What do you think?
Rate this book
Korean War: A History from Beginning to End
The Korean War, which began in 1950 and ended in 1953, is not considered one of the major wars of the twentieth century. However, in reality, it was profoundly impactful on global history. As an early crisis of the Cold War, it set important precedents for how conflicts would be handled during this era. But also, it has shaped Korea’s history for more than half a century.
Inside you will read about...
✓ Korea before World War II
✓ The End of World War II and the Cold War Context
✓ The Korean War Begins
✓ The United States Enters the Korean War
✓ The Korean War Escalates
✓ Stalemate at the 38th Parallel
✓ After the War
It was destructive, and brought many atrocities on both sides. What is more, still to this day, Korea remains divided along the 38th parallel, and the people of North and South Korea live very different lives.
116 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 1, 2017
296 people are currently reading
612 people want to read
About the author
Hourly History
691 books854 followersAt Hourly History, we focus on publishing history books that are concise, straightforward and take no longer than one hour to read.
Receive our new eBooks for free every Friday.
Sign up at: www.hourlyhistory.com/free
Receive our new eBooks for free every Friday.
Sign up at: www.hourlyhistory.com/free
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
March 10, 2017
The Korean War officially started in June 1950 and saw the armed forces of the United States and a coalition of world countries, under the auspices of the United Nations, against the Soviet Union, China and the communist regime governing Korea north of the 38th Parallel. This war lasted until July of 1953 when an armistice was reached. This war was the first to deploy troops under a United Nations mandate. It was also the first of many Cold War conflicts that would ravage the latter half of the Twentieth Century.
While reading this short history, I was surprised at the lack of military readiness in which the United States was in, just five years after the end of World War II. I’ve always considered the Second World War and the Korean War as my father’s wars (I was born in the year this conflict started). Like so many others, my memories of the Korean War are wrapped up in all those episodes of M*A*S*H.
With all of the tension emanating from the Korean Peninsula, I think that it is a good time to reacquaint with this history and this book is a very good place to begin. The Korean War is not much different than so many other wars as, when the guns fall silent and the combatants go home, nothing has really changed. The 38th Parallel was the division of Korea before the war and it has remained so to this day.
While reading this short history, I was surprised at the lack of military readiness in which the United States was in, just five years after the end of World War II. I’ve always considered the Second World War and the Korean War as my father’s wars (I was born in the year this conflict started). Like so many others, my memories of the Korean War are wrapped up in all those episodes of M*A*S*H.
With all of the tension emanating from the Korean Peninsula, I think that it is a good time to reacquaint with this history and this book is a very good place to begin. The Korean War is not much different than so many other wars as, when the guns fall silent and the combatants go home, nothing has really changed. The 38th Parallel was the division of Korea before the war and it has remained so to this day.
December 30, 2022
the forgotten war
A conflict that still has lessons to teach us about the West’s relationship with North Korea and China. This book/essay helps with that. It would take a great deal of change from all parties to see reunification in Korea. It’s difficult to conceive of at this point in history.
A conflict that still has lessons to teach us about the West’s relationship with North Korea and China. This book/essay helps with that. It would take a great deal of change from all parties to see reunification in Korea. It’s difficult to conceive of at this point in history.
January 4, 2024
Starting with a great expectation, ending with disappointment
It feels like the fin’al part’/ port’ion of the book was written by an’other writer.
The book starts with a pretty good entr'/ intr'o-duct'ion, the disappointment, however, with the con-clos’/ -clus’ion was as huge as the first expectation.
Fairly good entr'/ intr'o-duct'ion of its history. Well-researched:
(Kindle Ed., locations 21-47)
...Eventually, the kingdoms were united, though continued warfare and changes in power, combined with spotty survival of records, make this early history of Korea difficult. One of the three Korean kingdoms was called Goguryeo—later Goryeo – and provides us the etymological root of the name “Korea.” It was not only the Three Kingdoms that initiated warfare and caused instability on the Korean peninsula during its early history. China, too, wished to control Korea. Several Chinese rulers from a number of dynasties launched warfare in Korea, including the Mongol Dynasty, which eventually conquered the peninsula in the 13th century. In consideration of Korea’s very long history, Mongol rule did not last very long. By the end of the 14th century, the Mongols had collapsed, and despite ensuing instability in Korea, the Kingdom of Joseon was established by the military leader Yi Seonggye. This kingdom existed for more than five hundred years. Europeans began trading in Asia and the Far East, via the overland Silk Road spice routes, while much of this turbulence with China was going on. However, European colonization of Korea would not begin until later. By the nineteenth century, when Europeans were looking to extend their eastern empires beyond India, Korea had a reputation for being isolationist. This was largely in response to repeated attempts, particularly by the Chinese, to overtake it. As a result, Korea had earned the nickname the “Hermit Kingdom.” Japan was also traditionally isolationist. The allegory goes that American Navy Commodore Matthew Perry sailed to Japan and demanded she open herself to trade, and she complied. In reality, the arrival of Commodore Perry was just the last in a series of events that prompted Japan to open its ports to foreign trade and to modernize in order to prevent conquest. Korea did not read these signs the same way, at least not initially. True to their nickname, they remained closed off to the rest of the world until early in the twentieth century. At that point, they finally decided to attempt to modernize, but it was too late. In 1910, fresh from their 1905 victory over Russia in the Russo-Japanese War, Japan conquered Korea with little trouble. Like many European countries had been doing for hundreds of years, Japan was also working on building an empire. While European conquest was usually tolerated and even celebrated, this was not the case with Japan: much racism existed against the Japanese (as with all Asians). In the years during and surrounding World War II this would be a serious issue; for Korea, it would impact the post-war world and the causes of the Korean War. Japanese rule was anything but peaceful. Despite western racism against them, they were also racist against other Asians, including Koreans. Japan saw Korea as an inferior nation of inferior people. Millions of Koreans were forced to labor to benefit Japan in virtual slavery; hundreds of thousands of women and very young girls were forced to become sex slaves for the Japanese (especially the military); tens of thousands of men and boys were forced to serve in the Japanese military, often in the most dangerous positions. Finally, more than four hundred thousand Koreans (at least) were killed as a direct result of the Japanese occupation. By 1945, when World War II ended, Korea and Koreans had faced decades—even centuries—of hardship, discrimination, and violence. They were ready for peace. However, the end of the war would not set them up for this; in less than a decade, the tiny peninsula would once again be embroiled in war.
The author's English, at least at the beginning part of the book, is very plain yet refined with perfect revision work for the peopl'/ publ'ic-ation, so I could read the whole thing in just a couple of hours.
(Ibid., location 82)
Events outside of Korea also played a role in the coming of the Korean War. As previously stated, the Korean War was a Cold War event, and the Cold War provided the global context for this conflict...
(Ibid., loc. 335)
It should be noted that actions such as these are common during all wars. It would be difficult to search the historical annals and find any war that was fought without atrocities on either side. However, it is also important to note that these methods are almost always counter-productive...Despite the fact that this pattern has been repeated again and again in history, these kinds of devastating events continue to happen.
(Ibid., loc. 349)
...Several more years of fighting ensued, and in the end, many people all over the world wondered what the war—and all its death and destruction—had been for in the first place.
(Ibid., loc. 405)
Finally, MacArthur and Truman disagreed about the goals and outcomes of the war...
The author's got quite a balanced view between the two sides of the Cold War, not tilted to on[e]-ly one side calling the other evil like we used to back in the era.
(Ibid., loc. 132)
...Shortly after he left, the South Korean Army—in an attempt to prevent the North Korean forces from reaching the capital—blew up the main bridge into and out of the city...
Correction: ...Shortly after he left the capital, the South Korean Army—in an attempt to prevent the North Korean forces from catching up to the fleeing Commander in Chief and his cabinet—blew up the main bridges of Han River, then-southern border of the city...
(Ibid., loc. 194)
As Commander in Chief of the armed forces, Truman had the final say in how the United States conducted the war. His first priority was evacuating the U.S. citizens caught up in the fighting and in helping the armed forces of the Republic of Korea, rather than immediately committing his country’s own troops. This was not the course of action favored by MacArthur.
And today we got both DPRK and PRC, more threatening than ever before. Not to mention the ominous nuclear threats from PLA (DPRK's nuclear threat's nothing compared to that of PRC), now the PLA Navy's got the largest fleet in the world, so the US and its allies even have to worry about losing Busan and Korea Strait to PLA trying to link the grand PLA fleet with the Russian Pacific Fleet in Vladivostok.
Only if we destroyed both the newly-born PRC and DPRK back in the early-1950s with their missile and naval cap'abilities still next to nothing.
Read the Art of War. Should've listened to the General. Political interference in military affairs during a war time is one of the biggest reasons of e-vent'ual failure. The leaders in the field know the best about the act’ual situation.
(Ibid., loc. 194)
It would be a few weeks before U.S. forced were engaged in anything but small skirmishes...
Correction: ...before U.S. “forces” were engaged...
(Ibid., loc. 208)
It did not go well for the Americans. Using Soviet artillery, North Korea quickly overran the out-gunned American units as Osan...
Correction: ...Using Soviet artillery and tanks, North Korea quickly overran the out-gunned American units “at” Osan...
(Ibid., locs. 405-416)
What was more, their division exemplified the polarized nature of American politics and society at the time. What were the U.S. goals in the Cold War? According to the policy of Containment, preventing the spread of communism was of the utmost importance. But should the U.S. be more active in rooting out and eliminating communism where it already existed, rather than just containing it? Clearly, MacArthur believed this was so while Truman disagreed in this case. When MacArthur returned to the United States, he made an address before Congress in which he laid out his beliefs about the dangers of communism and what America’s goals in the Cold War should be. It represented the polarized views of Americans throughout the country. Meanwhile, the war continued in Korea. Whether or not the war remained one of attrition, neither side was able to gain much ground. The fighting largely took place around the 38th parallel. About ten actual battles took place during the rest of 1951, 1952, and through July of 1953. The fighting was mostly between American and Chinese troops; neither North nor South Korea was able to provide much participation.
After all, the writer is a civilian researcher depending on other researchers' works without actual military experience. Yes, budget and supplies were all from America. What was the almost-1,000,000 casualties, however, among the foot soldiers in the front on ROK side alone? How many US casualties, between 128,000 ad 129,000 in total with 36,000 to 37,000 KIAs? There's no com-par’ison between the casualty numbers from the US and ROK, but no part'icipation? That's just cruel.
(Ibid., loc. 416)
It became clear that the war had stalemated. Therefore, armistice negotiations commenced in July 1953...
It "commenced" in 1951, but signed in July 1953...
(Ibid., loc. 416)
Finally, in 1954, an armistice was signed...
The US-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty was signed in 1954 a year after the armistice.
(Ibid., loc. 416)
...In the end, the war in Korea did not result in any territorial change. The border between North Korea and South Korea remained at the 38th parallel...
...remained "almost" at the 38th parallel...
Again, the book did be-gin/ -gene gre'at, but it disappoints the readers as it reaches the final pages. Even some en-/ in-form'at-i'on of the same top'ics are different as the read reaches the final pages, so that it seems like two different writers wrote this one single book (Seems like a professional author wrote early-half the book till the remaining work was handed over to an unprofessional one for some reason).
The disappointment at the end of the read was as big and stark as the size of the expectation at the beginning of the book.
p.s.> To Hourly History: Why one preposition is capitalized while the other's NOT on the title? It should be like "A History from Beginning to End" or "A History From Beginning To End."
It feels like the fin’al part’/ port’ion of the book was written by an’other writer.
The book starts with a pretty good entr'/ intr'o-duct'ion, the disappointment, however, with the con-clos’/ -clus’ion was as huge as the first expectation.
Fairly good entr'/ intr'o-duct'ion of its history. Well-researched:
(Kindle Ed., locations 21-47)
...Eventually, the kingdoms were united, though continued warfare and changes in power, combined with spotty survival of records, make this early history of Korea difficult. One of the three Korean kingdoms was called Goguryeo—later Goryeo – and provides us the etymological root of the name “Korea.” It was not only the Three Kingdoms that initiated warfare and caused instability on the Korean peninsula during its early history. China, too, wished to control Korea. Several Chinese rulers from a number of dynasties launched warfare in Korea, including the Mongol Dynasty, which eventually conquered the peninsula in the 13th century. In consideration of Korea’s very long history, Mongol rule did not last very long. By the end of the 14th century, the Mongols had collapsed, and despite ensuing instability in Korea, the Kingdom of Joseon was established by the military leader Yi Seonggye. This kingdom existed for more than five hundred years. Europeans began trading in Asia and the Far East, via the overland Silk Road spice routes, while much of this turbulence with China was going on. However, European colonization of Korea would not begin until later. By the nineteenth century, when Europeans were looking to extend their eastern empires beyond India, Korea had a reputation for being isolationist. This was largely in response to repeated attempts, particularly by the Chinese, to overtake it. As a result, Korea had earned the nickname the “Hermit Kingdom.” Japan was also traditionally isolationist. The allegory goes that American Navy Commodore Matthew Perry sailed to Japan and demanded she open herself to trade, and she complied. In reality, the arrival of Commodore Perry was just the last in a series of events that prompted Japan to open its ports to foreign trade and to modernize in order to prevent conquest. Korea did not read these signs the same way, at least not initially. True to their nickname, they remained closed off to the rest of the world until early in the twentieth century. At that point, they finally decided to attempt to modernize, but it was too late. In 1910, fresh from their 1905 victory over Russia in the Russo-Japanese War, Japan conquered Korea with little trouble. Like many European countries had been doing for hundreds of years, Japan was also working on building an empire. While European conquest was usually tolerated and even celebrated, this was not the case with Japan: much racism existed against the Japanese (as with all Asians). In the years during and surrounding World War II this would be a serious issue; for Korea, it would impact the post-war world and the causes of the Korean War. Japanese rule was anything but peaceful. Despite western racism against them, they were also racist against other Asians, including Koreans. Japan saw Korea as an inferior nation of inferior people. Millions of Koreans were forced to labor to benefit Japan in virtual slavery; hundreds of thousands of women and very young girls were forced to become sex slaves for the Japanese (especially the military); tens of thousands of men and boys were forced to serve in the Japanese military, often in the most dangerous positions. Finally, more than four hundred thousand Koreans (at least) were killed as a direct result of the Japanese occupation. By 1945, when World War II ended, Korea and Koreans had faced decades—even centuries—of hardship, discrimination, and violence. They were ready for peace. However, the end of the war would not set them up for this; in less than a decade, the tiny peninsula would once again be embroiled in war.
The author's English, at least at the beginning part of the book, is very plain yet refined with perfect revision work for the peopl'/ publ'ic-ation, so I could read the whole thing in just a couple of hours.
(Ibid., location 82)
Events outside of Korea also played a role in the coming of the Korean War. As previously stated, the Korean War was a Cold War event, and the Cold War provided the global context for this conflict...
(Ibid., loc. 335)
It should be noted that actions such as these are common during all wars. It would be difficult to search the historical annals and find any war that was fought without atrocities on either side. However, it is also important to note that these methods are almost always counter-productive...Despite the fact that this pattern has been repeated again and again in history, these kinds of devastating events continue to happen.
(Ibid., loc. 349)
...Several more years of fighting ensued, and in the end, many people all over the world wondered what the war—and all its death and destruction—had been for in the first place.
(Ibid., loc. 405)
Finally, MacArthur and Truman disagreed about the goals and outcomes of the war...
The author's got quite a balanced view between the two sides of the Cold War, not tilted to on[e]-ly one side calling the other evil like we used to back in the era.
(Ibid., loc. 132)
...Shortly after he left, the South Korean Army—in an attempt to prevent the North Korean forces from reaching the capital—blew up the main bridge into and out of the city...
Correction: ...Shortly after he left the capital, the South Korean Army—in an attempt to prevent the North Korean forces from catching up to the fleeing Commander in Chief and his cabinet—blew up the main bridges of Han River, then-southern border of the city...
(Ibid., loc. 194)
As Commander in Chief of the armed forces, Truman had the final say in how the United States conducted the war. His first priority was evacuating the U.S. citizens caught up in the fighting and in helping the armed forces of the Republic of Korea, rather than immediately committing his country’s own troops. This was not the course of action favored by MacArthur.
And today we got both DPRK and PRC, more threatening than ever before. Not to mention the ominous nuclear threats from PLA (DPRK's nuclear threat's nothing compared to that of PRC), now the PLA Navy's got the largest fleet in the world, so the US and its allies even have to worry about losing Busan and Korea Strait to PLA trying to link the grand PLA fleet with the Russian Pacific Fleet in Vladivostok.
Only if we destroyed both the newly-born PRC and DPRK back in the early-1950s with their missile and naval cap'abilities still next to nothing.
Read the Art of War. Should've listened to the General. Political interference in military affairs during a war time is one of the biggest reasons of e-vent'ual failure. The leaders in the field know the best about the act’ual situation.
(Ibid., loc. 194)
It would be a few weeks before U.S. forced were engaged in anything but small skirmishes...
Correction: ...before U.S. “forces” were engaged...
(Ibid., loc. 208)
It did not go well for the Americans. Using Soviet artillery, North Korea quickly overran the out-gunned American units as Osan...
Correction: ...Using Soviet artillery and tanks, North Korea quickly overran the out-gunned American units “at” Osan...
(Ibid., locs. 405-416)
What was more, their division exemplified the polarized nature of American politics and society at the time. What were the U.S. goals in the Cold War? According to the policy of Containment, preventing the spread of communism was of the utmost importance. But should the U.S. be more active in rooting out and eliminating communism where it already existed, rather than just containing it? Clearly, MacArthur believed this was so while Truman disagreed in this case. When MacArthur returned to the United States, he made an address before Congress in which he laid out his beliefs about the dangers of communism and what America’s goals in the Cold War should be. It represented the polarized views of Americans throughout the country. Meanwhile, the war continued in Korea. Whether or not the war remained one of attrition, neither side was able to gain much ground. The fighting largely took place around the 38th parallel. About ten actual battles took place during the rest of 1951, 1952, and through July of 1953. The fighting was mostly between American and Chinese troops; neither North nor South Korea was able to provide much participation.
After all, the writer is a civilian researcher depending on other researchers' works without actual military experience. Yes, budget and supplies were all from America. What was the almost-1,000,000 casualties, however, among the foot soldiers in the front on ROK side alone? How many US casualties, between 128,000 ad 129,000 in total with 36,000 to 37,000 KIAs? There's no com-par’ison between the casualty numbers from the US and ROK, but no part'icipation? That's just cruel.
(Ibid., loc. 416)
It became clear that the war had stalemated. Therefore, armistice negotiations commenced in July 1953...
It "commenced" in 1951, but signed in July 1953...
(Ibid., loc. 416)
Finally, in 1954, an armistice was signed...
The US-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty was signed in 1954 a year after the armistice.
(Ibid., loc. 416)
...In the end, the war in Korea did not result in any territorial change. The border between North Korea and South Korea remained at the 38th parallel...
...remained "almost" at the 38th parallel...
Again, the book did be-gin/ -gene gre'at, but it disappoints the readers as it reaches the final pages. Even some en-/ in-form'at-i'on of the same top'ics are different as the read reaches the final pages, so that it seems like two different writers wrote this one single book (Seems like a professional author wrote early-half the book till the remaining work was handed over to an unprofessional one for some reason).
The disappointment at the end of the read was as big and stark as the size of the expectation at the beginning of the book.
p.s.> To Hourly History: Why one preposition is capitalized while the other's NOT on the title? It should be like "A History from Beginning to End" or "A History From Beginning To End."
January 8, 2017
Once again, Hourly History has succeeding in creating a book that educates the reader in the chosen subject, and accomplishes this in less than an hour. This offering on the Korean War begins with a quick overview of the last two thousand years. Japanese subjugation ended in 1945, and the two governments of North and South Korea were established. The Cold War between the East and West provided the background and impetus for another war to begin, although the major powers exercised caution, as no one wished to cause another world war so soon after the last one.
This is an educational read, allowing one to gain enough knowledge to understand why the war happened. It is written in an easy to read manner, yet contains enough facts to have validity as a short history book. Four stars.
This is an educational read, allowing one to gain enough knowledge to understand why the war happened. It is written in an easy to read manner, yet contains enough facts to have validity as a short history book. Four stars.
March 16, 2020
Korean War and the 38th parallel. Policy of containment and Domino theory.
Another good ebook by hourly history on the Korean War. The war lasted for almost three years and resulted in atrocities across the peninsula. In the end it was capitalism that prevailed against communism.
Another good ebook by hourly history on the Korean War. The war lasted for almost three years and resulted in atrocities across the peninsula. In the end it was capitalism that prevailed against communism.
April 3, 2020
Apart from the details about what happened during the Korean War, the book provides some fascinating insights into the relationship between General McArthur and President Truman. This war was different from any other war as it was the first instance of a proxy war being fought between the super-powers post second World War.
December 26, 2020
Author exhibits baffling anti-western bias and total obliviousness to Asia’s troubled past. Goes to clear lengths to call out belief in western racism against Japan, despite the fact that Eastern Asia is historically the world’s greatest hotbed of racism, and that post-war hatred of the Japanese in the west was driven specifically by Japanese atrocities during the war, specifically the massacring of civilian populations and horrendous torturing of POWs. Such racism is readily documented via attitude surveys. In 2013 the Washington Post polled major countries around the world asking who would have a problem with someone of a different race moving in next door to them. Asia on the whole performed abhorrently poorly, with at least 20% of all major countries reporting they would take issue with this (India was worst at over 40%).
The author then engages in repetitive anti-American rhetoric, amping up a distaste for American involvement in the peninsula, blowing off the horrors of the soviets and militarism and sponsorship they engaged in to start the war. It’s really bafflingly historical ignorance—I’ve never been more annoyed reading what purports to be history. This might as well be titled “a communist sympathizer’s alternative history of Korea: why you should hate the west.”
The author then engages in repetitive anti-American rhetoric, amping up a distaste for American involvement in the peninsula, blowing off the horrors of the soviets and militarism and sponsorship they engaged in to start the war. It’s really bafflingly historical ignorance—I’ve never been more annoyed reading what purports to be history. This might as well be titled “a communist sympathizer’s alternative history of Korea: why you should hate the west.”
May 5, 2022
You are there….
Reading this, albeit brief, history of the Korean War was most insightful for me. My brother-in-law was called up by the US to Korea and assigned to maintenance and Supply during this uprising. By husband, though 15+ years later, while in the Army was sent to Uijeongbu (approximately 12 miles south of the 38th Parallel) in 4th Finance (to support those who continue the defense of South Korea. He spent 14 months and 1 day there.
What was actually a Cold War event (based on political gains and losses), still has an impact on our World today. The North Koreans, backed by the Chinese and Soviets, wanted the entire country reunited under Communism. While the South Koreans wanted the country reunited under Capitalism. After fighting the 3 year war, nothing was settled. Korea still remains divided.
If you are a war buff, or simply want to understand just what happened there, this is a good summation of the events that took place there.
Reading this, albeit brief, history of the Korean War was most insightful for me. My brother-in-law was called up by the US to Korea and assigned to maintenance and Supply during this uprising. By husband, though 15+ years later, while in the Army was sent to Uijeongbu (approximately 12 miles south of the 38th Parallel) in 4th Finance (to support those who continue the defense of South Korea. He spent 14 months and 1 day there.
What was actually a Cold War event (based on political gains and losses), still has an impact on our World today. The North Koreans, backed by the Chinese and Soviets, wanted the entire country reunited under Communism. While the South Koreans wanted the country reunited under Capitalism. After fighting the 3 year war, nothing was settled. Korea still remains divided.
If you are a war buff, or simply want to understand just what happened there, this is a good summation of the events that took place there.
May 13, 2023
KOREAN WAR: A CHESS GAME
I am a history teacher in a Cambridge School currently taking my students through the Cold War Era. Hourly History has been very helpful in providing a wider context in understanding the connection of events. "Korean War" is interesting due to its detailing of wars that led to victories on both sides and behind the scenes politicking that influenced the war. It was like a chess game between Stalin and Truman; both had losses and victories. The treatment of these events by Hourly History deserves a five star rating 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟.
I am a history teacher in a Cambridge School currently taking my students through the Cold War Era. Hourly History has been very helpful in providing a wider context in understanding the connection of events. "Korean War" is interesting due to its detailing of wars that led to victories on both sides and behind the scenes politicking that influenced the war. It was like a chess game between Stalin and Truman; both had losses and victories. The treatment of these events by Hourly History deserves a five star rating 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟.
November 23, 2020
A good starting point.
I knew nothing the Korean war before reading this. Although it's not fully detailed it gives a good outline of what happened during the war. It even warns the readers of some of the gruesome atrocities committed that they will learn in detail in other readings. I also liked how it didn't romanticize the American side and talked about some of their shortcomings and motives.
I knew nothing the Korean war before reading this. Although it's not fully detailed it gives a good outline of what happened during the war. It even warns the readers of some of the gruesome atrocities committed that they will learn in detail in other readings. I also liked how it didn't romanticize the American side and talked about some of their shortcomings and motives.
January 15, 2018
Brilliant
I am ashamed to say that all I knew about the Korean War was what I saw on TV. Then I read this. What an incredible introduction to a pivotal time in history. This is something the current American government should read, as it seems to be gearing up to repeat history.
I am ashamed to say that all I knew about the Korean War was what I saw on TV. Then I read this. What an incredible introduction to a pivotal time in history. This is something the current American government should read, as it seems to be gearing up to repeat history.
April 8, 2019
I'm up to the Cold War in my APUSH class, so this 50-page summary of the key ideas surrounding the Korean War was brilliant way to spend an hour on a Sunday evening before class on Monday morning. I'm glad that the author, anonymously named "Hourly History," took a balanced approach to the Cold War, and not a regurgitated, Westernized, whitewashed view of events. Nicely done.
September 28, 2020
So precise and to the point
Pardon my ignorance, but I had never read about the Korean War. The book, though a short read, has just enough details for you to know what you should know about the Korean War. After reading A River in Darkness, I wanted to know more about North Korea and the book just had enough of the history. Very nice short read.
Pardon my ignorance, but I had never read about the Korean War. The book, though a short read, has just enough details for you to know what you should know about the Korean War. After reading A River in Darkness, I wanted to know more about North Korea and the book just had enough of the history. Very nice short read.
March 4, 2021
This book compares very favourably amongst most of the books written about the Korean war .It is easy to read and understand , It gives the reader the knowledge about most of the important events in the war.It also highlights the conflict between president Truman and general MacArthur . I recommend this book .
January 20, 2023
Sophomoric Communist Propaganda
The writing is at a fifth grade level. The book is completely anti-capitalist, pro-Communist garbage. All the examples of "atrocities" were committed by the evil South Koreans and Americans against the noble, and kind North Koreans, Chinese, and Soviets....blah, blah, blah.
The writing is at a fifth grade level. The book is completely anti-capitalist, pro-Communist garbage. All the examples of "atrocities" were committed by the evil South Koreans and Americans against the noble, and kind North Koreans, Chinese, and Soviets....blah, blah, blah.
June 29, 2023
Short summary
Recently visited Korea, spend some time in Seoul, Osan and Pyeongtaek.
The culture, the people and the economy driven by technology are testimony of one of the results of this war, A free nation that thrives. Hopefully conflict can be avoided in the future but this war was worth it only for the sole reason that at least half of this peninsula have freedom.
Recently visited Korea, spend some time in Seoul, Osan and Pyeongtaek.
The culture, the people and the economy driven by technology are testimony of one of the results of this war, A free nation that thrives. Hopefully conflict can be avoided in the future but this war was worth it only for the sole reason that at least half of this peninsula have freedom.
April 13, 2019
Concise book of the war
I really liked how this book stuck to the meat of the war. It gave all the pertinent information and left out all the hubbub about how some people feel about the war.
I really liked how this book stuck to the meat of the war. It gave all the pertinent information and left out all the hubbub about how some people feel about the war.
September 9, 2020
Very well defined
In less words writer has described the scenario of Korean peninsula. Just want to say that this book worth time and money. I don't know what could be added in this book but it really give us info about Korea.
In less words writer has described the scenario of Korean peninsula. Just want to say that this book worth time and money. I don't know what could be added in this book but it really give us info about Korea.
May 3, 2021
This is what I'd describe as a "high altitude review". That's not a criticism, it's the result of trying to open a discussion of a BIG subject.
If you weren't around in those days, and are truly interested, this is a good starting point.
If you weren't around in those days, and are truly interested, this is a good starting point.
October 18, 2022
Anti-American?
It is a fairly concise history of the war. Some comments t o me seem somewhat anti-American. It was a sad time as I remember lots of acquaintances who had to participate.
It is a fairly concise history of the war. Some comments t o me seem somewhat anti-American. It was a sad time as I remember lots of acquaintances who had to participate.
February 15, 2017
Very concise.
Very concise. I like how it just touched on the key salient points. Not a lot of unnecessary battle details
Very concise. I like how it just touched on the key salient points. Not a lot of unnecessary battle details
May 19, 2017
A pretty good and easy read that provided a casual overview of the whole war.
May 11, 2020
Interesting reading.
Haven't read much about the Korean War,I did visit South Korea many years ago and found it beautiful and modern. Visited the site or near the 38 parallel.
Haven't read much about the Korean War,I did visit South Korea many years ago and found it beautiful and modern. Visited the site or near the 38 parallel.
May 13, 2020
More balanced then I expected.
May 14, 2020
While it was okay it really didn't assist me in learning more about the culture or war
July 16, 2020
Quick overview
A quick overview. Some info I did not know and makes me want to get a more detailed look into the Korean War.
A quick overview. Some info I did not know and makes me want to get a more detailed look into the Korean War.
July 30, 2020
A brief and wonderful overview of an unpopular war. I think the book did a good job of delivering the essensce of the war and its impact.
October 26, 2020
Excellent
This is a really good book
If you wanna know About Korean War
Definitely go for this book
I got this for free
This is a really good book
If you wanna know About Korean War
Definitely go for this book
I got this for free
April 12, 2021
This series is great for a brief overview of events. Not for history buffs that already have a deep understanding.
May 16, 2021
The war was explained briefly but was written from the Americans' point of view.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews