How Does The Korean War Rate?

[Bill Greenwood]

I realized I know little about Korea compared to other wars. Other than best movie perhaps(any co star prettier than Grace Kelly?), how would it rate on these main standards?
1st Did we win?, 2nd Were we the "good guys", or at least was the enemy worse? , 3rd What were our direct cost, killed/ wounded, money, time? 4th Did we start it or fight for the right reasons?, 5th Related issues, world opinion, atrocities, political repression, economic disruption, family suffering?
We can use WWII and Nam as marks. In WWII the Allies won. We were the good guys,or at least Hitler and Tojo were the bad guys. It might be said Stalin was worse than any,but---. The worse part of II was the enormous cost, 55 million killed, most of them civilians. We started it "right", we gave support to Britain and free allies until we were directly attacked by Japanese. Lastly, we had the internment camps, but they were not death camps and we had world support and domestic support after Dec. 7 Vietnam fails on almost all standards. We lost, period. Nothing about how we won battles, or how heroic our Dads fought changes this. We, as a superpower invaded a small 3rd rate(at least we thought so) and despite superiority of air, sea, and sometimes land, 15 years later we left. The cost were enormous, 58,000 killed 220,000 wounded, most of 2 decades of strife, I don't have a $ figure. We started it on a lie, the phony Tonkin Gulf thing, and one of the saddest points we, behind Dulles refused to even talk to Ho Chi Minh before the war, when he was seeking a relationship. We opposed democratic elections which would have elected him. Maybe a case could be made that the communist north were the "bad guys", but that is a little thin in view of the fact that now we are visiting and trading with them. We invaded Nam, in support of a corrupt dictator in Saigon against a VC insurgency in the south, they did not attack us. On all the related costs it looks even worse. The 2 million or more civilians killed , US POWs, My Lai, world opinion against us, domestic spying, repression, Kent State , Nixon, Watergate, rampant inflation. Not a good war by almost any measure one can use.
So how does the Korean War rate? Did we tie or is it a loss? I assume we were the "good guys", (at least now N Korea is more evil than South) and unlike Nam it was a UN action. I think our losses were around 50,000? Interesting, MIA were about 5000?, yet it is not a hot political topic like the 1000 or so from Nam.
I'd like to read brief opinions on Korea, especially is you are expert on this as I am not. There may be other standards to measure by, these 5 firts came to mind. Just try to stick to the topic, it is not a debate on Sabre vs Mig and certainly not Nixon vs Ho Chi Minh, are whether jets are warbirds, that belongs under Hangar. Thanks

[Jack Frost]

Bill, I'm not a Korean Conflict scholar by any means. I graduated from high school the first week of June 1950. That Saturday night "The Sands of Iwo Jima" was playing at the local Orpheum theater. During a half-time intermission, the local Marine recruiter came onstage and gave a rousing recruiting pep-talk. Three of my classmates were there that night and on Monday morning were enlisting at the recruiters office. We all grew up during WW II and expected to be in the military sometime in our youth.

Then on June 25, 1950 the North Koreans came South. The UN ordered them back but it was ignored so a UN armed force was committed and since the US was already on scene, we acted first but in concert with other members of the UN. This looked like a war, smelled like a war and was run like a war but it wasn't a War.....it was a Police Action. But the Russians and Chinese jumped in too and it see-sawed back and forth for 3 years before a truce was instituted but the sides have glared back and forth at each other ever since.

Best I can tell lots of people were wounded or died, POWs were held for years or simply disappeared, WW III was avoided and North Korea was contained and the Cold War continued on and on but nobody really won a victory. The Korea Vets have been relatively ignored compared to the WW II and Nam guys. They called us the Silent Generation and I guess we were. I have my own ideas why we were called 'Silent' but it wasn't because we wanted it that way.

I got my draft notice in early 1952, joined the USAF and learned to fly tankers. But by then the truce was in effect so I missed the action. My three Marine classmates? One came back in a casket, one without a foot and the third was never really the same. It was a genuine War to them and many other of my friends that were in it.

<5th Related issues, world opinion, atrocities, political repression, economic disruption, family suffering?>

After WW II this was still remembered in a War situation even if it was 'Only a Police Action' so it was expected. We were all still enured to this. The only economic disruption that I remember was the chrome plating on new automobiles was very thin and quick to rust! I'm sure there were others.

[Old SAR pilot]

Bill, Korea wasn't the only "Forgotten War" between WWII and Viet Nam. My father served in Korea '51 - '53 with the 25th Division (among other units) as an Infantry officer, and was very reluctant to talk about any of it, as were many other vets of his generation. Can't say why.

As for the war (excuse me - "Police Action") itself, it isn't over. That's why the facility at Panmunjon still exists. There's only an armistice.

As for the other "Forgotten Wars", people have really forgotten our involvement in the Balkans/Trieste area (Yugoslavia was the opponent), Greece (1948, or thereabouts), Lebanon (in the '50s). Not nearly as massive an involvement, but involved nonetheless.

Seems as though, since we were pried out of our pre-WWII isolationism, we've been mixed up in one conflict or another ever since. For whatever reason, good/bad/justified/unjustified.

But that's just my 1.75 cent's worth..

[Bill Greenwood]

Jack, I welcome your personal knowledge of that war. I went on an aviation tour of England and one of the men had been in the Battle at Chosin Resevoir. He didn't brag or talk much about it, but I sure felt a sense that he done something most of us had not thought of. I used to fly with John Reynolds, based here in Aspen. He had a photo of himself about 22 years old standing next to his Skyraider after he landed back on the Bon Homme Richard. He had taken anti-aircraft fire and the bottom of the engine was shot away, and his wing man was shot down, luckily to survive as a POW.

[CAPFlyer]

My paternal grandfather was a QM in the Army during Korea. He has never to my knowledge talked about it. I've tried on occasion to get him to talk, but he really doesn't want to.

My feeling was that Korea was the first "test" of the Cold War. Not a test of who was stronger, but whether or not the two sides were truly willing to go all-out and take the Cold War hot. It never did. It got pretty danged warm, but Korea was the first proof that neither side of the conflict was willing to really take that final step. I think for that fact alone, Korea was a win for everyone alive on this planet. MacArthur tried to take that final step and failed. Because of that, we have never had a nuclear exchange in anger since the bombs that opened the genie's bottle.

Eventually we will have to finish the war. Eventually either the North Koreans will become so despirate to actually attack the South again or they will fall from internal conflict and the end come officially and reunification occur under peaceful terms. It may be 5 years or 50 years before it happens, but I suspect it will happen sooner rather than later. KJI is showing his weakness and it only bodes well for a final resolution before or upon his death.

[b29flteng]

Bill, in my humble opinion it was a win because we stopped and repelled the North Korean invasion. Just a simple answer to your question at the end of your post. I think our objective was to prevent the spread of communisim, and we did, along with the help of numerous other countries.

[Bill Greenwood]

B-29, Tie or win? I think at the end of the war the dividing line between communist North Korea and whatever the South was stayed about the same as at the start. So I'd say that was more of a tie. We did not take over the north and they did not take over the south.
I don't know if we could have gotten this settlement earlier with less losses, nor do I know much about what the south was like as a govt or a society before the war,.
CAP Flyer, I think you're comment about not having a nuclear exchange could be rated a win is very perceptive..
And one thing about that KJI sp.? guy, he sure is a handsome dude and a snappy dresser!