American Policy-making and the North Korean Aggression

1955 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander L. George

The Korean War represented the first American experience with the problem of meeting local Communist aggression by means of limited, if costly, warfare. But despite the revulsion with that experience, and the “new look” at military strategy and foreign policy, it may not be the last. The character of recent weapons developments and the passing of our thermonuclear monopoly make it probable that in the future, as in the past, American policy-makers will be forced to consider the alternative of local conflict, with all its problems and risks, in determining how to respond to the threat or actuality of Communist moves in the peripheral areas.In these circumstances, analyses of American policy-making immediately before and during the Korean War may well illuminate the perspectives and considerations relevant to this difficult and dangerous type of operation. Here, no more can be done than toexamine the effect of strategic planning and estimates of Communist intentions and behavior on the decision to commit American forces to the defense of South Korea. This decision, and even the crucial decision to commit ground forces to eventual offensive operations against the aggressor, was made within afew days of the North Korean attack. Attention, accordingly, is focused on American policy reactions to the war in the first week or ten days following June 25, 1950.

1994 ◽  
Vol 9 (0) ◽  
pp. 153-169
Author(s):  
Myong Sang Choe

I believe the most important patriotic duty of Korean is to continue lasting peace in Korea and reunify the Korean peninsula while promoting growth and prosperity. Although it has been almost fifty years since the outbreak of the Korean War, we have yet to accurately examined the origins of the war. With the recent death of Kim, Il-Sung, who might have had an intimate knowledge of the facts, the effort to uncover truth of the origins of the Korean War seem even more distant. With the truth behind veils, some Korean college students still have believed the North Korean view that the Korean War was a war of national liberation and the unification of the fatherland. These students even proclaim that the South initiated the war.


Author(s):  
George W. Breslauer

In Korea, the USSR occupied the northern half of the country after Japan withdrew its occupation forces. The Soviets installed a regime of North Korean communists who enjoyed popular support due to their sacrifices in fighting the Japanese during World War II. The leadership convinced Moscow and Beijing to sanction and support an invasion of South Korea that they hoped would reunify the country. This led to the Korean War, which merely restored the status quo ante at the expense of millions of lives. The pathway was different in Vietnam, where a guerrilla war against Japanese, then French, occupation led to the victory of the Vietnamese communist party in the North.


2006 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 15-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael M. Sheng

In October 1950 the Chinese leader Mao Zedong embarked on a two-front war. He sent troops to Korea and invaded Tibet at a time when the People's Republic of China was burdened with many domestic problems. The logic behind Mao's risky policy has baffled historians ever since. By drawing on newly available Chinese and Western documents and memoirs, this article explains what happened in October 1950 and why Mao acted as he did. The release of key documents such as telegrams between Mao and his subordinates enables scholars to understand Chinese policymaking vis-à-vis Tibet much more fully than in the past. The article shows that Mao skillfully used the conflicts for his own purposes and consolidated his hold over the Chinese Communist Party.


1953 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-119
Author(s):  
Frederic Eggleston

2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
In-Cheol Shin

The greatest wish of the Baeda l people, or South Koreans, living in the Korean Peninsula is the unification of Korea. However, even when it has been 70 years since the outbreak of the Korean War, the two Koreas that used to be one nation are still in conflict. There have been many discourses on unification over the past 70 years, but these discourses still fail to create clear rules and a framework for unification. Discourses from the perspective of biblical theology offer insight regarding the problems at stake as well as alternatives, but they do not offer perspectives on a definite solution. This article, in line with its statement on biblical theology, does not pretend to contribute to a clear-cut solution to meet the challenge of Korea’s unification. Rather, this article intends to contribute to the formation of an emotional consensus that can contribute to the unification of Korea by looking at the teachings about peace in the Gospel of Matthew. The article explores whether the notion of embracement, forgiveness and love written during the conflict between the Matthean community and Formative Judaism can be applied to help create an emotional bond between the two Koreas. The terms embracement, forgiveness and love found in the Gospel of Matthew are upheld as symbolising peace derived from opposition and conflict. Jesus taught us to overcome situations of opposition and conflict through embracement, forgiveness and love.Contribution: The purpose and contribution of this article was to discuss if the notions of embracement, forgiveness and love found in the Gospel of Matthew can be helpful for the emotional preparation of the peaceful unification of the Korean Peninsula by comparing the situations reflected in the Gospel of Matthew and that of the Korean Peninsula.


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 369-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Berridge

AbstractPolicy makers like the idea of new initiatives and fresh starts, unencumbered by, even actively overthrowing, what has been done in the past. At the same time, history can be pigeonholed as fusty and antiquarian, dealing with long past events of no relevance to the present. Academic historians are sometimes bound up in their own worlds. The debates central to academe may have little direct relevance to the immediate concerns of policy making. The paper argues that history, as the evidence-based discipline par excellence, is as relevant as other approaches to evidence-based policy making. Case studies can show us the nature of that relevance. How to achieve influence for history also needs discussion. The relationship is not straightforward and will vary according to time and place. History is an interpretative discipline, not just a collection of ‘facts’. The paper discusses how historians work and why it is important for policy makers to engage, not just with history, but with historians as well. Historians too need to think about the value of bringing their analysis into policy.


Author(s):  
Sangjoon Lee

This chapter examines the historical, social, cultural, and intellectual constitution of the first postwar pan-Asian cinema network during the two decades after the Korean War armistice in July 1953. It argues that Asia's film cultures and industries were shaped by the practice of transnational collaboration and competition between newly independent and colonial states, with financial and administrative support from US institutions. It also looks at the network of motion picture executives, creative personnel, policy makers, and intellectuals in Asia at the height of the Cold War and beyond. The chapter shows how Asians aspired to rationalize and industrialize a system of mass production by initiating a regional organization. It identifies the cultural, economic, and political logic that gave rise to and modified the Federation of Motion Picture Producers in Southeast Asia and the Southeast Asian Film Festival.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document