Talk:Korean War/Archive 1

message: How about either renaming the section called "Stalemate..." to "The Outpost Battles" (or War), as this stage of the Korean War had settled into a battle for position via the various outposts both sides controlled. Either that, or an article in and of itself about the "Outpost Battles", since there were so many of them, being taken, lost, re-taken again, etc. for almost a two year period. Lots of assistance would be needed for this, as there are so many outpost battles (I have started one about Outpost Harry) and thousands of web pages to peruse and who knows how many books. wbfergus 19:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question/suggestion 

message: Why no mention of north korean casualties?, ?
--Pupster21 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korean Casualties 

message: The summary needs to be more in depth.
 I can't find something right for my essay.
--Pupster21 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: There is a NEED to archive this page.
--Pupster21 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Needed 

message: "The North Koreans, however, armed with Soviet tanks, changed the nature of the war from a border conflict to a war of conquest. If the North Koreans were emboldened they were only emboldened, in America’s mind, by Joseph Stalin himself. World War III would begin if the Americans did nothing—with nothing less than Stalin as the new Fuhrer."
What sort of anti-communist nonsense is this? I thought articles were supposed to adhere to the NPOV policy? A war of conquest? How about a war of liberation? Stalin as the new Fuhrer? Fascism and socialism - even the bureaucratic socialism that developed while Uncle Joe lead the USSR, is the polar opposite of Hitlerite-fascism. Redflagflying 03:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are you kidding me? NPOV??

message: I don't understand how the Inchon landings can be absent. The article jumps from the Pusan Perimeter (which deserves more than a few paragraphs on its own) to Chinese intervention. Is this an intentional slight to MacArthur? No facts on the NKA reeling back to cover their flanks and supply links is an interesting way to show distaste for Mac Arthur and his brilliant move to save the remnants of South Korea. 
As for the occasionally recurring story about bio warfare in NK, even the Sovs stopped using that dead horse after it became an embarrassment. Even the Sov archives show this to be without merit, so although I agree with including it in the article, there should be statement that none of the allegations have been proven and instead most of them have been disproven. Madogducati
My appologies that I do not have the background+time to just edit this properly, but I think the section on the actual fighting of the war could use with a bit of editing. Most significantly, it doesn't even mention the Inchon Landing, which seems like an rather important part of the war. Thank you. 
On 9 November 2005 I amended the article text concerning the Chosin Reservoir battle to read that, "a 2,500 man task force from the 7th Infantry Division was devastated," rather than the entire division as it previously stated. This unit was the ill-fated Task Force MacLean/Faith which was virtually annihilated, losing at least 1,000 of its men killed or captured, most of the rest wounded or frost-bitten, and all of its equipment captured or destroyed.
I am Beau Martin, aka dubeaux and my source for this change is Clay Blair's, THE FORGOTTEN WAR, Times Books, NY(1987).
*******************************************************************************************
"In the predawn hours of June 25, 1950 North Korea struck across the 38th parallel behind a thunderous artillery barrage and [with 90,000 troops were assassinated by the JEWS (Oh thats gotta hurt your pride"]
Um, I don't get the last half of that sentence. Is someone being a rascal?! I thought the initial strike was a success (but maybe that's just according to "accredited" sources.)
 The above was added by User:168.166.54.11 yesterday.  There have been a couple of edits 
 since, so I haven't reverted the page. - Dalbury 15:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't understand how the Inchon landings can be absent

message: First line, "democratic" South ? Can Syngman Rhee be called "democratic"?
----
:Good question, but possibly beyond the scope of the main article.  Naturally it was hailed as one during the war, but even the US had contingency plans to overthrow Rhee. (I'll dig up a source on that if it's not handy.)  I don't know how to address it, maybe "officially" democratic, but then again, the North is "officially" a republic, so it's a loaded question.  I disremember whether Rhee was duly elected, or put in place provisionally; accounts of his popularity may vary.  It's gonna be hard to maintain NPOV on that point, but I would suggest that some qualification be put in place.  Ojcit 17:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First line

message: There have been persistent allegations of American use of biological weapons, which have been more or less dismissed out of hand. The North Koreans produced "confessions" from American POWs and pictures of hollow bomb-cases containing infected feathers or insects, but this has always been believed a propaganda hoax. Those POWs retracted their confessions on being released (though i've read they were threatened with court-martial if they didn't). On the other hand, there is circumstancial evidence to suggest that some of these claims are true. Even if someone can produce 100% documented proof that it was all a lie, there has been a persistent controversy on the topic, so it should get some kind of a mention.
:The circumstantial evidence was then, and still is, the existence of FLYING ANTS. Period. Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh. Why can't Communists admit they were wrong?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.64.178 (talk • contribs) 
---------
Added the bit in parentheses about "Truman's War" and Truman not getting a declaration of war from Congress. Wasn't quite sure where to stick it, if anyone thinks of a better place, feel free to move it. --Eil 02:40, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: There have been persistent allegations of American use of biological weapons

message: Not sure where to put this:
:On November 26, 1950, troops from the People's Republic of China moved into North Korea and launched a massive counterattack against South Korean and  American forces, ending any thought of a quick end to the conflict. By November 29 United Nations forces were in desperate retreat from North Korea. 
--mav 07:53, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Not sure where to put this

message: : The US would have fought whatever the outcome, and Douglas MacArthur later told Congress "I had no connection with the UN whatsoever".
First of all, its far from clear what would have happen had Britain and France opposed the war.  Second, anything that MacArthur says has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Roadrunner 05:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This is questionable speculation

message: Seems to me something more needs to be said about the Japanese connection. If FDR hadn't made such a strong effort to bring the USSR into the PacWar, & SecState Byrnes hadn't stalled signing a surrender with Japan (which she was seeking since 4/45) until after the Trinity test, the Korean War would never have happened...  Trekphiler 10:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Japanese were trying to open negotiations to end the war, but refused to surrender "unconditionally", which the allies had set as the only terms of surrender they would accept. I've seen statements that the Soviets may have deliberately hindered the Japanese efforts, as they stood to gain if the war were prolonged until they were ready to enter it, per Allied agreements. The Japanese did not agree to surrender "unconditionally" until after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: IIRC, UN troops are still stationed in the ROK. Also, the United Nations Command (Korea) which fought the war still exists and is manned. -- Penta 08:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Seems to me something more needs to be said about the Japanese connection.

message: - about Chinese (PLA) loses:
Various credible Western and Eastern sources (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Ko) agree that about 500,000 Chinese soldiers were either killed in action or died of disease, starvation, exposure, and accidents.
I think the 500,000 number is a MEDIAN from all different estimates, not an "agreed number".
--Sgfhk321 21:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: about Chinese (PLA) loses

message: I personally am raised believing that the super powers (U.S, Soviet)
are responsible for splitting up the once united Korea.
I am speaking from a Korean's point of view as I myself am S. Korean.
Although Americans out there may think this is bull, many S. Koreans will most likely go with my opinion.Though if they don't, I guess I can't blame them. People think that S. Korea asked for help, this is a true fact, but in the background I personally think that the U.S. and Soviet were fighting for the Koreas through their own greed.
It is hard for me to believe the above, as the North Koreans started the war (with Soviet support).
Its every counties design to have influence else where in the world, even S.Korea want its own influences. Drew1369 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Power Countries 

message: I removed this sentence:
This proved to be the last, and most terrible, of the major war crimes undertaken by the United States during the Korean War.
If killing/bombing enemy civilians intentionally is a war crime then every party ever involved in a war is guilty of it. Both allied and axis powers did it during both world wars. I can't really think of a major conflict which didn't involve bombing of targets which were not always strictly military in nature. For example, is bombing a factory making weapons which is staffed by civilians a war crime? You could interpret the fourth Geneva Convention to say that it's not OK. Regardless, this is a topic for discussion in a piece about ethics, not the Korean war. We should be describing what happened, not judging it. Where are the numerous war crimes of the North Koreans/Chinese/etc. mentioned? Why are those the most terrible?
Nvinen 12:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct targeting of civlians was prohibited (1897 or 1907), but the convention language was contradictary, so it could be interpreted as to be allowed in some circumstances. A weapons factory could have been said to qualify as a military target; civilian casualties ("collateral damage") attacking it were acceptable, even by strict interpretation.  See Stephen Garrett, Ethics and Airpower (St Martin's, 1993).  Trekphiler 10:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd be wary of citing Nuremberg; that was a noxious example of the victors using trumped up law to punish the defeated. Many of the "crimes" were not illegal at the war's start (such as "waging agressive war"). Which is not to say the Nazis desrved to get off scott free; they should have been hunted down like rats & strung up from lampposts.  Trekphiler 10:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Prior to the war Kaesong was a South Korean territory, but is now a North Korean territory. Was the 38th parallel after the war not the same 38th parallel before the war? — Instantnood 20:35, Feb 14 2005 (UTC)
The current border is actually the location of the front line at the time of the cease-fire. It isn't exactly in line with the original border. There were many discussions aimed at moving the border back to where it was at the start of the hostilities, but as you may realise, there was no official truce and the war technically continues, although with a 50+ year ceasefire (which is occasionally broken). The talks were so protracted, fighting often broke out, changing the front line, while discussions about where the border should be were continuing. Nvinen 23:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaesong and 38th parallel 

message: Since the war never ended and if it starts up again. Will it still be considered the Korean War? - Little Spike
Any answer to that would be speculation. Enduring names for wars often do not come into general use until well after the war is over. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: Not sure if this link will work forever - but http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111937345541365397-08wXv4f864Vh8o7ov6es2U_3UhE_20060622,00.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top. Shame it was about a mistake :(. Pcb21| Pete 14:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but how many encyclopedias fix their errors so fast that the cited article was outdated before it was released? (For those who haven't followed the links or history, this refers to the 36,000 U.S. fatalities from the Korean War, revised downward from 54,000 several years ago by the DOD after realizing they'd erroneously included all U.S. military fatalities throughout the world, even for traffic accidents, etc., a statistic that remains uncorrected in many sources.) — Jeff Q (talk) 21:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Actually I think it is great. General reference works are bound to make mistakes. Britannica is literally littered with them (see our "mistakes in Britannica" page). Wikipedia however is a unique position to correct the errors quickly and moreover, and this is important, document the error for all to see so that it doesn't happen again. Obviously a completely perfect reference work would be ideal and the wiki model is not providing that yet. However I honestly believe it is a major step forward to making that goal possible. Pcb21| Pete 22:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Bravissimo.  I've found countless mistakes in printed works & TV docs, & in them, the only option is a new ed, which is mighty unlikely. Here, a quick post, a note on the Talk page, & voila.  I love it.  Trekphiler 10:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article in WSJ

message: While it is clear in not only the "Atrocities and War Crimes" section but the rest of the article that there were atrocities committed by both sides during the war, the simple statement that Communists executed thousands of persons in its occupation is misleading at best and, in places, a vicious lie.
There is a great amount of doubt whether those executed in Taejon were killed by DPRK after, or ROK troops before, its capture in July 1950.  Eyewitness and journalistic accounts point to it having been carried out by ROK troops and, importantly, US military advisers overseeing the effort.
In 1999, the US Archives declassified many photographs showing that US advisors or observers on the ground were aware or were present at the killing of at least 2,000 civilians in Taejon in early July 1950.
During the (first) recapture of Seoul, there are tens of thousands of cases of communist sympathisers and their families being summarily executed by ROK personnel.  Similar events occurred after the capture of Pyongyang.  Following the entry of China into the war, the Department of State estimates that 50,000-90,000 men from Pyongyang died of starvation, disease, exposure and bruality when the ROK conscripted them with the intention to use them as slave soldiers.
Even disregarding US atrocities, which were mostly from aerial bombardment rather than executions and are relatively well summed-up at the end of the "Air War" section, massacres by the ROK were similar in number and magnitude to those by the DPRK and Chinese.  This should not be surprising considering that the ROK leadership was made up of mainly those people who had collaborated with the Japanese in their occupation and brutalisation of East Asia.
Considering this, the "Atrocities and War Crimes" section reads close to slanderous McCarthyism, which, given that we do, in fact, have the benefit of hindsight, is clearly inappropriate.
I have taken the liberty to remove the Taejon comment, but will leave the management of the remainder of the obvious oversights to others more experienced than I.
I think most of us can agree that the War Crimes section is a bit of a shambles, as, indeed, is much of the commentary when one considers the magnitude of the conflict.  If others would allow it, I think we need to look again at certain parts of that section in order to introduce a more comprehensive evidencing of specific actions in order to create a more balanced account of events and to avoid the somewhat unsatisfactory ending of that section.  Also, if the Hague Conventions or Nuremburg Principles classify (as posted above by anonymous - please register, log in and timestamp!) these actions as war crimes, I see no reason why there should be such a fudging over what is clearly an important issue. Tancred 09:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The section definitely needs expansion, more detail, and more references.  Since the article is getting lengthy, what are everybody's thoughts on making the section an article in its own right (if not several)?  That would give room to sort it out by incident, by kind (abuse/execution of prisoners, noncombatant victims, humanitarian crises, etc.), by perpetrator, and by source.  It's too important to have in one short subsection. Ojcit 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atrocities 

message: Is it just me or do the first two paragraphs sound redundant?--Kross 23:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
It seems like the much of the content in the section "Order of War" is repeated verbatim in the following sections.  I reccomend removal of any redundancies.  206.61.144.2 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a bit redundant 

message: I tried to make part about air war more neutral and less US-biased.
Also UN (and US) pilots largely overclaimed both number of MiGs engaged and their air kills.
Also sentense about Sabre pros is quite messed up. Sabre did have radar gunsight, but didn't have any radar warning receiver for reason below. MiG didn't have radar gunsight, gyroscopic only, but did have radar warning receiver for reason abover. I took this info from www.acig.org and Venic's Aviation Page which are very reliable and not biased sourses.
which are very reliable and not biased sourses. So you say. That doesn't make it so. SHow basis for your statement "largely overclaimed"--if claiming 650 Sabres downed isn't "largely overclaimed" what is? Buckboard 13:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article changed 

message: The first sentence states: The Korean War (Korean: 한국전쟁/韓國戰爭), from June 25, 1950 to July 27, 1953, was a conflict between North Korea and South Korea. ... Should it not read ... The Korean War (Korean: 한국전쟁/韓國戰爭) was a conflict between North Korea and South Korea which began on June 25, 1950 and entered a state of truce on July 27, 1953. --- As there has been no declaration of peace, the two nations are still at a state of war, so to say the war has ended is inaccurate. --Jon Cates 17:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review 

message: I restructured the page so that a unitiated reader does not drown in chaos. Mjolnir1984 19:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructured page

message: For the UN side, the artcile states total combatents: 933,845; total casulaties: 995,601 - which is more than the number of combatents! Tompw 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, the numbers are hugely screwed up for both sides. It's even worse for the Reds - 1.5 million dead with less than 900,000 deployed? Come on, we need better figures for this! John Smith's 15:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The non-Un side could include civilian casulaties, hence why I didn't question it. But still... those numbers need to be sorted out! Tompw 19:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck, mate. Settling casualties is a perennial task; new research will obsolete your numbers tomorrow. And records tend to get lost or destroyed in wars...  Trekphiler 10:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can include estimations from several different sources from either side, but not mixed. Aran|heru|nar 08:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casulties vs. Combatents 

message: I just created United Nations Command (Korea) as it was on the list of requested articles.  I put links to Korean Armistice Agreement and Military Armistice Commission in that article.  I know that the KAA is referenced in at least one other article.  I assume there will be some opinions on how to properly integrate the above with this article. - Dalbury 14:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related articles 

message: "he (MacArthur) was also wrong at Wake when President Truman asked him specifically about Chinese troop buildup near the Korean border"
What was Wake? The link is faulty...
:Meeting with President Truman on Wake Island.  Douglas MacArthur, Korean War section. Also,  - Dalbury 20:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wake? 

message: Any reason the North Koreans Kim Il-sung in this article use surname-first designation, whereas the South Korean Syngman Rhee gets the western style surname-last?
This should be changed lest we reveal any bias--pro-western Rhee gets a western name? Kidding, of course, but the article really should be consistent. I suggest Korean style, surname-first for both names.
(Also, "combatants" is mispelled above)
:Rhee was American educated, and that was probably one of the reasons that his name is usually written in the western style. Other reasons may include personal preference. Kim, by contrast, may not even speak any western language. Most text in English uses the western-style order for Rhee's name. — Instantnood 16:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, Synmgman Rhee was educated in the West. Since he had a Ph.D. he published a few papers and presumably he signed them with his name written this way. He himself westernized his name (see the Wikipedia article on him). At any rate, this is the name he goes by now and conventions are conventions. I guess it's the case with many foreign names - why do we refer to Vienna as "Vienna" when the Germans spell it "Wien"? Heythatslife 02:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a Manual of Style page that should address that...Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles).  I have no opinion. Ojcit 03:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Surnames 

message: Koreans do not use the name provided in parentheses: 한국전쟁 (hanguk jeonjaeng). That means, literally, Korea War. Of course, Americans don't call the Civil War "The American War."  Almost all Koreans say 육이오 (yuk-i-o), which means "six-two-five," the starting day of the war. It is written "6.25". I did not make any changes because the way it is written now contains no real ambiguity and is understood by Koreans.
Maybe someone with more knowledge can weigh in with what Korean historians of the Korean War use as the official name (I'm sure the DPRK has it's own name, too). After all, even American historians say "the American Civil War" when distinguishing America's conflict from others.
:i second the motion that 한국전쟁 is not the right korean word for the korean war. i think the most widely used scholarly term is 남북전쟁 ("South-North War") (which is the same word used for the american civil war), at least in south korea. 6.25 is more colloquial. & 한국전쟁 would not be used by north korea either because 한국 is south korea's word for korea, not used by nk. Appleby 02:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm nevermind, it seems 한국전쟁 is now the favored term, to distinguish it from the american civil war. i seem to remember this not being the case a while back, but korean wikipedia has this topic under 한국전쟁, although it may be because they're translating from this english wikipedia. Appleby 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean name of the war 

message: Unlike the "Ho Chi Minh" trail in Vietnam, why was there never a "Kim Il-sung Trail" in Korea? --Shultz 01:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kim Il-sung Trail" 

message: I remember from various Chinese history textbooks published in Taiwan, that 14,000 chose to go to Taiwan after the war ended.  It was recorded that they arrived in Taiwan in January 1954.  Why didn't this one make to the main article?
  
I'm not sure if it's their will to "chose to go to Taiwan" but I do know before  South Korea sent Chinese POWs back, many of the POWs were forced to get anti-communist, anti-Mao tatoos. Not difficult to imagine those poor guys' fate during the Culture Revolution few years later.
:They didn't have the benefit of the hindsight we have. If they knew how China was to become back then, they probably would have chosen to go to Taiwan, and if they didn't probably wouldn't think that having a tatoo that was forced upon them by the enemy would be a big deal. Therefore the most likely version is that most of them preffered Taiwan to communist China. 193.77.18.84 12:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This 'event' was called Operation Comeback, January 21, 1954. It might be better to make a page just for it, and then link to it from here. Several other pages could link to it as well, like the page for the Joint Security Area.  wbfergus 18:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chinese POWs who defected to Taiwan" 

message: :Each year Jan 23 is named World Freedom Day (自由日)
Is this an official translation ? Literally it seems to be just a "Freedom Day", with no character for the "World" part. Taw 20:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Freedom Day (自由日) 

message: What book lists the weapons and equipment used by the countries involved in the Korean War ?  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 15:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Books [[TO&E]]

message: While the People's Republic of China had issued warnings that they would intervene if any non-South Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel, Truman regarded the warnings as "a bald attempt to blackmail the UN."   Could someone please reread this sentence carefully & check the logic.  Does it referring to North Korean troops heading south?  or north?  US troops heading north? south?   I think a better worded sentence is needed GrahamBould 11:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of Threat by PRC 

message: I am confused. The casualty estimates seem to be much higher than the troop strength for both sides. Either these facts should be checked, or, if the casualty estimates include civilians, this should be stated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grhs126student (talk • contribs) 
:That's been noticed before. See the section #Casulties vs. Combatents above. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I like the objectivity you placed within the atrocities section. I still unfortunately hear my grandfather speak about, while fighting for our country in the Korean War, how he witnessed his fellow soldiers attaching a hose pipe to a truck's exhaust and the other end within an enclosed shack to torture information out of Koreans. My grandfather still says that he never beleived that those people within that shack were anything other than civilians. Creepy story ! However, I would like to use your article within a paper, but you dont go into enough detail about the names of these massacres. What about Kwangju? Im suggesting that you list the names of massacres of all participants please. That would really add spice to your article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs) 
:Please sign your talk page comments.  Anyhow, just FYI, the Gwangju Massacre happened about 25 years after the end of the Korean War.  Additionally, I sort of doubt that most of the supposed massacres are well-documented enough to really make a list out of.  There's some mention of No Gun Ri on the page, and the Jeju Massacre is sort of contemporaneous, but other than that...  Dunno. --Zonath 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: How would people feel about a clean-up tag? I've spent the last fifteen minutes cherry-picking lines of question marks (and other vandalism) out of the page, but I notice some are still there. I considered just editing in an older version of the page, but it looks like those question marks have been there for a while without being edited out. Check out the page history to see what I mean. 
I also think that for the listing of casualties, the UN and the communists should not be lumped into two catagories. There should be individual break-downs of casualties for each country involved in this war. I think this page needs some serious revision (especially considering its importance), but I won't put a tag on it until I hear what others have to say.
:Hi, for the question marks, they are actually native text encoded in unicode. I've reinserted them. Unicode.org has a page to help you set your browser to display them correctly. --A10203040 03:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up tag consensus? 

message: as noted above, when the US had a war between the north and south, it is referred to as a civil war. the same goes for the war between north korea and south korea. it was a civil war wherein the two sides hoped to unify the nation under a single government. this distinction is an important one since it means the war was a domestic matter. if so, then questions can be raised about whether UN intervention was legal according to international law at the time.
this in itself is an interesting topic and also raises the point that the origins of the war need to be discussed if we are to gain a better understanding of the war itself. issues such as the US/SU occupations are crucial to understanding the origins of the war since each regime was more or less a product of this twin occupation. 
one other thing, does anyone else think it is a bit out of place to put a picture that shows only US marines as the lead in pix for an article on the korean war? where are the koreans and why arent their views and images being shown as prominately? just curious.
Hongkyongnae 01:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the U.S. troops took the brunt of the attack, and the ROK paper army was seriously ill-equipped. As the U.S. fought technically for South Korean defense, we should, in fact, give more credit to U.S. troops in Korea. Oyo321 22:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  civil war 

message: The BBC On This Day site says: 
 Of the 63,000 UK troops sent to Korea - many National Service conscripts - 1,078 died and more than 1,000 were taken prisoner. 
That number surprised me, so I checked here and you say 14,000.
What does anyone else make of this? --Loserdog3000 17:22, 22 June 2006 
(UTC)
*This reflects the difference between the total number who served in Korea, and the number there at any one time; the british  servicemen were rotated, as were some of the other UN forces. The page on the Commonwealth Divsion shows this; the division would be about 25,000 strong, and was 1/2 British, 1/3rd Canadian, and 1/6th Australian, with contingents from other Commonwealth countries, but each battalion served about a year. So an establishment of 14,000 british troops, and a total of 63,000 who served there, sounds about right. Also, the navy maintained a force there, which would add to the number of servicemen.194.176.105.35 15:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Troop Numbers 

message: The conventional reason MacArthur was fired deals with undercutting peace efforts.  In his book "Korea: The Untold Story of the War" Joseph C. Goulden claims the real reason was the NSA overheard MacArthur telling Spanish and Portugese diplomats he could start a nuclear war with China.  Since we do not admit to spying on our allies, a cover story was invented.  Does this claim go in this piece, the piece on Douglas MacArthur, both, or need to be reviewed by the editors?  Wat Tyler, 16:17 CDT, 06/22/2006.
::What exactly does Goulden say?  has any historian agreed with Goulden? Rjensen 22:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear Threats 

message: Isn't that a good idea for the US troops to withdraw from the Korean peninsula and stay only in Japan? In that sense, the US won't lose influence over the region, but helps to promote peace. After all, it should be the Koreans who decide how they want the Korean penisula looks like. Isn't World War II over? 
:This page is for discussions on the article about the war. Wikipedia is not the place for discussions of real-world policies. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a discussion about the war. It isn't over yet. And to whoever wrote the above, I don't think U.S. troops should leave the peninsula. First-ff, the war is still going on, and one of the main reasons North Korea does not attack South Korea is because of the U.S. troops. Although there are quite a few people in Korea that hate America and their troops here. I do not and cannot understand them. It was because of U.S. that South Korea is here today! U.S. troops protect South Korea, so I don't really get why so many people are anti-American. Oyo321 21:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dalbury's actually saying that it's not a discussion about the Wikipedia article itself. --A10203040 22:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But its related to the article. U.S. forces are technically fighting a war in a ceasefire. The fact that U.S troops are defending South Korea is the war. If it isn't the war, then what is it? Oyo321 22:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I mean to say that the discussion doesn't help the article itself. This discussion is something like a forum discussion which Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not states that it shouldn't be. --A10203040 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is commonly known as the 'Korean War' ended with the truce in 1953. As no country (that I know of) 'declared war' on any other country, there is no legal state of war existing. There has been an armed truce with occasional incidents along the demarcation line, but that has been no worse than the situation in many other parts of the world, such as the Soviet-Chinese border in the 1970s and 1980s, the India-Pakistan border since 1947 or the border between Israel and various other countries since 1948 (although the last two have been punctuated by full-blown wars every once in a while). You are also trying to discuss what will happen or should happen in the future, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Withdrawl (moved from top of page)

message: Their needs to be some mention of the claim of biological weapons use by the US as originally reported by journalist John W. Powell in the 1950's and later covered the show 60 Minutes []. Their was also a book cronically the claim called "The United States and Biological Warfare" by Canadian historians Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman. Also their has been claims that Truman had briefly giving the militery the authority to use nukes on North Korea if needed but that the British and other allies feared Russia would use nukes against them in retaliation and convinced Truman to rescind the authority . --Cab88 19:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S used biological warfare in Korea? I didn't know. Also, I though MacArthur wanted to nuke China not North Korea and Truman fired him for not listening. Good friend100 21:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Cite reliable published sources, and it can be added, as long as it is kept NPOV, and acknowledges any refutations and/or counterarguments from reliable published sources. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would napalm be considered biological? U.S. bombers did drop thousands of gallons on North Korea. Oyo321 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Napalm is just jellied gasoline, so I'm afraid that's just an ordinary weapon of war, like phosphorus rounds/bombs. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Goodfriend, napalm was used in the Korean War. U.S. bombers dropped them on communist cities often. Oyo321 12:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Oyo321 22:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Korean War and Germ Warfare 

message: This doesn't go for just the Korean War, but for all wars. I think we should have at least a basic outline of the battles of the Korean War, generals participating, and general information based on that battle. The American  has a huge network of battles of the war, and I think we should be consistent with that. So if anyone has better ideas or wants to help... Oyo321 00:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strategy

message: "Sun, Earth and Sky don't rotate around the USA, dear American patriots, "
So I will remove this silly words about 10:1 loss ratios and Evil Communists.
* I can't say this makes any sense to me. The numbers should speak for themselves. Either so many F86s and so many MiG-15s were shot down, or perhaps the numbers were different, but there should be records we can check, no? It's not got anything to do with Yankee arrogance or evil Communists, it's (mis?)reading the numbers. Don't like the numbers, bring a better set. -- YS
:Actually... and I'll get the sources when I get home from work, but we had a 15:1 kill ratio F86 v. Mig15 Drew1369 14:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again and again, more F-86 vs. MiG-15 propaganda 

message: This article definitely needs some inline citations, especially the first part where a lot of assertions are made about the cause and nature of the conflict.  In fact, some of the article appears to be very POV from the PRK side and some of it very POV from the ROK/US side.  I think that extensive inline citations would help resolve a lot of those issues.  As it stands right now, I think an argument could be made about putting the "NPOV" banner at the top of the article. Cla68 13:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many unsubstantiated, unsourced, subjective statements in this article 

message: i just finished putting a bunch of citations in the article. but what puzzles me why the focus on the early points as being POV and not those later on? that is, we could justifiably challenge virtually each and every sentence if we wished to do so. yet, it seems to me that it is often the "non-mainstream" statements that are more likely to be questioned, while more mainstream assertions are left unquestioned. it seems equal amounts of healthy questioning should be applied to all points.
at any rate, citations now appear in the areas that were earmarked "fact". thanks for taking the time to mark them.
next, you mentioned, and rightfully so, that the article is a mix of dprk, US, etc POV. yes, but honestly what else could it be? was the north korean move into the south an invasion or a liberation?  was the US intervention into the peninsula "helping" koreans or an illegal intrusion into a domestic, civil quarrel? the answer clearly depends on whom you ask doesnt it?
this is an ongoing and underlying contradiction/problem in wikipedia and not directly related to this article. but you wish to put yourself to sleep by reading more on the fatal flaws of NPOV, please visit my page and you are welcome to read some ideas about NPOV being the opiate of the wikipeidan masses. :) Hongkyongnae 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations added 

message: I removed a few footnotes that were merely repeating a reference to the same source. Unless there are specific page references, it's somewhat uncalled for to have several notes establishing the same note in the same paragraph. Assuming that every single fact statement can't have a separate references (this would make articles unreadable in the long run) it's more sensible to limiting notes to be included only in the end of a paragraph or section, assuming that all the information can be referenced with that one source.
Peter Isotalo 13:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate footnotes 

message: In regards to this sentence, "The U.S. still maintains a heavy military presence in Korea, as part of the effort to uphold the armistice between South and North Korea." As someone else already pointed out, the Armistice is between the United Nations and North Korea, not between South Korea and North Korea. While it may seem like a technicality, it is actually a rather important point when looking at the relations on the Korean peninsula. As such, I think the terminology needs to be changed to "uphold the Armistice," deleting the second preposition, or "uphold the UN Armistice with North Korea." Rooster3888 05:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armistice Correction 

message: "On January 12, 1950 United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson, repeating what General Douglas MacArthur had said in March 1949, told the National Press Club that America's Pacific defence perimeter was made up of the Aleutians, Ryukyu, Japan, and the Philippines implying that the US might not fight over Korea.[9] This omission, though not deliberate, probably encouraged the northern regime to choose that time to reunify the peninsula under its political system."
I recommend changing or deleting this sentence. The idea that the Acheson Line encouraged the North Koreans to invade at that time has been a bit of "conventional wisdom" that has existed for a long time, but which has not been borne out by any evidence. There is no evidence that I am aware of that points to the North Koreans or Soviets as having paid particular attention -- indeed any attention at all -- to Secretary of State Acheson's comments to the National Press Club. The opening of the Soviet Archives also failed to back up this assertion. At the least, we ought to change the "probably encouraged" to "may have encouraged." Even that, I think, is giving the idea more credit than it deserves, based on the evidence. I would recommend changing this to something like, "This omission is often cited as a cause or catalyst for the North Korean invasion, but there is little documentary evidence to back up that claim." Rooster3888 05:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Acheson Line 

message: The view that global communism was monolithic and that the North Koreans were little more than stooges of the Soviet Union prevented the United States and other nations from understanding the initial conflict as a civil war, wherein each side wished to reunite the peninsula, albeit under their own political system.
First of all, global Communism WAS monolithic in the sense that to that date every Communist government and party except for Yugoslavia was aligned with the Soviet Union. Second of all, although the North was not a "stooge" in the sense that it did not take orders at the whim of the USSR, it was a client state. I don't understand what's wrong with saying "client state" as opposed to "stooge", which would be more accurate. Thirdly, it's implied that the U.S. did not view this as a civil war since it was regarded as an act of international Communism. What's wrong with the assumption that it was both? CJK 23:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in article 

message: The Wikiproject Korea has just been started! If you would like to participate click on the link on the template at the top of the talk page. The project is severely incomplete and help is needed to organize and start improving Korea related articles. If anybody is interested to join, please do! thank you Good friend100 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikproject Korea

message: I took out material from the Western reaction section that didn't belong there. It described what happened to the first few U.S. units, including Task Force Smith. I did manage to mention the latter in an earlier section, but the rest was too detailed for an article on the whole war. Clarityfiend 00:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: *Anyone got any info on General Vasilev (North Korea)? — Xiutwel (talk)
*Anyone got any info on the UN Commander Constantine Zinchenko? — Xiutwel (talk)
I am looking for further information on their respective roles in this war, preferably WP:RS. — Xiutwel (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query: Commanding generals 

message: The events now taking place in Korea broke out on June 25 as the result of a provocative attack by the troops of the South Korean authorities on the frontier areas of the Korean People's Democratic Republic. This attack was the outcome of a premeditated plan.
From time to time Syngman Rhee himself and other representatives of the South Korean authorities had blurted out the fact that the South Korean Syngman Rhee clique had such a plan.
As long ago as October 7, 1949, Syngman Rhee, boasting of success in training his army, stated outright, in an interview given to an American United Press correspondent, that the South Korean Army could capture Pyongyang in the course of three days.
On October 31, 1949, Sin Sen Mo, Defence Minister of the Syngman Rhee Government, also told newspaper correspondents that the South Korean troops were strong enough to act and take Pyongyang within a few days. Only one week before the provocative attack of the South Korean troops on the frontier areas of the Korean People's Democratic Republic, Syngman Rhee said, in a speech on June 19 in the so-called "National Assembly" where Mr. Dulles, adviser to the U.S. State Department, was present: "If we cannot protect democracy in the cold war, we shall win in a hot war."
It is not difficult to understand that representatives of the South Korean authorities could only make such statements because they felt that they bad American support behind them. One month before the present developments in Korea, on May 19, 1950, Mr. Johnson, chief American administrator of aid to Korea, told the American Congress House of Representatives' Appropriations Committee that 100,000 officers and men of the South Korean Army, equipped with American weapons and trained by the American Military Mission, bad completed their preparations and could begin war at any time.
It is known that only a few days before the Korean events, the United States Defence Secretary, Mr. Johnson, the Chief of the General Staff of the United States Armed Forces, General Bradley, and the State Department adviser, Mr. Dulles, arrived in Japan and had special conferences with General MacArthur, and that afterwards Mr. Dulles visited South Korea and went to frontier areas on the 38th Parallel.
Only one week before the events-on June 19-Mr. Dulles, adviser to the State Department, declared in the above-mentioned "National Assembly" of South Korea that the United States was ready to give all necessary moral and material support to South Korea which was fighting against Communism.
These facts speak for themselves and need no comment. . . .
The United States Government tries to justify armed intervention against Korea by alleging that it was undertaken on the authorisation of the Security Council. The falsity of such an allegation strikes the eye.
What really happened? It is known that the United States Government had started armed intervention in Korea before the Security Council was summoned to meet on June 27, without taking into consideration what decision the Security Council might take. Thus the United States Government confronted the United Nations Organisation with a fait accompli, with a violation of peace.
The Security Council merely rubber-stamped and back-dated the resolution proposed by the United States Government, approving the aggressive actions which this Government had undertaken. . . .
The illegal resolution of June 27, adopted by the Security Council under pressure from the United States Government, shows that the Security Council is acting, not as a body which is charged with the main responsibility for the maintenance of peace, but as a tool utilised by the ruling circles of the United States for unleashing war. This resolution of the Security Council constitutes a hostile act against peace.
If the Security Council valued the cause of peace, it should have attempted to reconcile the fighting sides in Korea before it adopted such a scandalous resolution. Only the Security Council and the United Nations Secretary-General could have done this. However, they did not make such an attempt, evidently knowing that such peaceful action contradicts the aggressors' plans.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1950-gromyko-korea.html
---------
I think we should make an article called "Humor of the Korean War" and include the above article, for starters. The ridiculus North Korean propaganda rarely fails to crack me up =)
Yes, I am an avid reader of KCNA and dpr-korea.com, for that very reason. 193.95.232.7 13:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the pointer to KCNA.  It's hilarious.  I wonder if they have any idea of the damage that they're doing to their own cause. Raymond Arritt 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Korea started the war 

message: Under the heading “The Chinese entry (October, 1950)” it first states that
 “Soviet assistance was limited to providing air support no nearer than sixty miles (96 km) to the battlefront” (second paragraph)
It then goes on to state in the fourth paragraph
“Soviet assistance was limited to providing air support no nearer than 100 km (60 miles) from the battlefront”
I am not sure which one of the two is correct, but one of them has to be changed.
[unsigned]
::That's probably as much accuracy as you're going to find.  "Near from" doesn't really work; you can only be "near to" or "away from."  I think it's only been pretty recently verified/declassified that there were Soviet pilots and aircraft involved, so the discrepancy is forgivable.  Since 60 miles appears both places, we could make it the primary measurement.  That comes out to about 96.5 km.  Since the location of a battlefront is usually fuzzy anyhow, 100 km is probably a close enough estimate. Ojcit 03:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Soviet Union's air force 

message: Is the literal English translation of this term different from "6-25"?  If so, it's worth including IMHO. Ojcit 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its Hanguk Jeonjeng. And "6-25" is the most commonly used term to describe the Korean War in South Korea. Good friend100 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hanguk Jeonjaeng" basically just means "Korean War".  "6-25" follows a common pattern of referring to certain important events with the dates they started/happened, so 6-25 refers to the date of the invasion by North Korea.  --ZonathYak 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Hangul Jeonjaeng '' 

message: Guys, this is really strange, the number of casualties is much larger the number of combatants. Why is that? Nielswik 14:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  weird figures 

message: - MacArthur said "By occupying all of Korea we could cut into pieces the one and only supply line connecting Siberia and the south..., control the whole area between Vladivostok and Singapore.... Nothing would then be beyond the reach of our power." 
Hershel D. Meyer, The Modern History of the United States, Kyoto, p. 148.
 
- "In view of the strategic position held by Korea in Northeast Asia, establishment of control over Korea and her people... will considerably strengthen the position of our country".
The Report of Information & Investigation Bureau of the US State Department, January 28, 1949, No. 4849.
 
- Upon receiving the news that the Korean War was ignited in Korea on June 25 1950, Acheson, the then US State Secretary, said "Koreans saved us".
"South Korea and USA" edited by Silchon Munhaksa , south Korea, 1986, p. 26 
 
- In fact, the Korean War was started by the provocations of the South Korea.
Kyodo Agency, August 25 1975
 
- Colonel Eida, US military adviser in Iran army stated at an interview with staff-officers on December 6 1950: "The Korean War was launched by the ROK army under the direct command of MacArthur's Headquarters in Japan."
Crossroads, Indian newspaper, December 23, 1950, Bombay
 
- In his book The Riddle of MacArthur, John Gunther wrote that on June 25 when he and his party were on an excursion to Nikko with a high-ranking officer of MacArthur' s staff whose name was withheld, this officer was urgently called to the telephone by the General Headquarters just before noon. "He came back," writes Gunther, "and whispered a big story has just broken. The south Korean army has attacked north Korea!"' (The Riddle of MacArthur, p. 257.)
 
- "North Korean army was suddenly attacked by the ROK army before retreating 2-3km of 38th parallel from all fronts and switched over to counter attack. 
The Modern History of the United States, p. 230)
 
- "The lie revealed at last. South Korea invaded North Korea."
The Riddles of MacArthur" Tokyo, p.165)
The History of the Korean War, Vol 1, p. 230, Tokyo, Korea Critique Publishing House, 1967 edition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.85.116 (talk • contribs) 
Let the North and South Koreans tell the story of their own lives. The Japanese have no authority on this matter in consideration of the Japanese revisionist approach to their own history.
:This is Wikipaedia, not KCNA. Our purpose is not to be another official licker of Kims' boots, but to have a factual encyclopaedia. 193.77.240.28 21:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is biased! South Korea started the war not North Korea

message: Did not participate directly in the Korean War. So why is the country listed in the comabatants list? Oyo321 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently declassified documents reveal the use of Soviet Aircraft and pilots.  IIRC, the documents are from Soviet archives.  If bombing the other side and shooting their planes doesn't count as participating directly, I don't know what does. Ojcit 00:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The highest scoring fighter pilot ace in the Korean War was Russian, with 23 Air-To-Air Kills. Cat Balou 07:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet Union

message: I wonder if it's worth noting that while the TV show MASH was nominally about the Korean war, in truth it was about the war in Vietnam (which was happening at the same time the TV show was airing); only, criticizing the war in Vietnam openly would have kept the show off the air. --YS
Show the proof and added it Drew1369 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On MASH 

message: I've given the article a bit cleanup and removed the duplication but not being an expert on the war i can't say for sure that i've done a good enough job to remove the tag.  Could someone else give it a quick once-over and decide? Sapi 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication in the Inchon Landing Article 

message: The American troops were the ones who crossed the 38th parallel, and NOT the UN troops!!! Check Matray, James, Truman's plan for victory: National Self Determination and the Thirty-Eight Parallel Decision in Korea in The Journal of American History, 66:2, 1979. By this comment one does not mean to pass judgement on the military action but only to point to the correct the historical fact.
158.143.147.80 13:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to John Tolund (1991) In Mortal Combat: Korea, 1950-1953. Pp. 233-4, the South Korean Army crossed the 38th parallel first (on September 30), without the knowledge of McArthur, who was commander of the UN forces. As the South Korean forces were under the UN command, it was UN forces who crossed first, even if they were acting without the knowledge of the UN commander. -- Donald Albury 15:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In either case, since the US forces were acting out on a UN mandate, under UN command, they should (or at least could) be reffered to as the UN forces. 193.77.240.28 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossing the 38th parallel 

message: Why are the casualty figures larger than total troop strength, on both sides? Maybe it's just me, but a casualty figure of up to 4 million is significantly bigger than a total strength of 1 million.
:Troop strengths given in the article are the maximum numbers of troops in the theater at any given time. Including rotations and replacements would give a higher total, but not accurately reflect the extent of the combat. High losses coupled with high replacement rates and/or regular rotation of units in and out of the combat theater can easily result in casualties numbers larger than maximum force sizes. -- Donald Albury 02:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty Figures 

message: Maybe im mistaken but in the 1st paragraph the page calls a certain side the "Dirty Commies",:On August 6, 1945, the Dirty Commies, in keeping with a commitment made to the United States government, declared war on the Japanese Empire and on August 8, 1945, liberated the northern part of the Mexican peninsula, halting at the 38th parallel. President Harry S. Truman ordered the landing of U.S. troops in the south. 
Is this meant to be their or has someone vandalised the site???
(The power99 23:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirty Commies???? 

message: :I hope it doesn't bother anybody, but I added the Canadian leader during World War I in the Infobox. (RiseAgainst01 00:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also just removed it because I figured there would be conflict. If anyone has a problem with Canada's leader being added, then tell me and tell me the reason and I won't add it. If noone says anything I will put it back up. (RiseAgainst01 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Leader 

message: It seems to me that this article is ignoring some blatantly obvious facts about the political setting for the Korean war.
1.  South Korea was strongly supported by Japan, and Koreans who had collaborated with the Japanese during WWII.  There were Korean officers and soldiers who had collaborated with the Japanese during WWII, and instead of being punished as war criminals, they were pardoned by the U.S., and later received prominant positions in the South Korean government.
2.  Japan made a great deal of money and good business supporting South Korea during the Korean war.
3.  North Korea was made up, on the other hand, of Koreans who had fought against the Japanese during WWII.  Have people forgotten the role of  China, the Soviet Union (who invaded and defeated the Japanese Army in Manchuria simultaneously with the United State dropping the Atom bomb, which incidently, also killed large numbers of Koreans who were avidly working at Japanese weapons factories at Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and the Korean resistance, all who were fighting in cooperation with the U.S. against the Japanese enemy?
4.  So much is made of the United Nations supporting South Korea, but why is the blatantly obvious fact not mentioned, that the Soviet Union (clearly one of the largest countries involved in founding the U.N.), had withdrawn from the U.N. at that time, due to the U.S. not allowing the People's Republic of China (founded 1949) from entering into the U.N.?  In other words, more than half the population of the world - the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, were not members of the U.N. at the time that the "U.N." supported South Korea in the war.
5.  Would someone mind breaking down and mentioning the specific political parties and political allignments that the various players in the North and the South had?  It was not just as simple as the U.S. supported the southern capitalists, and the U.S.S.R. supported the northern communists.  The Koreans themselves were broken down into a number of factions and allignments, some anti-Japanese and supporting the North, and some pro-Japanese and supporting the South.
If anyone wants to check up on these details, wander over to your friendly neighborhood library and pull down any book written during the late fourties/early fifties about the situation in Korea at the time.  Are the writers of this current article hoping that their readers are so ignorant that they will not know what really happened in Korea, Japan, and China during and after World War II?
Jimhoward72 05:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Allignments of the North and South Prior to Korean War? 

message: This section appears to have been erased by vandals.72.185.112.110 00:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Korean War 1950-1953" Is Gone 

message: Are the troop strength's the total number of troops that served in the war or the peak commitments? 58.84.81.164 07:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toop Strength's 

message: This article is a mess. I just read the entire article all the way through, and it seems like someone was trying to reorganize the whole thing but gave up half-way through. Entire paragraphs are repeated in different sections, some paragraphs obviously do not belong in the sections they are in (the last paragraph of Western reaction for example), and the "{U.S. Military}-Died from Hostile Action/KIA/MIA/POW" section should probably be deleted outright as a more thorough and encyclopedic discussion of casualties on both sides is already given in the Legacy section (and without the misuse of curly braces). Kaldari 04:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I see that section was just added today by a well-meaning newbie, so I'll go ahead and nip it in the bud. Kaldari 04:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: Pictures are always nice, but I'm wonder. This was the Korean war. I realize the Chinese and Americans were involved, but are there no pictures of actual Korean battles? Every photo is about the Chinese and Americans.--Crossmr 18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I've noticed that many of the articles on major wars are far too long; So, I've decided to section them all off. This is a really big project, so it will take awhile, but sometime in the next month or two I will probably redo this article as well. Please tell me if you have any concerns about this, or have any material you want me to leave intact on this page. Thanks! Ahudson 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave everything alone. Don't erase things others may not agree with. Oyo321 02:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is unreadable as it is; and I'm not erasing anything, just moving it and putting a summary of what I moved in this article. Ahudson 02:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support breaking the various campaigns out of this article and creating a separate article for each campaign. Each of the 5 different (main) campaigns can easily become an entire article in it's own right. While people may not directly search for them, they could easily have links from this article to them, so mission accomplished. As it is, this article is overly long (in violation of the WikiPedia guidelines for articles), and moving the campaign sections into their own arctles would drastically help cut the article size, but I would also propose that each moved section have a short summation in this article, while the new articles could expand their coverage of that particular aspect/campaign. wbfergus 11:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what we should do in this case. I also want to add more about resistance and reactions to the war, social changes and implications, etc.; this article, like a lot of the other war articles, has almost nothing but military history. Ahudson 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, for the different (main) campaigns, I would go along the lines of how it is broken out at [:http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/collections/KW-Broch.htm]. wbfergus 11:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Size 

message: "The Forgotten War" redirects here, but there is no link to a disambiguation page. Will someone please link to the disambiguation page for "forgotten war" (no "The"). Please see my recent changes to that article and notes in the discussion for my supporting argument. I have no problem with redirecting "The Forgotten War" here, but I would like to see a disambiguation link to the disambiguation article on "forgotten war" so that we can clarify the nomenclature and to put it in perspective of other "forgotten" conflicts. The phrase is used more widely than one might expect (again, see my other notes). I would do this myself, but am not familiar enough with wikimarkup.
Thelastemperor 20:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Forgotten War: Disambiguation Link and Redirect Issue 

message: User friendliness is important, but consider how many branches and historical events are in an entire war. This article is too short. Not only have many editors contributed to military history articles much, deleting any section will crumble whatever link there is to other sections. Each historical fact is linked by another. Its obvious that an article on the Korean War would definitely be extremely long. Why does this come up so often? It has been suggested to trim articles on both WWI and WWII articles. Why? Oyo321 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because The purpose of wikipedia is to serve its readers and all of these articles are unable to do that. The average user doesn't need to know every tiny detail about the Korean war, just a general idea; further information can still be provided, just not in the same article. I would also like to point out that military history isn't all there is to a war, and compressing that would leave room for things like the social impacts, political influences, and other related phenomena, which are severaly under-represented in all of these articles. Ahudson 23:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too short

message: Under Truman sends in American forces it said "The U.S. did not have an emergency response force ready, but it did have a large military and reserves, and a cadre of highly experienced officers and sergeants."  There is no mention of how poorly the USA was ready for war.  Since 1945 it had carried out massive budget cuts which end up with a poorly trained and equiped army. This resulted in US troops being unable to help stop the inital North Korean attack when they were delployed.  Proper comments on this can be found in Max Hastings book The Korean War.  
It could be also mention in particular how bad the unit from the Japanes ocupation forces performed due to lack of kit and training.  This is particular bad as they were under Douglas MacArthur comand.
::That's poor quality POv. Only if you think Truman could have done something different to win in 80 days. Truman won the war against N Korea in 90 days -- a remarkable achievement. Rjensen 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truman sends in American forces - no mention of how poorly prepare US was for war. 

message: somthing not mentioned in the article is that there is some evidance that suggests Rhee purposly provoked the North into a war through the border skirmishes.  It is suggested this is becuase the USA had lost interest in Rhee in favour of Nationalist China on the island of Taiwan, which apeared to be more under threat from Mao invasion.  Rhee wanted North Korea to attack to re-establish US support else he was finished as a political leader (due to his radical right wing views (over 35,000 political prisoners by outbreak of war)) .
provide some good sources and feel free to edit the article to include them. Parsecboy 17:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see presenting more than the conventially accepted POV a fault, then perhaps you're in the wrong place. Regardless, you don't seem to be contending the arguments of the other editor, instead only hurling about your own vitriol-soaked POV. If there are objective, credible sources that support the other editor's assertions, then they belong in the article. Parsecboy 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be true that North and South are artificial, arbitrary creations, but they both controlled territory, and it is logical to say the forces of the DPRK invaded the territory controlled by the RoK. The same is true for the Vietnam war, when NVA forces invaded the RVN and took Saigon. We're talking about territory, not the people. Parsecboy 11:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Invasion 

message: Most people do not know where a word Americans used during both the Korean War and Vietnam came from.  The word literally means "American" but when said by a Korean, is pronounced Me-gook.  When Americans started arriving to fight in the war, Koreans would rush up to them and point, saying "Migook! Migook!"  Americans, not understanding the Korean people were pointing at them and saying "Look, Americans!" thought the Korean people were saying, "Me Gook," meaning, "I am a Gook."  Americans then started calling all Koreans "Gooks" which also carried over to the Vietnam War.  This term, "Gook" was used often and became a negative word with racist implications later, but it is interesting to the Historian to know it started out as a simple word.  Americans tend to take good words and make them bad sounding...the newest one being in Iraq, "Hajji."  User:125.137.68.71 11:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Americans tend to take good words and make them bad sounding" it works both ways - Gaijin, Paleface, round eye'd barbarian, Gringo, on and on.--Xiahou 01:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's blatantly POV and completely unresponsible to pretend Americans are the only people to use racial slurs. Everyone does it (that doesn't make it right); to pretend otherwise is sheer lunacy. Parsecboy 01:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Known Fact... 

message: I was just passing through when I noticed something slightly strange: Luxembourg is listed twice in the combatants list. Is this purposeful or a tiny mistake? 194.74.156.162 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're talking about; I only see one Luxembourg in the list. Parsecboy 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A passing comment

message: "POWs were mistreated by all sides. The UN side was ultimately responsible for more deaths and violence than the communist side as there were more prisoners. As pointed out by Britain's former Chief of the Defense Staff, Field Marshal Lord Carver: "The UN prisoners in Chinese hands, although subject to 're-education' processes of varying intensity...were certainly much better off in every way than any held by the Americans...."[34] Carver's assessment differs from other historical accounts which report frequent beatings, summary executions and death marches imposed by the North Koreans on UN prisoners.[35] "
Please separate Chinese and N.K. treatments of POW's. All the charges of abuse were against the N.K. Yet, China was somehow inserted in the general statement of POW abuse. If there are evidence against Chinese forces, please present them. Redcloud822 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a logic flaw here? 

message: I cleaned up the info here, but how about a separate article to discuss them in details? It was an extremally brutal war, in which MILLIONS of civilians died - imagine, 300,000 dead in Darfur (also going on for years) and people call "genocide". --HanzoHattori 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crimes