCT-31 was massively outnumbered and lost a majority of its personnel as wounded and KIA in keeping the Chinese from advancing down the east shore, and the few combat-ready survivors, reduced from a regiment to a mere battalion, fought right alongside the 1st Marine Division in the breakout.

I really hope they make a film on ORW2/Whalers. JJ Konstant & Fox 2/3 really deserve to tell the story, as do many.

IIRC Ed Darack's book Victory Point was selected by the Naval Academy as one of the best books of the year 2009

E* Maybe a min-series even w/broader scope

You need to buy this and read it.

https://www.amazon.ca/U-S-Marine-Corps-Scout-Sniper-World/dp/1581605277

Battlefield archaeology was a huge help to me. You don't' realize how little we actually know until you understand how we learned what we do know.

http://www.amazon.com/Fields-Conflict-Battlefield-Archaeology-Empire/dp/B004JZWMEY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303281148&sr=8-1

For those who liked WW2's With the Old Breed or Helmet for my Pillow memoirs, I highly recommend Secrets of Inchon by Commander Eugene F. Clark (Navy Cross, two Silver Stars).

Clark and two Korean commandos were tasked with scouting Inchon harbor in advance of MacArthur's invasion, culminating in the lighting of the channel lighthouse to guide the invasion fleet. His children found his manuscript after his death. Extremely well-written account of an almost unbelievable behind-the-lines mission.

Amazon

A quarter of the way through this:

On Desperate Ground: The Marines at The Reservoir, the Korean War's Greatest Battle

I'd recommend the documentary Korea - The Unknown War. It should be watched in conjunction with Bruce Cummings' book War and Television, which is largely about the process of making that documentary.

Once you realize how much propaganda affects even attempts to present a balanced view of the DPRK, you'll start to understand just how important the demonization of the DPRK is to the American-psyche. It's pretty much required to even have a positive view of America at all that the DPRK must be demonized, and the influence is so strong it even affects documentaries made in Britain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purge_of_the_Red_Army_in_1941

https://www.historynet.com/stalin-attacks-red-army.htm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

Incompetent leadership, disease, frostbites killed more people in the Eastern Front than soldiers killing each other. This book pretty much covered it

> There is no alternate view to that event.

Are you so naive? Please read Bruce Cumings ( a well respected historian of korean war from University of Chicago) Origin's of Korean War[1].

1.http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Korean-War-Vol-Liberation/dp/0691101132