History of Korean War

[Sardoo]

Can anyone recommend a book about the Korean War? I know next to nothing about this and am looking for something to fill the gap. Thanks for any help

[Rivera]

The only decent book that I've read about the conflict is "The Korean War" by Max Hastings.  It gives a good overall account of the hostilities and also gives descriptions of the fighting from the guys on the front line.  There are nice little details also about the colours of the Chinese uniforms etc.

Hope that helps a bit.

[Arrigo]

Do not take me as harsh, but Hastings is one of the most unreliable military history writers around and his books are full of errors. His Korean war is quite rubbish.  More Macarthur scapegoating and anti-US military than anything else. Julian Thompson  and Mike Clapp do not like Hastings very much and they dealt with him in the Falklands. His book on the Falkland war is quite fantasy.

Now depend how much detail you want but my first stop is the Alan Millett (1st and 2nd volume for now) 'The War for Korea'. The first Volume cover the situation from 1945 to 1950 and the civil and border war in Korea, plus the evolution of the US, Soviet, and Chinese positions. The second volume cover the first year of the war.  Millett prose is solid and his amount of knowledge incredible. He can weave strategic, operational and tactical level in a coherent fashion much better than novelists like Beevor, Halberstam or Hastings.  He is a former USMC officer and an academic historian (also a member of the society for Military History), but while being a Marine he is not above criticizing the Corps (he also wrote the best single volume history of the Corps). He has worked in Korea and he has edited the translation of the official ROK history of the war (3 volumes, 800+ pages per volume plenty of maps and documents, awesome detail, but a bit slow to read, still I do not regret to have bought and read it). His analysis of Walker, Macarthur, Almond (not the usual clown presented by the Marine skewed writers), Trumann and the rest of the administration his impressive. Millett also challenges a lot of accepted myth, like the unpreparedness of the 8th Army and FEC in general, the idea that MacArthur was acting alone (Dean Acheson was already pushing to cross the 38th Parallel and preparing an UN resolution for the purpose in July). He adress the problem of US intelligence gathering, collating, and analysis (again showing problem in the whole organization rather than just blaming Willoughby in Tokyo).  Probably Millet is the western author with the most balanced view on the war. Highly recommended.

Easier read are the two volumes by Andrew Salmon 'To the Last Round' (29th Brigade on the Imjin river) and 'Scorched Earth, Black Snow' (27th Brigade until the initial stages of the Chinese intervention and the 41st Commando at Chosin). They concentrates on the British Army (and Australian and Royal  Navy) contribution but also address several larger problems. He also recommend Millett as general framework. He also gave two presentation in London on for each of his books and they were very good. I know him personally but I also think his books are good.

Very recently Kenneth Estes had published a very slim volume on the summer battles of the 1st Marine Brigade around Pusan, 'Into the breach at Pusan'. Estes is a retired USMC LtC but he did a good job in addressing the USMC sponsored myths. It is slim and well written. I read it in 3 days and it was a keeper (and good tactical vignettes for wargamers).

Stephen J Zaloga wrote a very good monograph 'Pershing vs T34-85 in Korea' for the Duel Series by Osprey. It is very interesting and provide good background on training and logistics for both sides.

The US Army official histories are also good if whitewashed, the Marine ones are also a good starting point but as Estes proved they are already fabricated and contains several factual errors. Both US Army and USMC histories are freely available from their historical branches as PDF.

Other books around maybe easier but frankly they are not serious history. Eric Hammel book on chosin is just a vile attack on MacArthur and Almond with massive factual errors, it whitewash marine errors and balme everything on someone else. Good for foxhole stories but rubbish history. Same is for Halberstam 'Coldest Winter'. He relies too much on his fantasy and on Colonel Freeman (thus whitewashing Freeman less than stellar handling on the rear guard of the 2nd Infantry Division at Kunu-ri). Bear in mind that until recently the Korean War was quite forgotten and considered just a minor episode of the cold war for researcher.  It was shrouded in easily to memorize myths, the Trumann-MacArthur clash monopolized a lot of attention (to the point it has become a story disconnected from reality for both sides...),  and very few people ever had the idea to look at the wealth of primary document available both in the US and ROK. The fact that we captured the main archives when we took Pyongyang in October 50 had been overlooked.

Hope this is of help.

[itchy]

For the British view ,not a book but a website run by veterans with lots of info and pictures (on allpost war conflicts involving Britain )   http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html   just go to the index and then follow the pictures for each topic on kores

[Rivera]

The reason that most writers do not like Max Hastings is down to his personal politics, which tend to be a tad right-wing.  This does not alter the fact that he has written a good accessible account of the events in Korea.

I do know what I'm talking about as my history degree specialised in the Cold War era and to dismiss his book as "total rubbish" is the result of a closed mind.

Hope that I wasn't too harsh

[Sardoo]

Thanks very much folks! Very helpful indeed. Especial thanks to Arrigo for your in- depth response! Cheers!

[Arrigo]

My pleasure,

it seems Korea is always ignored, especially by Wargamers. By the way a good summary are the historical notes to Joe Balkoski 'The korean War' from Victory Games. It is long out of print but you can find the rules here

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX/?14@@.ee6d4c9/211 .

Joe is the command military historian for the 29th Infantry Division and his historical notes are wonderful (especially the fact he uses the game to illustrate the various phases of the campaign).  

Having spent the last 5 years working on it and Vietnam I get really happy when someone asks about it

Rivera, mr Hastings is dead wrong in a lot of thing, including on research. His book on the Falklands was quite bad, and that came from General Thompson and Commodore Clapp. Nemesis is riddled by factual errors; he cannot even bother to research the order of battle of the anglo-indian army,  get the numbers straight on the japanese battleships. He made a lot of mistake on MacArthur operations, and he is dead wrong on the combat effectiveness of the West African units. He also dismiss the entire RN Pacific Fleet (did not even realize there was one in 1944-45). More of the same for Overlord, he makes an enormous argument on the fact the US army wasted human lives instead of using the great British funnies... now the US army placed an order for Churchill AVREs and Carpet Layer, but there was not sufficient industrial capability in UK to fill it on topo of local requests. Producing them in US would have taken too long as converting Sherman, considering both armies had placed priority on the DD conversion. Mr. Hastings could have taken the time to do a couple of research. In his Korean debacle again Hastings did not understand US Army tactics or doctrine simply blasting against US firepower. Dismissing his book as total rubbish is just the product of mr. Hastings disdain of facts when they stand in the way of his great story. By the way I agree he is a talented writer, but this does not make him a good historians. The book can be accessible but is riddled with inaccuracies and errors.

The late Saki R. Dockrill had a very low opinion of him.

Oh, while we are at academic qualifications I have a PhD on the US Army the USMC and the Vietnam War and that meant I had spent a lot of my time doing research on Korea too... of course this does not make my take on Hastings better than yours, but show I am not the usual TMP/BGG expert... and being both academics we have the right to argue against each other and we will never too harsh, after all bashing authors is what we are expected to do (or at least I have been told this by Andrew Lambert   )

Arrigo

[Arrigo]

By the way my main problems with Hastings are twofold,

he sounds to rely too much on Bruce Cummings and his statements on 'communist' sources. Cummings had been rip apart and exposed by US, Russian, and Chinese scholars, he is also very pro DPRK... and this is an understatement.

He does not understand anything about the 8th Army believing USMC propaganda on how the 8th Army was bad. The 1st Marine Brigade was not better than the 25th Infantry Division and in several cases the marines made blunder (the 3 battalion commander were inexperienced and few of the men had previous combat experience), Then he mentions the US 15th Division defending the bowling alley, and I suppose he meant the 15th Infantry Regiment. On Page 87 he quites verbatim one of the 5th Marines BN CO telling us the army was broken, but again there is no other reference. As Colonel Estes (USMC) pointed out the 8th Army was already winning and units like the 9th Infantry, the 27th Infantry and 15th were probably more effective than the marines. anyway Hasting did not do serious research because, as you cleverly pointed out, he has ideas. In my book this is poor history. Again Hastings prefer a good story fulfilling his agenda than the truth.

PS: I had a similar discussion about Hastings with the son of the CO of the Middlesex!

[Rivera]

I realise that this might be a novel concept but to criticise a persons work (and another persons' recommendation) it does help to have actually read the relevant book in the first place.

[Arrigo]

Sadly in Max case I did... ok not sadly, when I did they were quite good and not much more else was readily available. Overlord was a real good reading back when I was 12.

Still they are riddled with inaccuracies. He even state that the 9th infantry had fled before the Marines arrived and, quite unsuprisingly, blames the regiment Black battalion (also inaccuracy, the only segregated unit was the 24th Infantry Regiment). I know you can answer these are minor details, but IMHO details matter. 

Again I cannot recommend Hastings and I cannot endorse Hastings recommendation.

PS: I have tried to be funny but insinuating I have never read hastings just because I am not happy with him and I have problems with his research it is not really gentlemanly.  It is also a novel concept responding to the content rather than accusing the opposition of unfair play.

[Rivera]

I'm not asking you to endorse my recommendation and I would like to direct you to a forum which might suit your overly pedantic views better:-

idontgivearatsass.com

or you could try

arseclownsrus.co.uk

for the verbally flatulent

[Arlequín]

*ahem* 

I'm all for a full and frank discussion of Mr Hasting's strengths and weaknesses as a writer, but don't let it descend to personal remarks between forum members. Agree to disagree, or continue the debate in a civil manner... this isn't 'History Today'...



I read Hasting's book and enjoyed it and also Brian Catchpole's Korean War. I have no idea as to their accuracy or viewpoint, but I enjoyed reading them.

[Rivera]

Nice one

[Grizzly]

You might try The Korean War:Pusan to Chosen by Donald Knox. It's 2 volumes and most of the books are actual accounts taken from the soldiers who fought there. You are actually able to follow several of the accounts from the time that they got sent over until their tour was done. I can't remember if all the accounts are from American servicemen or not though

I had a very interesting perspective while readings these books as I just happened to be stuck on a hilltop in South Korea at the time. Really gave me an appreciation for what those guys went through.

[Sardoo]

Thanks for this. Being on that hill top must have made it very real.