:: wikimiki.org ::

Armistice

Armistice

An armistice is the effective end of a war, when the warring parties agree to stop fighting. It is derived from the Latin arma, meaning weapons and stitium, meaning a stopping. A truce or "ceasefire" usually refers to a temporary cessation of hostilities for an agreed limited time or within a limited area. A truce may be needed in order to negotiate an armistice. An armistice is a modus vivendi and is not the same as a peace treaty, which may take months or even years to agree on. The 1953 Korean War armistice is a major example of an armistice which has not yet been followed by a peace treaty. The United Nations Security Council often imposes or tries to impose cease-fire resolutions on parties to modern conflicts. Armistices are always negotiated between the parties themselves and are thus generally seen as more binding than non-mandatory UN cease-fire resolutions in modern international law.

Notable Armistices in history

The most famous armistice, which is the one still meant when people say simply "The Armistice", is the one at the end of World War I, on November 11, 1918 at the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month." Armistice Day is still celebrated in some places on the anniversary of that armistice; alternatively November 11, or a Sunday near to it, may still be observed as Remembrance Day.
- World War I
- Armistice with Germany (Compiègne)
- Armistice with Austria
- World War II
- Armistice with France (Second Compiègne)
- Armistice with Italy
- Armistice with Germany
- Japanese Instrument of Surrender
- Korean War
- Korean War Armistice Category:War

War

A common perception of war is a series of military campaigns between at least two opposing sides involving a dispute over sovereignty, territory, resources, religion or a host of other issues. A war to liberate an occupied country is sometimes characterised as a "war of liberation", while a war between internal elements of the same state may constitute a civil war.

History of war

:Main article: History of warfare War seems as old as human society, and certainly features prominently in the recorded histories of state-cultures. But it is a complex issue. Some hunter-gatherer societies engaged in skirmishes over territory and resources, although many did not. The earliest city states and empire in Mesopotamia became the first to employ standing armies. Organization and structure has since been central to warfare, as illustrated by the success of highly disciplined troops of the Roman Empire. As well as organizational change, technology has played a central role in the evolution of warfare. Inventions created for warfare have also played an important role in other fields. The continued advance of technology has led to an increase in the destructiveness and cost of warfare throughout human history. The study of warfare is known as military history.

Morality of war

military history Throughout history war has been the source of serious moral questions. Although many ancient nations and some more modern ones viewed war as noble, over the sweep of history concerns about the morality of war have gradually increased. Today war is almost unanimously seen as undesirable and morally problematic. Many now believe that wars should only be fought as a last resort. Some, known as pacifists, believe that war is inherently immoral and no war should ever be fought. This position was passionately defended by the Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi (called "Mahatma" or "Great Soul"). The negative view of war has not always been held as widely as it is today. Many thinkers, such as Heinrich von Treitschke saw war as humanity's highest activity where courage, honour, and ability were more necessary than in any other endeavour. At the outbreak of World War I the writer Thomas Mann wrote, "Is not peace an element of civil corruption and war a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope?" This attitude was embraced by many societies from Sparta in Ancient Greece and the Ancient Romans to the fascist states of the 1930s. The defeat and repudiation of the fascist states and their militarism in the Second World War, combined with the unquestioned horror of nuclear war have contributed to the current negative view of war. Today, some see only Just Wars as legitimate, and it is the goal of organizations such as the United Nations to unite the world against wars of unjust aggression.

Limitations on war

At times throughout history, societies have attempted to limit the cost of war by formalizing it in some way. Limitations on the targeting of civilians, what type of weapons can be used, and when combat is allowed have all fallen under these rules in different conflicts. Total war is the modern term for the targeting of civilians and the mobilization of an entire society. While culture, law, and religion have all been factors in causing wars, they have also acted as restraints at times. In some cultures, for example, conflicts have been highly ritualized to limit actual loss of life. In modern times, increasing international attention has been paid to peacefully resolving conflicts which lead to war. The United Nations is the latest and most comprehensive attempt to, as stated in the preamble of the [http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter U.N. Charter], "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." A number of treaties regulate warfare, collectively referred to as the laws of war. The most pervasive of those are the Geneva Conventions, the earliest of which began to take effect in the mid 1800s. Treaty signing has since been a part of international diplomacy, and too many treaties to mention in this scant article have been signed. A couple of examples are: Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference, Geneva, 26 October-29 October 1863 and Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force 21 October 1950. It must be noted that in war such treaties are generally thrown to one side if they interfere with the vital interests of either side; some have criticised such conventions as simply providing a fig leaf for the inhuman practice of war. By only illegalising "war against the rules", it is alleged, such treaties and conventions, in effect, sanction certain types of war.

Redefining "war" for legal reasons

Sometimes the term "war" is restricted by legal definition to those conflicts where one or both belligerents have formally declared war. This has resulted in wars (in the sense defined in the introduction to this article) without formal declaration and combatants who officially choose terms other than "war," such as:
- "armed conflict";
- "state aggression by armed force";
- "police action";
- "crime against international peace". For example, the United States Government referred to the Korean War as a "police action", and the British Government was very careful to use the term "armed conflict" instead of "war" during the Falklands War in 1982 to comply with the letter of international law. Sometimes the term "war" will not be used in order to circumvent national constitutions which restrict the power of the executive to wage war without the agreement of other branches of government.

Causes of war

There is great debate over why wars happen, even when most people do not want them to. Representatives of many different academic disciplines have attempted to explain war.

Historical theories

Historians tend to be reluctant to look for sweeping explanations for all wars. A. J. P. Taylor famously described wars as being like traffic accidents. There are some conditions and situations that make them more likely but there can be no system for predicting where and when each one will occur. Social scientists criticize this approach arguing that at the beginning of every war some leader makes a conscious decision and that they cannot be seen as purely accidental.

Psychological theories

Psychologists such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued that human beings, especially men, are inherently violent. While this violence is repressed in normal society it needs the occasional outlet provided by war. This combines with other notions, such as displacement where a person transfers their grievances into bias and hatred against other ethnic groups, nations, or ideologies. While these theories can explain why wars occur, they do not explain when or how they occur. In addition, they raise the question why there are sometimes long periods of peace and other eras of unending war. If the innate psychology of the human mind is unchanging, these variations are inconsistent. A solution adopted to this problem by militarists such as Franz Alexander is that peace does not really exist. Periods that are seen as peaceful are actually periods of preparation for a later war or when war is suppressed by a state of great power, such as the Pax Britannica. If war is innate to human nature, as is presupposed by many psychological theories, then there is little hope of ever escaping it. One alternative is to argue that war is only, or almost only, a male activity and if human leadership was in female hands wars would not occur. This theory has played an important role in modern feminism. Critics, of course, point to various examples of female political leaders who had no qualms about using military force, such as Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi. Other psychologists have argued that while human temperament allows wars to occur, they only do so when mentally unbalanced men are in control of a nation. This extreme school of thought argues leaders that seek war such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin were mentally abnormal. A distinct branch of the psychological theories of war are the arguments based on evolutionary psychology. This school tends to see war as an extension of animal behaviour, such as territoriality and competition. However, while war has a natural cause, the development of technology has accelerated human destructiveness to a level that is irrational and damaging to the species. We have the same instincts of a chimpanzee but overwhelmingly more power. The earliest advocate of this theory was Konrad Lorenz. These theories have been criticized by scholars such as John G. Kennedy, who argue that the organized, sustained war of humans differs more than just technologically from the territorial fights between animals. In his fictional book Nineteen-Eighty-Four, George Orwell talks about war being used as one of many ways to distract people. War inspires fear and hate among the people of a nation, and gives them a 'legitimate' enemy upon whom they can focus this fear and hate. Thus the people are prevented from seeing that their true enemy is in fact their own repressive government. By this theory, war is another 'opiate of the masses' by which a totalitarian state controls its people and prevents revolution.

Anthropological theories

Several anthropologists take a very different view of war. They see it as fundamentally cultural, learned by nurture rather than nature. Thus if human societies could be reformed, war would disappear. To this school the acceptance of war is inculcated into each of us by the religious, ideological, and nationalistic surroundings in which we live. Many anthropologists also see no links between various forms of violence. They see the fighting of animals, the skirmishes of hunter-gatherer tribes, and the organized warfare of modern societies as distinct phenomena each with their own causes. Theorists such as Ashley Montagu emphasize the top down nature of war, that almost all wars are begun not by popular pressure but by the whims of leaders and that these leaders also work to maintain a system of ideological justifications for war.

Sociological theories

Sociology has long been very concerned with the origins of war, and many thousands of theories have been advanced, many of them contradictory. Some use detailed formulas taking into account hundreds of demographic and economic values to predict when and where wars will break out. The statistical analysis of war was pioneered by Lewis Fry Richardson following World War I. More recent databases of wars and armed conflict have been assembled by the Correlates of War Project, Peter Brecke and the Uppsala Department of Peace and Conflict Research. So far none of these formulas have successfully predicted the outbreak of future conflicts. A detailed study by Michael Haas found that no single variable has a strong correlation to the occurrence of wars. One correlation that has found much support is that states that are democracies do not go to war with each other, an idea known as the democratic peace theory. Many sociologists have attempted to divide wars into types to get better correlations, but this has also produced mixed results. Data looked at by R.J. Rummel has found that civil wars and foreign wars are very different in origin, but Jonathan Wilkenfield using different data found just the opposite. Sociology has thus divided into a number of schools. One based on the works of Eckart Kehr and Hans-Ulrich Wehler sees war as the product of domestic conditions, with only the target of aggression being determined by international realities. Thus World War I was not a product of international disputes, secret treaties, or the balance of power but a product of the economic, social, and political situation within each of the states involved. This differs from the traditional approach of Carl von Clausewitz and Leopold von Ranke that argue it is the decisions of statesmen and the geopolitical situation that leads to war.

Information theories

A popular new approach is to look at the role of information in the outbreak of wars. This theory, advanced by scholars of international relations such as Geoffrey Blainey, argues that all wars are based on a lack of information. If both sides at the outset knew the result neither would fight, the loser would merely surrender and avoid the cost in lives and infrastructure that a war would cause. This is based on the notion that wars are reciprocal, that all wars require both a decision to attack and also a decision to resist attack. This notion is generally agreed to by almost all scholars of war since Clausewitz. This notion is made harder to accept because it is far more common to study the cause of wars rather than events that failed to cause wars, and wars are far more memorable. However, throughout history there are as many invasions and annexations that did not lead to a war, such as the U.S.-led invasion of Haiti in 1994, the Nazi invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia preceding the Second World War, and the annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union in 1940. On the other hand, Finland's decision to resist a similar Soviet aggression in 1939 led to the Winter War. The leaders of these nations chose not to resist as they saw the potential benefits being not worth the loss of life and destruction such resistance would cause. Lack of information may not only be to who wins in the immediate future. The Norwegian decision to resist the Nazi invasion was taken with the certain knowledge that Norway would fall. The Norwegians did not know whether the German domination would be permanent and also felt that noble resistance would win them favour with the Allies and a position at the peace settlement in the event of an Allied victory. If in 1940 it had been known with certainty the Germans would dominate central Europe for many decades, it is unlikely the Norwegians would have resisted. If it had been known for certainty that the Third Reich would collapse after only a few years of war, the Nazis would not have launched the invasion at all. This theory is predicated on the notion that the outcome of wars is not randomly determined, but fully determined on factors such as doctrine, economies, and power. While purely random events, such as storms or the right person dying at the right time, might have had some effect on history, these only influence a single battle or slightly alter the outcome of a war, but would not mean the difference between victory and defeat. There are two main objectives in the gathering of intelligence. The first is to find out the ability of an enemy, the second their intent. In theory to have enough information to prevent all wars both need to be fully known. The Argentinean dictatorship knew that the United Kingdom had the ability to defeat them, but their intelligence failed them on the question of whether the British would use their power to resist the annexation of the Falklands. The American decision to enter the Vietnam War was made with the full knowledge that the communist forces would resist them, but did not believe that the guerrillas had the capability to long oppose American forces. One major difficulty is that in a conflict of interests, some deception or at least not telling everything, is a standard tactical component on both sides. If you think that you can convince the opponent that you will fight, the opponent might desist. For example, Sweden made efforts to deceive Nazi Germany that it would resist an attack fiercely partly by playing on the myth of Aryan superiority, and by making sure that Hermann Göring only saw Elite troops in action, often dressed up as regular soldiers, when he came to visit.

Economic theories

Another school of thought argues that war can be seen as an outgrowth of economic competition in a chaotic and competitive international system. That wars begin as a pursuit of new markets, of natural resources, and of wealth. Unquestionably a cause of some wars, from the empire building of Britain to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in pursuit of oil this theory has been applied to many other conflicts including the Iraq invasion of the United States. It is most often advocated by those to the left of the political spectrum who argue that such wars serve only the interests of the wealthy but are fought by the poor.

Marxist theories

The economic theories also form a part of the Marxist theory of war, which argues that all war grows out of the class war. It sees wars as imperial ventures to enhance the power of the ruling class and divide the proletariat of the world by pitting them against each other for contrived ideals such as nationalism or religion. Wars are a natural outgrowth of the free market and class system, and will not disappear until a world revolution occurs.

Types of war and warfare

Smaller armed conflicts are often called riots, rebellions, coups, etc. When one country sends armed forces to another, allegedly to restore order or prevent genocide or other crimes against humanity, or to support a legally recognized government against insurgency, that country sometimes refers to it as a police action. This usage is not always recognized as valid, however, particularly by those who do not accept the connotations of the term. "Conventional warfare" descibes either:
- A war between nation-states
- War where nuclear or biological weapons are not used. (Compare with unconventional warfare and nuclear warfare.) A war where the forces in conflict belong to the same country or empire or other political entity is known as a civil war. Asymmetrical warfare is a conflict between two populations of drastically different levels of military mechanization. This type of war often results in guerrilla tactics. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a common example of asymmetrical warfare.

Geographic warfare

The terrain over which a war is fought has a big impact on the type of combat which takes place. This in turn means that soldiers have to be trained to fight in a specific type of terrain. These include:
- Arctic warfare
- Ski warfare
- Desert warfare
- Jungle warfare
- Naval warfare or Aquatic warfare
- Sub-aquatic warfare
- Mountain warfare (sometimes called alpine warfare)
- Urban warfare
- Air warfare
- Space warfare

References

-
-

External links

- [http://www.warcrimes.info/ Documents and Resources on War, War Crimes and Genocide]
- [http://www.umich.edu/~cowproj/ Correlates of War Project]
- [http://cow2.la.psu.edu/ Correlates of War 2]
- [http://www.inta.gatech.edu/peter/PSS99_paper.html Article by Peter Brecke]
- [http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation]
- [http://www.pcr.uu.se/ Uppsala Department of Peace and Conflict Research]
- [http://www.unesco.org/shs/human_rights/hrfv.htm 1986 Seville Statement on Violence]
- [http://www.culture-of-peace.info/ssov/title-page.html The Seville Statement on Violence: A Progress Report]
- [http://www.culture-of-peace.info/myth/title-page.html The Myth That War Is Intrinsic to Human Nature Discourages Action for Peace by Young People]
- [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Rough estimates of the number of deaths in various wars and conflicts]
- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry] War Violence ms:Peperangan ja:戦争 simple:War

Ceasefire

A ceasefire is a temporary stoppage of a war, or any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions. Ceasefires may be declared as part of a formal treaty, but they have also been called as part of an informal understanding between opposing forces. For example, on December 25, 1914, during World War I, there was an unofficial ceasefire as both the Germans and the British sought to observe Christmas (the "Christmas Truce"). There was no treaty signed, and after a few days the war resumed. [ 1 ] A more recent example of a ceasefire was announced between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on February 8, 2005. When announced, the chief Palestinian negotiator (Saeb Erakat) defined the ceasefire as follows: "We have agreed that today President Abbas will declare a full cessation of violence against Israelis anywhere and Prime Minister Sharon will declare a full cessation of violence and military activities against Palestinians anywhere." [ 2 ] See also Armistice.

References

#[http://www.rense.com/general46/cchr.htm World War I Christmas Truce by Thousands of German Soldiers] #[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050208/wl_mideast_afp/mideastsummit_050208131859 Sharon and Abbas set to declare ceasefire at Mideast summit, AFP News Wire, 2/8/05] Category:War

Peace treaty

:See main article: Treaty. A peace treaty is an agreement (a peace treaty) between two hostile parties, usually countries or governments, that formally ends a war or armed conflict. They are different from an armistice which is an agreement to cease hostilities or a surrender in which an army agrees to give up arms.

Ancient history

One of the earliest recorded peace treaties was between the Hittite and Egyptian empires after the Battle of Kadesh c. 1280 BC. The battle took place in what is now modern day Syria, the entire area of the Levant being at that time a contested area between the two empires. After an extremely costly four-day battle, in which neither side gained any significant advantage, both sides claimed victory. The lack of resolution led to a further battle looking imminent just a few years. Neither side could afford another war at that time as each were being threatened by other enemies; hence a peace treaty was concluded. The peace treaty was recorded in two versions, one in Egyptian hieroglyphs and the other in Akkadian using Cuneiform script; fortunately, both versions survive. This dual language method is common to many subsequent treaties. What is rather different from other treaties is that the two copies were differently worded. Although the majority of the text is identical, the Hittite version claims that the Egyptians came to them asking for peace whereas the Egyptian version of the same text say it was the other way round. The treaty was given to the Egyptians in the form of a silver plaque and this 'pocket-book' version was taken back to Egypt and carved into the Temple of Karnak. The Treaty was concluded between Ramses II and Hattusili III, and in its eighteen articles it first calls for peace and then says that their respective gods also demand peace. It contains many elements found in more modern treaties although it is perhaps more far-reaching than the simple declaration of the end of hostilities in later treaties. It also contains a mutual assistance pact in the event that one of the empires should be attacked by a third party, or in the event of internal strife. There are articles pertaining to the forced repatriation of refugees and provisos that they should not be harmed; this might be thought of as the first extradition treaty. There are also threats of retribution if the treaty is broken. This treaty is considered of such importance in the field of international relations that a reproduction of it hangs in the United Nations headquarters.

Elements of treaties

There are many possible issues which may be included in a peace treaty, and a treaty's content usually depends heavily on the nature of the conflict being concluded. Some of these may be:
- Formal designation of borders.
- Processes for resolving future disputes
- Access to and apportioning of natural resources
- Status of prisoners
- Status of refugees
- Settling of existing debts
- Settling of ownership claims
- Defining of proscribed behavior
- The re-application of existing treaties Treaties are often ratified in territories deemed neutral in the previous conflict and delegates from these neutral territories act as witnesses to the signatories. In the case of large conflicts between numerous parties there may be one global treaty covering all issues or separate treaties signed between each party. In more modern times certain intractable conflict situations, may first be brought to cease-fire and are then dealt with via a peace process where a number of discrete steps are taken on each side to eventually reach the mutually desired goal of peace and the signing of a treaty. A peace treaty also is often not used to end a civil war, especially in cases of a failed secession, as it implies mutual recognition of statehood. In such cases such as with the American Civil War is usually ended when the armies of the losing side surrenders and the government collapses. By contrast, a successful secession or declaration of independence is often formalized by means of a peace treaty.

Role of UN

Since the founding of the United Nations after World War II this organization has sought to act as a forum for resolution in matters of international conflict and is often instrumental in peace processes and peace treaties. The number of international treaties and obligations member states are involved in which they seek to limit and control behaviour during wartime has perhaps made the idea of total war less tenable. This has meant that formal declarations of war are frequently not undertaken and therefore a peace treaty at the end is also not entered in to. The Korean War is an example of a war which was suspended with a cease-fire but never closed with a treaty.

Famous peace treaties

Famous examples include the Treaty of Versailles, formally ending the First World War. The latter treaty is possibly the most notorious of peace treaties in that it is "blamed" by some historians for the rise of National Socialism in Germany and the eventual outbreak of the Second World War. The costly reparations Germany was forced to pay the victors of the war, the fact that Germany had to accept sole responsibility for starting the war and the harsh restrictions on German rearmament were all listed in the treaty and they caused massive resentment within Germany. Whether the Treaty of Versailles can be blamed for starting another war or not, shows the difficulties involved in making peace. Another famous example would be the series of peace treaties known as the Peace of Westphalia. It initiated the modern fashion of diplomacy as it marked the beginning of the modern system of nation-states. Subsequent wars were not about issues of religion, but rather revolved around issues of state. This allowed Catholic and Protestant powers to ally, leading to a number of major realignments.

External links

- [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/treaty.htm Images of both versions of the treaty of Kadesh]
- [http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/egyptian-hittite-peace-treaty.htm Text of the treaty] Category:International law Category:Peace Category:Treaties

Korean War

The Korean War, from June 25 1950 to cease-fire on July 27 1953 (technically speaking, the war has not yet ended), was a conflict between North Korea and South Korea. Some consider this Cold War-era conflict to have been a proxy war between the United States and its Western democratic allies, and the Communist powers of the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union. The principal combatants were North Korea, supported by People's Volunteer Army (PVA) of Communist China, and later Soviet combat advisors, aircraft pilots, and weapons; and South Korea, supported principally by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines, although many other nations sent troops under the aegis of the United Nations. In South Korea, it is often called "6·25," or more formally Hanguk Jeonjaeng (한국전쟁). In the United States, the conflict was termed a police action, as the Korean Conflict, under the aegis of the United Nations rather than a war, largely in order to remove the necessity of a Congressional declaration of war.

Historical background

:Main articles: Korea under Japanese rule, Division of Korea Korea was invaded and ruled by Japan from 1910 until the end of World War II in 1945. On August 6, the Soviet Union, in keeping with an arrangement made with the United States government, declared war on the Japanese Empire on August 8 and entered Korea from the North. President Harry S Truman ordered the landing of U.S. troops in the South.[http://www.hoseo.ac.kr/~css/institutes/archive/rustow.html] On August 10th, 1945 with the Japanese surrender imminent, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to divide Korea along the 38th parallel and that Japanese forces north of that line would surrender to the Soviet Union and those south of that line would surrender to the United States. The peninsula was effectively divided into zones of control in the North and South under the administration of the two major powers, however the USA considered this not to be a permanent division. In December 1945, the USA and the Soviet Union agreed to administer the country temporarily. Concurrently, both countries established governments in their respective halves, each one favorable to their political ideology. In the process, the USA ran elections supervised by the UN, replacing an indigenous, left-wing government that had formed in June 1945, before the end of the war, with one led by anti-Communist Syngman Rhee. The Soviet Union, in turn, approved the rise of a Communist government led by Kim Il-Sung in the northern part. The Allies said that Korea would be a unified, independent country under an elected government but failed to specify the details. South Korean President Syngman Rhee and North Korean General Secretary Kim Il-Sung were each intent on reuniting the peninsula under their own systems. Partly because of Soviet tanks and heavy arms, the North Koreans were the ones able to go on the offensive, while South Korea, with only limited American backing, had far fewer options. As for the American government, they believed at the time that the Communist bloc was a unified monolith, and that North Korea acted within this monolith as a pawn of the Soviet Union (a view that in the case of North Korea is largely substantiated by documents from the Soviet archives showing that Kim Il-Sung, operating with some Soviet assistance, was responsible for the invasion of the South, and discrediting a popular viewpoint of the 1960s and 1970s that the war was just as much caused by South Korean and Western provocation). In 1949 both Russian and American forces were withdrawn. On January 12, 1950 United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson 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 U.S. might not fight over Korea. This omission, which was not deliberate, encouraged the North and the Soviets. Philippines] The People's Republic of China was wary of a war in Korea. Mao Zedong was concerned that it would encourage American intervention in Asia and would destabilize the region and interfere with plans to destroy the Kuomintang forces under Chiang Kai-Shek which had retreated to Taiwan. In early 1949 Kim Il-sung pressed his case with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin that the time had come for a full-scale invasion and take-over of the South. Stalin refused permission, concerned about the relative unpreparedness of the North Korean armed forces and about possible U.S. involvement. In the course of the next year, the Communist leadership built the North Korean army into a formidable offensive organization modeled after a Soviet mechanized force. By 1950 the North Koreans enjoyed substantial advantages over the South in every category of equipment. After another visit by Kim to Moscow in March–April 1950, Stalin approved an invasion.

Korean War (1950-1953)

The war begins (June 25, 1950)

In the pre-dawn hours of June 25 1950 North Korea struck across the 38th parallel behind a thunderous artillery barrage and 135,000 troops. The Northern government claimed that South Korean troops under the "bandit traitor" Syngman Rhee had crossed the 38th parallel, and thus the South had started the war. Advised and equipped by the Soviets, with 150 T-34s, and huge reserves of manpower, their surprise attack was a devastating success. At least two thirds of the Korean Army, a paper force of 38,000, were off duty at the time, leaving the country open to attack. North Korea attacked at many key places, which included: Kaesong, Chunchon, Uijongbu, and Ongjin. Within days South Korean forces, outnumbered and out-gunned, were in full retreat. As the ground attack continued, the North Korean Air Force conducted bombing on Kimpo Airport in Seoul. Seoul was captured by the North Koreans on the afternoon of June 28, but the North Koreans had not accomplished their goal of a quick surrender by the Rhee government and the disintegration of the South Korean Army. The invasion of South Korea (Republic of Korea, ROK) came as a surprise to the United States and the other western powers; in the preceding week Dean Acheson of the State Department had told Congress on June 20 that no war was likely, although a CIA report from early March had predicted a June invasion. Truman himself was contacted hours after the invasion had begun; he was convinced that this was the beginning of World War 3. Despite the post-World War II demobilization of U.S. and allied forces, which caused serious supply problems for American troops in the region (excluding the United States Marines, the infantry divisions sent to Korea were at 40% of paper strength, and the majority of their equipment was found to be useless), the United States still had substantial forces in Japan, under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Apart from British Commonwealth units, no other nation could supply sizeable manpower. President Harry S. Truman, on hearing of the invasion, ordered MacArthur to transfer munitions to the ROK Army (ROKA) and to use air cover to protect the evacuation of US citizens. Truman did not agree with his advisors to employ unilateral U.S. airstrikes against the North Korean forces, but did order the Seventh Fleet to protect Taiwan, thereby ending the policy of the United States of acquiescing to the defeat of the forces of Chiang Kai-Shek. The Chinese Nationalists government, now confined to Taiwan, asked to participate in the war, but their request was denied by the Americans who felt they would only encourage Communist Chinese intervention. The other western powers quickly agreed with the American actions and volunteered their support for the effort, but by August the South Korean forces and the U.S. Eighth Army, which had arrived to help South Korea resist the Communist invasion, were driven into a small area in the southeast corner of the Korean peninsula around the city of Pusan. With the aid of American supplies, air support and additional reinforcements, the U.S. and ROK forces managed to stabilize a line along the Nakdong River. This became a desperate holding action called the Pusan Perimeter. Although more UN support arrived, the situation was dire, and looked as though the North could gain control of the entire peninsula.

Western reaction

Pusan Perimeter, Douglas MacArthur, and Edward Almond in Korea]] American action was taken for a number of reasons. Truman, a Democrat president, was under severe domestic pressure for being too soft on communism (Republican senator Joseph McCarthy stated that the State Department was "infested" with Communists). Especially vocal were those who accused the Democrats of having "lost" China. The intervention was also an important implementation of the new Truman Doctrine, which advocated the opposition of communism everywhere it tried to expand. The lessons of Munich in 1938 also influenced the American decision, believing that appeasing communism would only encourage further expansion. There was also the sentiment that the United Nations Organization needed to be strongly supported in its decision (the Security Council demanded that Northern troops withdraw, and requested help from member states when this was refused), as the organization which it had replaced, the League of Nations, was considered to have failed to preserve peace because great powers such as the USA had not properly backed it (though American deployment was ordered even before the UN had decided what action to take). Instead of pressing for a congressional declaration of war, which he regarded as too alarmist and time-consuming when time was of the essence, Truman went to the United Nations for approval. Thanks to a temporary Soviet absence from the Security Council — the Soviets were boycotting the Security Council to protest the exclusion of People's Republic of China (PRC) from the UN — there would be no veto by Stalin. The (Nationalist controlled) Republic of China government held the Chinese seat. Without the Soviet and Chinese veto and with only Yugoslavia abstaining, the UN voted to aid South Korea on June 27. U.S. forces were eventually joined during the conflict by troops from fifteen other UN members: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Greece, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Colombia, the Philippines, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Although American opinion was solidly behind the venture, Truman would later take harsh criticism for not obtaining a declaration of war from Congress before sending troops to Korea. Thus, "Truman's War" was said by some to have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the United States Constitution. United States Constitution The first significant American combat unit to arrive in South Korea was Task Force Smith, part of the U.S. Army 24th Infantry Division based in Japan. On July 5 it engaged in the first North Korean-U.S. clash of the war at Osan, and was driven back with heavy losses. The rest of the half strength 24th Division next confronted the North Koreans and was soon overwhelmed and forced to fall back to Taejon, which also fell. At the Pusan Perimeter, American Eighth Army commander Lieutenant General Walton Walker was able to maneuver his forces to successfully confront the North Koreans as they attempted a flanking maneuver instead of concentrating their forces which may have destroyed U.N. forces in the area, but nonetheless, by September, only the area around Pusan, about 10% of the total Korean peninsula, was still in the hands of the coalition.

Incheon landing (September 15 - September 28, 1950)

Main article: Battle of Inchon (old spelling) old spelling In order to alleviate pressure on the Pusan Perimeter, MacArthur, as UN commander-in-chief for Korea, ordered an amphibious invasion far behind the North Korean troops at Inch'ǒn (Incheon 인천 仁川). This was an extremely risky operation, but once the American and other UN troops gained a foothold on the beach, it was extremely successful. United Nations troops landed at Incheon, faced only mild resistance and quickly moved to recapture Seoul. The North Koreans, finding their supply lines cut, began a rapid retreat northwards and the ROK and UN forces that had been confined in the south moved north and joined those that had landed at Inchon. The United Nations troops drove the North Koreans back past the 38th parallel. The goal of saving South Korea had been achieved, but because of the success and the prospect of uniting all of Korea under the government of Syngman Rhee the Americans, with UN approval, were convinced to continue into North Korea. Other issues included the psychological effects of destroying a Communist nation and the liberation of POWs. This greatly concerned the Chinese, who worried that the UN forces would not stop at the Yalu river, the borderline between the PRK and China. Many in the west, including General MacArthur, thought that spreading the war to China would be necessary. However, Truman and the other leaders disagreed, while MacArthur was ordered to be very cautious when approaching the Chinese border. Eventually, MacArthur disregarded these concerns, arguing that since the North Korean troops were being supplied by bases in China, those supply depots should be bombed. However, except on some rare occasions U.N. bombers remained out of Manchuria during the war.

The Chinese entry (October, 1950)

Manchuria in the Korean war]] 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". On October 8 1950, the day after American troops crossed the 38th, Chairman Mao issued the order for "Chinese People's Volunteer Army" (actually regulars in the Chinese People's Liberation Army) to be moved to the Yalu River, ready to cross. Mao sought Soviet aid and saw intervention as essentially defensive: "If we allow the U.S. to occupy all of Korea… we must be prepared for the US to declare… war with China", he told Stalin. Premier Zhou Enlai was sent to Moscow to add force to Mao's cabled arguments. Mao delayed his forces while waiting for Russian help, and the planned attack was thus postponed from 13 October to 19 October. Soviet assistance was limited to providing air support no nearer than sixty miles (96 km) to the battlefront. The MiG-15s in PRC colours were an unpleasant surprise to the UN pilots; they held local air superiority against the F-80 Shooting Stars until the newer F-86 Sabres were deployed. The Soviet role was known to the U.S. but they kept quiet to avoid any international and potential nuclear incidents. On October 15 1950, Truman went to Wake Island to discuss the possibility of Chinese intervention and his desire to limit the scope of the Korean conflict. MacArthur reassured to Truman that "if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang there would be the greatest slaughter." On October 19 1950, Pyongyang falls to UN forces. The Chinese assault began on October 25 1950, under the command of General Peng Dehuai with 270,000 PVA troops. The Chinese assault caught the UN troops by surprise, as war between PRC and the United Nations had not been declared and the Chinese, employing great skill and remarkable camouflage discipline, concealed their numeric and divisional strength after the first engagement with the UN. After these initial engagements, the Chinese withdrew into the mountains; UN forces ignored the stern warning delivered by the Chinese and continued their advance to the Yalu. In late November, the Chinese struck again. In the west, along the Chongchon River, the Chinese overran several ROK divisions and landed an extremely heavy blow into the flank of the remaining UN forces; the resulting withdrawal of the United States Eighth Army was the longest retreat of an American unit in history. In the east, at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir (November 26–December 13)a 3,000 man unit from the US 7th Infantry Division, Task Force Faith, was virtually wiped out; the Marines fared better; though surrounded and forced to retreat, they inflicted heavy casualties on the Chinese who committed 6 divisions while trying to destroy the Marines. UN forces in northeast Korea withdrew to form a defensive perimeter around the port city of Hungnam, where a Dunkirk-style evacuation was carried out in late December 1950. Approximately 100,000 military personnel and material and another 100,000 North Korean civilians were loaded onto a variety of merchant and military transport ships and safely evacuated to ports in UN-held territory on the southern tip of Korea. On January 4 1951, Communist Chinese and North Korean forces captured Seoul. Both the 8th Army and the X Corps were forced to retreat. General Walker was killed in an accident. He was replaced by Lieutenant General Matthew Ridgway, who had led airborne troops in World War II. Ridgway took immediate steps to raise the morale and fighting spirit of the battered Eighth Army, which had fallen to low levels during its retreat from North Korea. Nevertheless, the situation was so grim that MacArthur mentioned that atomic weapons might be used, much to the alarm of America's allies. In March 1951, in Operation Ripper, a revitalized Eighth Army - restored by Ridgway to fighting trim - repelled the North Korean and Chinese troops from Seoul. MacArthur was removed from command by President Truman on April 11 1951. The reasons for this are many and well documented. They include MacArthur's meeting with ROC President Chiang Kai-shek in the role of a U.S. diplomat; he was also wrong at Wake when President Truman asked him specifically about Chinese troop buildup near the Korean border. Furthermore, MacArthur openly demanded nuclear attack on China, while being rude and flippant when speaking to Truman. MacArthur was succeeded by Ridgway, who managed to regroup UN forces for an effective counter-offensive. A series of attacks managed to slowly drive back the opposing forces, inflicting heavy casualties on Chinese and North Korean units as UN forces advanced some miles north of the 38th parallel. Historian and Korean War veteran Bevin Alexander had this to say about Chinese tactics in his book How Wars Are Won: :The Chinese had no air power and were armed only with rifles, machineguns, hand grenades, and mortars. Against the much more heavily armed Americans, they adapted a technique they had used against the Nationalists in the Chinese civil war of 1946–49. The Chinese generally attacked at night and tried to close in on a small troop position-generally a platoon- and then attacked it with local superiority in numbers. The usual method was the infiltrate small units, from a platoon of fifty men to a company of 200, split into separate detachments. While one team cut off the escape route of the Americans, the others struck both the front and the flanks in concerted assaults. The attacks continued on all sides until the defenders were destroyed or forced to withdraw. The Chinese then crept forward to the open flank of the next platoon position, and repeated the tactics. Chinese civil war

Stalemate (July, 1951)

The rest of the war involved little territory change and lengthy peace negotiations (which started in Kaesong on July 10 of the same year). Even during the peace negotiations combat continued. For the South Korean and allied forces, the goal was to recapture all of what had been South Korea before an agreement was reached in order to avoid losing any territory. The Chinese did a similar operation at the battle of "The Hook" where they were repelled by British forces. A major issue of the negotiations was repatriation of POWs. The Communists agreed to voluntary repatriation, but only if the majority would return to China or North Korea. However, when polled the majority elected to not return. The war continued until the Communists eventually dropped this issue. U.S. President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower on November 29 1952 fulfilled a campaign promise by travelling to Korea to find out what could be done to end the conflict. With the United Nation's acceptance of India's proposal for Korean armistice, eventually, a cease-fire was established on July 27 1953, by which time the front line was back in the proximity of the 38th parallel, and so a demilitarized zone (DMZ) was established around it, which is still defended today by North Korean troops on one side and South Korean and American troops on the other. The DMZ passes to the north of the parallel towards the east, and to the south as it travels west. The site of the peace talks, Kaesong, the old capital of Korea, was part of the South before hostilities broke out but is currently a special city of the North. No peace treaty has been signed to date.

Characteristics

Air War

The Korean War was the last major war where propeller-powered fighters such as the P-51 Mustang, F4U Corsair, A-1 Skyraider, F4U-5N, and aircraft carrier-based Supermarine Seafire, Fairey Firefly, and Hawker Sea Fury, deployed by the British Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy, were used, as jet fighters (US Air Force F-80s, and US Navy or US Marine Corps Grumman F9F Panthers, and McDonnell F2H Banshees) came to dominate the skies, overwhelming North Korea's propeller-driven Yakovlev Yak-9s and Lavochkin La-9s. From 1950, North Korea introduced MiG-15 jet fighters, piloted by experienced Soviet Air Force pilots, a casus belli deliberately overlooked by the UN allied forces who were reluctant to engage in open war with the Soviet Union and China. At first UN jet fighters, which now included Royal Australian Air Force Gloster Meteor Mk.8s, had some success against inexperienced Soviet pilots, but the superior quality of the MiGs soon held sway over the first generation jets used by the UN, [http://korean-war.com/AirWar/AircraftType-LossList.html leading to the loss of] 3046 allied aircraft during the Korean war. Even after the USAF introduced the more advanced F-86, its pilots often struggled against the Soviet jets, as the MiG-15 had better high altitude capability, rate of climb, longer range, and more powerful armament (3 cannons vs. 6 machine-guns), although dive speed and roll rate were inferior. The U.N. gradually gained a numerical advantage, which gave them an air superiority that lasted until the end of the war — a decisive factor in helping the U.N. first advance into the north, and then resist the Chinese invasion of South Korea. The Chinese also had jet power, but the American forces had superior training for their pilots. Among other factors which helped tip the balance toward the U.N. Jets include the F-86s' better radar gunsight, which led to installation of first radar warning receiver on MiG fighters, better cockpit visibility, better stability and control at high speed and high altitudes, and the introduction of the first G-suits. The U.N. pilots claimed to achieve impressive success with the F-86, stating to shoot down 792 MiG-15s and 108 additional aircraft for the loss of 78 Sabres, a ratio in excess of 10:1. Post-war research was only able to confirm 379 victories. Direct comparison of Sabre and MiG losses seem irrelevant, as primary targets for MiGs were heavy B-29 bombers, and primary targets for Sabres were MiG-15s. Recently exposed Soviet documentation admits 345 Soviet MiG-15s lost during the Korean war, which, when combined with estimated Chinese and Korean losses, supports the figure of 379 Sabre victories. Soviet sources claimed at that time, however, about 1300 victories and 335 MiG losses, which may be roughly correct, as they include all MiG air-to-air wins and all anti-aircraft artillery wins. China's official losses were 231 planes shot down in air-to-air combat (mostly MiG-15) and 168 other losses. The number of losses of the North Korean Air Force was not revealed. It is estimated that it lost about 200 aircraft in the first stage of the war, and another 70 aircraft since Chinese intervention. Soviet's claims of 650 victories over F-86s and China's claims of another 211 F-86s in air combats were apparently exaggerated, and are regarded so by the USAF. A recent publication showed that the total number of USAF F-86s ever present in the Korean peninsula during the war was only 674 and the total F-86s losses due to all causes were about 230. Throughout the conflict, the United States maintained a policy of heavy bombing, especially using incendiary weapons, against any and all North Korean settlements. Although images of the civilian victims of the weapon were to be ingrained upon the memory of the world in Vietnam, significantly more napalm was dropped on North Korea, despite the relative short length of the conflict. Tens of thousands of gallons were dropped on targets in Korea each day. In May and June of 1953, the United States Air Force undertook a mission to destroy several key irrigation and hydroelectric dams, in order to critically hamper agriculture and industry in the North. The Kusǒng (구성), Tǒksan (덕산) and Pujǒn (부전) River dams were all destroyed, severely flooding vast areas of land, drowning thousands and ultimately starving many more. :See also British Commonwealth Forces Korea
Atrocities
British Commonwealth Forces Korea North Korean troops, South Koreans, Chinese and United States personnel targeted civilians and/or mistreated POWs in some cases. Specifically, there is extremely strong evidence to suggest: :
- North Korean and Chinese troops reportedly tortured and executed prisoners on a number of occasions, including shooting wounded soldiers lying at their feet. :
- American troops were under orders to consider any unidentified people on the battlefield approaching their position as hostile and neutralize them. The reason for these orders was that Communist infiltrators frequently hid among Korean refugees or that supposed refugees were actually composed of Communist infiltrators. On some occasions (No Gun Ri) hundreds of refugees caught in the fighting were allegedly shot and strafed. No Gun Ri :
- Communist forces rounded up and executed thousands of civilians in captured villages. It is claimed that more than 100,000 were killed in 1950 during the capture of Seoul alone. :
- South Korean forces executed without trial tens of thousands of alleged "Communist sympathizers". Many consider these events to be atrocities and some refer to them as "war crimes". It is of little doubt that the killing of prisoners of war or wounded soldiers by signatories of the Geneva conventions (especially GCIV) are war crimes, as these conventions specifically disallow it. However, no conventions of the time forbade the killing, purposefully or accidentally, of enemy civilians, and there does not seem to be any legal basis in calling these actions "war crimes." It is more reasonable to label them as crimes against humanity. There are Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention formed in 1977 which call for the protection of civilians, as do several UN Security Council Resolutions, but these all appear to post-date the war in Korea. There are many more cases than those listed above but evidence, rather than accusations, is hard to come by. At the time, many of the killings were felt justified because of the fear of infiltration by irregular forces by the South Koreans and as a terror tactic by the North Koreans. It is also worth keeping in mind that the Korean war began only five years after the Second World War ended, a war during which targeting of civilians was severe and routine by all major parties involved. All parties have denied these actions during the war and afterward, but the U.S. has admitted their policy on strafing certain refugee groups.
Legacy
The Korean War was the first armed confrontation of the Cold War, and it set a model for many later conflicts. It created the idea of a limited war, where the two superpowers would fight without descending to an all out war that could involve nuclear weapons. It also expanded the Cold War, which to that point had mostly been concerned with Europe.
Korea
Europe 600,000 Korean soldiers died in the conflict according to US estimates. The total including all civilians and military soldiers from UN Nations and China, was over 2 million deaths. More than a million South Koreans were killed, 85% of them civilians. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, 11.1% of the total population of North Korea perished, which indicates that 1,130,000 people were killed. In sum, about 2,500,000 people were killed, including north and south together. More than 80% of the industrial and public facilities and transportation works, three-quarters of the government offices, and one-half of the houses were destroyed. The war left the peninsula permanently divided with a garrisoned pro-Soviet, totalitarian led state in North Korea and a pro-American semi-free (though not always democratic until the late 1980s,) republic in the South. American troops remain in Korea as part of the still-functioning United Nations Command, which commands all allied military forces in the ROK - American Air Forces, Korea, the Eighth U.S. Army, and the entire ROK military. The DMZ remains the most heavily-defended border in the world. :See also: Division of Korea, Korean Demilitarized Zone, Korean reunification

United States

Korean reunification 1951]] There has been some confusion over the previously reported number of 54,246 Korean War deaths. That number was divided by the Defense Department in 1993 into 33,686 battle deaths, 2830 non-battle deaths, and 17,730 deaths of Defense Department personnel outside the Korean theatre [http://www.dod.gov/news/Jun2000/n06082000_20006084.html]. There were also 8,142 US personnel listed as Missing In Action (MIA) during the war. US casualties in Korean war are less than in the Vietnam War, but they occurred in 3 years as opposed to 13 years (1960-1973) in Vietnam. However, advances in medical services such as the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital and the use of rapid transport of the wounded to them such as with helicopters enabled the death rate for UN forces to be much lower than in previous wars. For service during the Korean War, the United States military was issued the Korean Service Medal. Later neglect of remembrance of this war, in favor of the Vietnam War, World War I and II, has caused the Korean War to be called the Forgotten War or the Unknown War. On July 27 1995 in Washington, DC, a museum called the Korean War Veterans Memorial was built and dedicated to veterans of the war. The U.S. military had been caught ill-prepared for the war. Accordingly, after the war, the American defense budget was boosted to $50 billion, the Army was doubled in size, as was the number of Air Groups, and they were deployed beyond American soil in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia. The war also changed America's view of the Third World, most notably in Indochina. Before 1950 the Americans had been very critical of French endeavours to reestablish its presence there against local resistance; after Korea they began to heavily support the French against the Viet Minh and other nationalist-communist local parties, paying for up to 80% of the French military budget in Vietnam. The Korean War also saw the beginning of racial integration efforts in the US military service, where African Americans fought in integrated units. President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 on July 26 1948, calling on the armed forces to provide equal treatment and opportunity for black servicemen. The extent by which Truman's 1948 orders were carried out varied among the branches of the military, with segregated units still in deployment at the start of the conflict, and eventually integrating towards the end of the war. The United States still maintains a heavy military presence in Korea, as part of the effort to uphold the armistice between South and North Korea. A special service decoration, known as the Korea Defense Service Medal is authorized for U.S. service members who serve a tour of duty in Korea.

China

From official Chinese sources, PVA casualty during the Korean war was 390,000. It breaks down as follows: 110,400 KIA; 21,600 died of wounds; 13,000 died of sickness; 25,600 MIA/POW; and 260,000 more WIA. However various Western and Eastern [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Ko sources] estimate that about 500,000 to 1 million Chinese soldiers were either killed in action or died of disease, starvation, exposure, and accidents. Overall total Chinese killed, wounded and missing equal to about less than 1 million. Chairman Mao's only healthy son, Mao Anying, was also killed as a PVA during the war. As the PVA rotated about 2 million troops during the war the casualties figure of most western sources seems too high. If the PVA suffered 500,000 casualties (1/4 of all troops rotated) or 1,000,000 casualties (1/2 of all troops rotated) the PVA would be so weaken that they would not be able to defend the line let alone mount any meaningful offensive. However, as the battle line hardly moved from 1951 to 1953 the high casualties figure should be greatly scrutinized. The Korean War also led to other long lasting effects. Until the conflict in Korea, the United States had largely abandoned the government of Chiang Kai-Shek, which had retreated to Taiwan, and had no plans to intervene the Chinese civil war. The start of the Korean War rendered untenable any policy that would have caused Taiwan to fall under Communist control and Truman's decision to send American forces into the Taiwan straits saved the Kuomintang's government from defeat and ended any immediate hopes of conquering that island for the Communist Party of China. The anti-Communist atmosphere in the West in response to the Korean War contributed to the unwillingness to diplomatically recognize the People's Republic of China by the West until the 1970s. It also contributed to the decline of Sino-Soviet relations. Although Chinese had their own reasons to enter the war (i.e. a strategic buffer zone in Korean peninsula), the view that the Soviets had used them as proxies was shared in the Western bloc. China had to use the Soviet loan, which had been originally intended to rebuild their destroyed economy, to pay for the Soviet arms. However, the fact that Chinese forces held their own against American forces in this war heralded that China was once again becoming a major world power. The war is generally seen as an honour in the People's Republic of China history by most Chinese as it was the first time in a century a Chinese army was able to withstand a Western army in a major conflict, in spite of China's heavy losses.

Japan

Japan was politically disturbed both from the security threat to Japan because of the initial defeat of South Korea and from left-wing activities in support of North Korea and aiming to bring about a revolution in Japan. Additionally, as American occupation armies were dispatched to Korean peninsula, Japan's security became problematic; the Japan Self-Defense Forces was established. The signing of the Treaty of Peace with Japan was also hastened to return Japan back into international communities. In the eyes of some American policy makers, the non-belligerency clause in the constitution was already being considered a "mistake" by 1953. Economically, Japan was able to benefit from the war. American material requirements were organized through a Special Procurements system, which allowed for local purchasing without the complex Pentagon procurement system. Over $3.5 billion was spent with Japanese companies, peaking at $809 million in 1953. The zaibatsu went from being distrusted to being encouraged — Mitsui, Mitsubishi and Sumitomo were amongst the zaibatsu that thrived, not only on orders from the military but through American industrial experts, including W. Edwards Deming. Japanese manufacturing grew by 50% between March 1950 and 1951. By 1952, pre-war standards of living were regained and output was twice the level of 1949. Becoming an independent country due to the treaty of San Francisco also saved Japan from the burden of expense of the occupation forces.

Europe

:Main article: European Defense Community The outbreak of the Korean War convinced Western leaders of the growing threat of international communism. The United States began to encourage Western European countries, West Germany included, to contribute to their own defense. German rearmament, however, was perceived as a threat by its neighbours, especially France. As the Korean War continued, however, opposition to rearmament lessened and China's entry in the war caused France to revise its position towards German rearmament. To contain a newly-armed Germany, French officials proposed the creation of the European Defense Community (EDC), a supranational organisation, under the aegis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The end of the Korean War reduced the perceived Communist threat, and thus it reduced the necessity of such an organisation. The French Parliament postponed the ratification of the EDC Treaty sine die (i.e. without a clear date). This rejection in the French Parliament was caused by Gaullist fears that the creation of the EDC threatened France's national sovereignty. The EDC was never ratified, and the initiative collapsed in August, 1954.

Depiction

Artistic depiction

sovereigntyArtist Pablo Picasso's painting Massacre in Korea (1951) depicted violence against civilians during the Korean War. By some account, civilian killings committed by U.S. forces in Shinchun, Hwanghae Province was the motive of the painting. In South Korea, the painting was deemed anti-American, a longtime taboo in the South, and thus was prohibited for public display until the 1990s. In the United States far and away the most famous artistic depiction of the war is M
- A
- S
- H, originally a novel by Richard Hooker (pseudonym for H. Richard Hornberger) that was later turned into a successful movie and television series. All three versions depict the misadventures of the staff of a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital as they struggle to keep their sanity through the war's absurdities through ribald humour and hijinks when not treating wounded. Although M
- A
- S
- H gave a fairly accurate depiction of a US Army field hospital in the Korean War, there were a few flaws in the TV series. For instance, there were far more Korean doctors in the M
- A
- S
- H units than shown in the series. In the series, nearly all the doctors were American. The first few episodes featured an African-American doctor, Spearchucker Jones. This character was removed upon the revelation that there were no African American doctors serving in Korea. Furthermore, the television series lasted for eleven years, while the actual war lasted only three (of course, one cannot blame the screenwriters and the producers for creating a popular show); among other things, the characters aged far more visibly over the course of the series than they might have done during the actual three-year conflict. Additionally, the series was filmed in California, which has a very different physical environment than the Korean peninsula.

Film

- Fixed Bayonets (1951). U.S. soldiers in Korea surviving the harsh winter of 1951. Directed by Samuel Fuller.
- The Bridges at Toko-Ri (1954). A U.S. Navy Reserve pilot flying attack missions over North Korea, from the novel by James Michener. Directed by Mark Robson and starring William Holden.
- Shangganling Battle (Shanggan Ling, Chinese: 上甘岭, BW-1956)，in the Korean war in early 1950s, a group of Chinese People's Volunteer soldiers are blocked in Shangganling mountain area for several days. Short of both food and water, they hold their ground till the relief troops arrive. d: Meng Sha, Lin Shan; C: Gao Baocheng, XuLIinge, Liu Yuru; M: changchun.
- Pork Chop Hill (1957). A true story about US soldiers attempting to retake the top of a hill. Directed by Lewis Milestone and starring Gregory Peck.
- The Manchurian Candidate (1962). The principal characters in the film are captured and brainwashed during the Korean War. (The 2004 remake of the movie instead used the Persian Gulf War of 1991).
- M
- A
- S
- H (1970), about the staff of a Korean War field hospital who use humor and hijinks to keep their sanity in the face of the horror of war. Directed by Robert Altman.
- M
- A
- S
- H (1972-1983) was also a long-running television sitcom, inspired by the movie, and featuring Alan Alda. The television series lasted longer than the Korean Conflict.
- Inchon (1981). The movie portrays the Battle of Incheon, a turning point in the war. Controversially, the film was partially financed by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Movement. It became a notorious financial and critical failure, losing an estimated $40 million of its $46 million budget, and remains the last mainstream Hollywood film to use the war as its backdrop. The film was directed by Terence Young, and starred an elderly Laurence Olivier as General Douglas MacArthur. According to press materials from the film, psychics hired by Moon's church contacted MacArthur in heaven and secured his posthumous approval of the casting.
- Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War (2004). When two Korean brothers are drafted into the military to fight in the war, the older brother tries to protect the younger by risking his own life in hopes of sending his brother home. This results in an emotional conflict that wears away at his own humanity. Epic in scope, the movie has a touching family story backdropped by a brutal war. Directed by Je-Kyu Kang or Kang Je-gyu.

Names

The name 'Korean War' is the English language name for the war. In South Korea, the war is called the "June 25th Incident" (육이오 사변; 六二五事變), although some use the term "한국전쟁" (韓國戰爭), which means Korean War. In North Korea, the war is called the "Fatherland Liberation War" (조국해방전쟁; 祖國解放戰爭). In China the war is called 抗美援朝 (kàng měi yuán cháo), which can be translated to "The Resisting American War to Aid Korea", or the more politically correct "War of Chosun" 朝鮮戰爭.

Causes

Poland of Franz Ferdinand. The murder was the igniting torch of World War I.]] :See also: Causes of World War I and Participants in World War I On June 28, 1914, Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb student. He was part of a group of fifteen assassins, acting with support from the Black Hand, a secret society founded by pan-Serbian nationalists, with links to the Serbian military. The assassination sparked little initial concern in Europe. The Archduke himself was not popular, least of all in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While there were riots in Sarajevo following the Archduke's death, these were largely aimed at the Serbian minority. Though this assassination has been linked as the direct trigger for World War I, the war's real origins lie further back, in the complex web of alliances and counterbalances that developed between the various European powers after the defeat of France and formation of the German state under the leadership of Otto von Bismarck in 1871.

Reasons & Responsibilities

- See also: Causes of World War I There are many different hypotheses that try to explain who, or what, is to blame for the outbreak of the First World War. Early explanations, prominent in the 1920s and 1930s, stressed the official version of responsibility as described in the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Trianon, that Germany and its allies were solely responsible for the war. However, as time progressed, scholars began looking toward the rigidity of both German and Russian military planning, each of which stressed the importance of striking first and executing plans quickly. The fact that for many decades the British had been accustomed to colonial wars which were won relatively easily against much weaker adversaries certainly helped build enthusiasm for the Great war. In addition, the fact that no major political force opposed the war meant that those who did not agree with it had little organisational power to build opposition, though small protests continued throughout the war. Another cause of the war was the building of alliances and arms races. An example of the latter is the launch of HMS Dreadnought, a revolutionary battleship that rendered all previous ships obsolete as "pre-dreadnoughts", in 1906. This weakened Britain's power as a seafaring nation and sparked a major naval arms race in shipbuilding, particularly between Britain and Germany due to new imperialism. Overall, nations in the Triple Entente became fearful of the Triple Alliance and vice versa. The civilian leaders of the European powers also found themselves facing a wave of nationalist zeal that had been building across Europe for years. This left governments with ever fewer options and little room to manoeuvre as the last weeks of July 1914 slipped away. Frantic diplomatic efforts to mediate the Austrian-Serbian quarrel simply became irrelevant, as the automatic military escalations between Germany and Russia reinforced one another. Furthermore, the problem of communications in 1914 should not be underestimated; all nations still used telegraphy and ambassadors as the main form of communication, resulting in delays from hours to even days. There is probably no single concise or conclusive assessment of the exact cause of the First World War.

Outbreak of war

ambassadors are depicted in green, the Central Powers in red, and neutral countries in yellow.]] Austria–Hungary was created in the "Ausgleich of 1867" after Austria was defeated by Prussia. As agreed in 1867, the Habsburgs were the Emperors of the Austrian Empire. With the formation of the Dual Monarchy, Franz Josef became leader of a nation with sixteen ethnic groups and five major religions speaking no fewer than nine languages. In large measure because of the vast disparities that existed within the Empire, Austrians and Hungarians always viewed growing Slavic nationalism with deep suspicion and concern. Thus the Austro-Hungarian government grew worried with the near-doubling in size of neighbouring Serbia's territory as a result of the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913. Serbia, for its part, made no qualms about the fact that it viewed all of Southern Austria–Hungary as part of a future Great South Slavic Union. This view had also garnered considerable support in Russia. Many in the Austrian leadership, not least Habsburg Emperor Franz Joseph, and Conrad von Hötzendorf, worried that Serbian nationalist agitation in the southern provinces of the Empire would lead to further unrest among the Austro-Hungarian Empire's other disparate ethnic groups. The Austro-Hungarian government worried that a nationalist Russia would back Serbia to annex Slavic areas of Austria–Hungary. The feeling was that it was better to destroy Serbia before they were given the opportunity to launch a campaign. After the assassination of Franz Ferdinand by Gavrilo Princip and nearly a month of debate the government of Austria–Hungary sent a 10-point ultimatum to Serbia (July 23, 1914) — the so called July Ultimatum — to be unconditionally accepted within 48 hours. The ultimatum was the first of a series of diplomatic events known as the July Crisis which set off a chain reaction and a general war in Europe. The Serbian government agreed to all but one of the demands in the ultimatum, noting that participation in its judicial proceedings by a foreign power would violate its constitution. Austria–Hungary nonetheless broke off diplomatic relations (July 25) and declared war (July 28) through a telegram sent to the Serbian government. The Russian government, which had pledged in 1909 to uphold Serbian independence in return for Serbia's acceptance of the Bosnia annexation, mobilised its military reserves on 30 July following a breakdown in crucial telegram communications between Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas II (the famous "Willy and Nicky" correspondence), who was under pressure by his military staff to prepare for war. Germany demanded (31 July) that Russia stand down its forces, but the Russian government persisted, as demobilization would have made it impossible to re-activate its military schedule in the short term. Germany declared war against Russia on August 1 and, two days later, against the latter's ally France. The outbreak of the conflict is often attributed to the alliances established over the previous decades — Germany-Austria-Italy vs France-Russia; Britain and Serbia being aligned with the latter. In fact, none of the alliances were activated in the initial outbreak, though Russian general mobilization and Germany's declaration of war against France were motivated by fear of the opposing alliance being brought into play. Britain declared war against Germany on August 4. This was ostensibly provoked by Germany's invasion of Belgium on

Armistice

Notable Armistices in history

War

History of war

Morality of war

Limitations on war

Redefining "war" for legal reasons

Causes of war

Historical theories

Psychological theories

Anthropological theories

Sociological theories

Information theories

Economic theories

Marxist theories

Types of war and warfare

Geographic warfare

See also

References

External links

Ceasefire

References

Peace treaty

Ancient history

Elements of treaties

Role of UN

Famous peace treaties

See also

External links

Korean War

Historical background

Korean War (1950-1953)

The war begins (June 25, 1950)

Western reaction

Incheon landing (September 15 - September 28, 1950)

The Chinese entry (October, 1950)

Stalemate (July, 1951)

Characteristics

Air War

Atrocities

Legacy

Korea

United States

China

Japan

Europe

Depiction

Artistic depiction

Film

Names

See also

Books

See also

External links

World War I

Causes

Reasons & Responsibilities

Outbreak of war