 |
| Source: Amazon.com |
From the book’s cover:
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 months: 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
discussion: "no" on both counts, according to the author.
The review:
The review:
A Short History of the Korean War is a fascinating look at an
oft-over-looked piece of early Cold War history. There were some interesting highlights the
author noted, including the prisoner-of-war issue (the entire subject being one
that, while an obvious thing, still has gone unnoticed by me in my collecting
of knowledge on the subject of the Korean War), and the political wrangling
that occurred on both the U.S. and international fronts. There is a lack of info on the Chinese side
and the Russian, which is a shame in the modern day when access to that sort of
info is a bit easier (though by no means a piece of cake) than it would be
while the Cold War still continued. The
North Korean black hole of info is understandable though.
The info on the escalation of the war from simply a three
month conflict to a full scale limited war with the Chinese Communists, as well
as the greater political situation going on, was interesting as well. The book is a short account, and does not go
blow-by-blow on each battle, but does recount the general movement of the
conflict as it started, blossomed, and then eventually settled into stalemate
with the both sides unwilling to budge.
This led eventually to the current situation and the lack of true peace
on the Korean peninsula.
 |
| I couldn't find a picture of the author, so I went with this montage image from Wikipedia. / Source: Wikipedia.com |
Worth the read if you are interested in learning more on the
Korean War and don't want to slog through a heavy text for every little bit of
minutia. I had few complaints, myself. It is one-sided, and so I would definitely
not recommend it for a thorough telling of all the events. But it does live up to its name if you want
the short version on the subject, especially if you are looking for more than
just a text on military maneuvers and combat losses and such. Personally, I found it approachable, and not
purposefully biased, though lacking in true balance. But them's the breaks, as they say.
The parting comment:
As far as Koren War humor goes, the only source upon which I can rely is the show M*A*S*H. I recall watching it quite a bit as a kid, because... well the comedy of it spoke to me, I guess.Poor Larry Linville. I heard he couldn't get a job playing anything other than a dope, after his role in the series.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome, but moderated. Thanks