A Short History of the Korean War

by James L. Stokesbury

As pungent and concise as his short histories of both world wars, Stokesbury's survey of "the half war" takes a broad view and seems to leave nothing out but the details. The first third covers the North Korean invasion of June 1950, the Pusan perimeter crisis, MacArthur's master stroke at Inchon and the intervention by Chinese forces that November. At this point, other popular histories of the war reach the three-quarter mark, ending often with a cursory summary of the comparatively undramatic three-and-a-half years required to bring the war to its ambiguous conclusion on July 27, 1953. Stokesbury renders the latter period as interesting as the operational fireworks of the first six the Truman-MacArthur controversy; the political limitations on U.S. air power; the need for the Americans to fight the war as cheaply as possible, due to NATO commitments; the prolonged negotiations at Panmunjom over the prisoner-exchange issue; and the effect of the war on the home front. Whether the United States could have/should have stayed out of the war in the first place comes under "no" on both counts, according to the author.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Military Fiction, War, Military History, American History, Audiobook

282 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 1, 1988

Reviews

[Hobbes · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book, marked a 'short history', seems to recognize that for any event of this size volumes may be written if the author so chooses to bury their reader in forgettable details and overmuch exposition. This accounting is certainly comprehensive, and after finishing it one will have possession of a working knowledge of the events. A blow-by-blow, battle recounting is not in the cards here, but a feeling for the progression of the war and the basic geographic, political, and emotional layout of the time is a meaningful takeaway.

To my mind the book is in three sections. It begins with a brief prelude about the cause of the war, beginning really with the formation of two Koreas following WWII. Then the first major section begins which details the major fighting and and movement of the war. This only corresponds to, at most, the first third of the whole thing in terms of time but almost all the actual military maneuvering and basically all of the changing hands of various lines of progress. This is section is certainly the strongest part of this book: a clear accounting of what happened when is provided with a political and military backdrop that makes it easy and interesting to follow.

Then the last part which corresponds to over half the book comes. This section does not quite restrict itself to following actual chronology but it basically details what happens after both sides reach stalemate but can't seem to end the war itself for over two years. Instead of detailing events in a linear manner the author breaks it up into sections of interest (the air battle, the international perceptions, the peace talks, etc...) This has some attraction as an exposition device but the confused chronology and lack of cohesive structure make this part much harder to follow. It becomes impossible to tell what event is prompting what, or to put an air battle mentioned on page in place with the corresponding reaction at home talked about 100+ pages later. The book ends right at the signing of the peace treaty with a few pages on 'lesson learned'.

Through-out the book the author seems to feel the need to inform us of his extensive knowledge of military history. Unfortunately, as is the case in a 'brief history' he doesn't have the space to actually set a back-drop of history but uses the poor substitute of seemingly unrelated quotes from former military greats. These non-requiters prove highly jarring, what does what Wellington said of Napoleon prior to the battle of Waterloo have to do with anything? They disrupt the narrative and seem to serve only to show off the author's 'deep knowledge'. This combined with the poor organization of the final (and biggest) section make it hard for me to recommend this book. Certainly if you know enough about the Korean war to follow the previous part of this review, then this book is unlikely to be a worthwhile read for you. Yet I went into this with almost no knowledge of this war and came out with a decent grasp for what occurred, so I can't not condemn it either. I'd instead mark it as an unremarkable, but in its place useful piece of historical writing. Certainly one could do worse.

[Troy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book that I would give a 3.5. I'll round it up to a 4.... This is a clearly written explanation of not only the "what" but also the "why" of the events that made up the Korean War. I would recommend it for anyone who wants to understand the basics of the conflict.

[David Cuatt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nicely written overview of the Korean War which covers the political and global impact of this war as well as the military side. As the author writes, this was the conflict that set the tone for future Cold War conflicts. I found the gridlock in peace negotiations very interesting, especially regarding the exchange of prisoners which proved very difficult to work out. Very worthwhile read.

[Jeff Brateman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was actually pretty amazing. There is plenty of commentary on the human condition that parallels the actual war. It analyzes personalities of the major leaders, as well as the attitude of the soldiers on the ground. I enjoyed almost every word this book.

[Kristen · Rating 4 out of 5]

A concise history of America's forgotten war.

[Brent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Even though this is not a long, detailed look at the Korean War, it has increased my knowledge of the war and its place in the political climate of the early Cold War. I read it for knowledge and partially as a tribute to my Dad who left college in the summer of 1953 to join the U.S. Marine Corps and to use G.I. Bill funding to finish college. By the time he was out of basic training in the fall/winter of 1953, the war was over and he never saw action (although he spent some of his time based in nearby Japan). Despite the many American history books that I have read, I've never read deeply on the Korean War, once starting David Halberstam's book but not making a lot of headway in a busy semester. Maybe I will give it a try again.

I started the book in the summer and read the first five chapters, which stops just before the Chinese entered the war. I put it away during the fall semester, and restarted it recently to make it the last book read in 2014. This was the perfect way to increase my knowledge of the Korean War, to consider the life and times of my parents and to complete my Goodreads reading goal for 2014, with a week to spare.

[Ash · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm a big fan of James Stokesbury's A Short History series. They're pretty much as advertised: solid, big-picture overview of the causes, progression, and end of a war.

I didn't know much about the Korean War, when I started this...I knew Chosin Reservoir, and that big reversal when the Chinese entered the war, but not much else. Turns out the whole rest of the war was just political posturing, and trading hills around the 38th parallel (a fantastically gruesome waste of lives to maintain the status quo that existed prior to the war). So the book isn't all that exciting, but it gives a birds-eye view of the process, the role it played in kickstarting the Cold War, and why the stalemate persists to the current day.

If you feel like the Korean War is a gap in your knowledge of world events, this is a good choice to fill that gap.

[Joey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was very informative and I am definitly glad I picked this up. I have not known much about The Korean War except that my Grandfather served in it (as well as WWII). This in turn made me want to learn more. James L. Stokesbury's explanation broke it down so well that I actually really understood what took place. I am by no means saying that I am not an intelligent person, but I am saying that understanding war books and battle details are not my specialty. I know for future war readings I will definitly be looking up more of his books. My one dissapointment is that in my research on him I do not think he wrote A Short History of the Vietnam War, which in my quest for knowledge I am very interested in learning more about.

[Shad · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was concise and well-written. I think it might have been more effective if he had organized it more chronologically rather than thematically. Also, while it may be due to my being very conservative, I picked up on a liberal bias that caused me to question the credibility of some assertions (but not as much as I normally see in histories of Vietnam).

[Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a better first introduction to the Korean War. Stokesbury hits the highlights but I was frustrated at the inclusion of his opinions especially since they clashed with mine. And some of his statements and facts have been disproved with further research in the Soviet and Chinese archives. In summary this is a good starting point for the study of the Korean War but a bad stopping point.

[David R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fairly serviceable review of the least understood conflict of the 20th Century. Stokesbury tends to meander back and forth between play-by-plays and topical matter. Less helpful is his tendency to play Monday morning quarterback.

[Curtiss · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of Mr. Stokesbury's lucid & insightful, one-volume histories of various conflicts or battlefield weapons systems.

[Dave Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good. Short on actual battle history and more on the war negotiations and political history with a fair amount of liberal bias.