The Korean War: Prelude

7 404 95
The Korean War: Prelude
The soldiers are Chinese, the sailors are Korean. And the ships too.


Korea's relationship with Japan has always been... complicated. We often recall the Imijin War and other samurai aggressions on the peninsula. But we somehow forget that fleet Kublai Khan, who twice attempted to conquer Japan, was Korean. Koreans are good sailors, some of the best in these parts. And compared to the Chinese, who never achieved anything special in naval matters, they're mere terminators!




General Yamagata Aritomo, the father of Japanese militarism

As is well known, back in the late 19th century, General Yamagata Aritomo called Korea a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan. This statement justified everything the Land of the Rising Sun would subsequently do to the peninsula, but in the grand scheme of things, the general wasn't entirely wrong: all the invasions that had occurred on the islands had originated from Korea. It was simply the shortest route. Therefore, immediately after the Meiji Restoration and the end of the Boshin Civil War, the Japanese began to resolve the Korean question.


Ganghwado Incident

On September 20, 1875, the Japanese gunboat Un'yo was fired upon by Korean batteries from Ganghwa Island (a port of entry to Seoul). The gunboat suppressed the battery, and a landing party was sent to the island, which burned a local village, killing 35 Koreans and capturing 16. It was a routine border incident, but its consequences were far more serious. The Japanese had learned the lesson well from Commodore Perry's American ships. And they treated the Koreans in exactly the same way: they imposed on Korea, whose army was a pale shadow of Japan's, an unequal treaty, similar to what the Americans had imposed on them. Mikado's subjects enjoyed extraterritoriality on the peninsula, Japanese goods were tax-exempt, and so on. In short, Mitsui and Mitsubishi had found a market for their products.


Queen Min is the only male member of the Korean royal family...

Not everyone in Korea liked this; reformers attempted to stage a coup d'état to remove conservatives—opponents of Japanese-style reforms—from power. The coup failed: Queen Min sent envoys to China, and Yuan Shikai's troops routed the rebels. The coup's leaders fled to Japan. Then, in 1894, the Tonghak Rebellion—hardcore Confucians and opponents of any reform—began. The rebellion became the pretext for the introduction of Chinese and Japanese troops into the country, leading to the Sino-Japanese War, which Japan won.

At the Shimonoseki negotiations, the samurai forced the Chinese to renounce their suzerainty over Korea. The only male member of the Korean royal family, the intelligent and active Queen Min, attempted to secede under Russian protection, but she was assassinated by the Japanese soldier Miura Goro, who organized a raid on the royal palace by local Japanese (one of the staff of the Kanjo Shinpo newspaper—there were combat journalists in Japan!). King Gojong decided that since he was now independent of China, he should become emperor himself. And he became emperor in 1897. Old Korea had thirteen years left to exist.


The situation in Korea at the beginning of the 20th century in the language of caricature - this is roughly how it was

Why didn't Japan annex Korea immediately after defeating China? There was still one other contender for the Land of the Morning Calm—Russia. The Japanese settled the issue with Russia during the Russo-Japanese War. Emperor Meiji concluded treaties with the United States and England pledging non-interference in Japan's Korean policy. The country was then declared a protectorate. The Imperial Army was reduced from 20,000 to 1,000 men, the judicial system became completely under Japanese control—all Korean judges were dismissed and replaced by Japanese. Emperor Kojong conducted all foreign policy exclusively through the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


The Emperor of Korea, Gojong, tried to somehow struggle.

In 1907, a peace conference was held in The Hague, where Kojong sent secret envoys to draw the attention of the participating countries to Korea's problems, but they were not even allowed into the conference hall. To somehow attract attention to the delegation, one of the ambassadors, Yi Tjun, publicly committed suicide. This attracted attention. They ousted the overly independent Kojong and installed the heir to the throne and obvious puppet, Sunjong, in his place. The result was a rebellion by the "righteous army," joined by disbanded units of the Korean army. The rebellion was suppressed by one Japanese division. And on September 26, 1910, Japan annexed Korea.


"Emperor" Sunjeong - the form is beautiful, but he didn't even try to flutter...

What does this have to do with the Korean War? Directly! The fact is that, having secured their first colony, the samurai began to manage it rationally. The first step was to reform the educational system—the old Confucian one was completely destroyed, and a new one, based on the Japanese (that is, European) model, was created in its place. Why? Well, to exploit the colony, local personnel were needed... The new schools taught Japanese, one European language (English or French, optional), and even a little... Korean. Education reached 15 percent of the peninsula's population—almost the same number of Indians in British India (the Japanese clearly borrowed their colonial experience from their closest allies at the time). In 1924, Japan National University opened in Gyeongsong: it was attended mostly by local Japanese, but also by 25-30 percent Koreans. Furthermore, wealthy Koreans sent their offspring to study at Japanese universities. In general, the issue of educated personnel was resolved.


Japanese troops in Seoul

Then the Japanese took up the economic development of the peninsula. In fact, it was they who essentially divided Korea into North and South. The northern mountains are rich in mineral resources: coal, iron, and non-ferrous metals. It was more profitable to process all of these resources locally, to avoid the expense of logistics. Therefore, the Mikado's subjects began actively developing industry in the north of the peninsula: per capita investment amounted to $37, while the British in India had only $8.


Tarauchi Masatake, the first Japanese Governor-General of Korea

But that's the North, while the South has plenty of arable land and a milder climate, so the Japanese created an "agricultural cluster" there: they introduced the most advanced agricultural technologies of the time, resulting in a sharp increase in rice yields. Furthermore, land unsuitable for rice cultivation was used for potato farming, thus solving the famine in Korea (almost all the rice was exported to Japan, but potatoes were plentiful!). Fish catches also increased: the Japanese replaced the old sailing junks with new motorized seiners.


Korean staff at the "comfort station." Why do Koreans dislike the Japanese? This is one of the reasons...

Of course, every coin has its downside: the regime in the colony was sometimes extremely harsh (and sometimes quite liberal, depending entirely on the governor). A policy of Japanization was pursued—Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese names, forcibly introduced to Shinto rituals, and forced to join Japanese patriotic organizations. Not adopting Japanese names meant giving up on a career; accepting them meant serving in the Japanese Imperial Army. And then going off to war, somewhere in China or Manchuria.

The worst of it all began with Japan's entry into World War II: Korean women were sent to "comfort stations," as the samurai poetically called military brothels. Men who refused to adopt Japanese names were transported to the mother country as virtually free labor. In short, the Japanese, through their policies, created not only Korean industry and agriculture, the economic division of the peninsula into North and South, but also a harsh Korean nationalism. Moreover, nationalism became the unifying ideology of resistance to the Japanese for all of Korea, both South and North. All Korean political forces, including the communists, were nationalist to one degree or another.


The house in Mangyongdae where Kim Sung-ju was born

On April 15, 1912, in Mangyongdae, a small village near Pyongyang, a boy named Kim Song-ju was born. The boy's family was Christian and intellectual: his father, Kim Hyong-jik, had attended a missionary school and was very religious, working as an elementary school teacher, a minor clerk, and even as a herbalist. His mother, Kang Bang-seok, was the daughter of a Protestant pastor. The boy's parents were also staunch nationalists—they absolutely detested the Japanese! The family was poor and soon moved to Manchuria, where work was easier. There, Kim Song-ju attended a Chinese school; he would remain fluent in Chinese for the rest of his life and relax by reading classic Chinese novels.


Kim Sung-ju in 1927

In 1926, Kim Hyong-jik died at the age of 32, and the family, already poor, fell into extreme poverty. Here, in Japanese-occupied Jilin, Kim Song-ju joined a Marxist circle and, at 17, found himself imprisoned for the first time. After serving several months, the young Marxist was released, but instead of returning to school, he joined a guerrilla unit—a Chinese Communist guerrilla unit. In 1932, he joined the Chinese Communist Party and adopted the new name Kim Il-sung.


Kim Il Sung (back row, center) with his guerrillas

Judging by his meteoric rise, the young partisan fought well and with distinction! When the units were merged into the Second Separate Division of the Northeastern United Anti-Japanese Army, Kim Il Sung became political commissar of the 3rd Partisan Detachment, a position the partisans didn't offer just anyone. A couple of years later, he became commander of the 6th Partisan Division: all this at the age of 24—Gaidar would be envious! True, a partisan division only had a few hundred fighters, but nonetheless. Soon, the division (which was increasingly referred to as the "Kim Il Sung Division") began to make a name for itself: on July 4, 1937, it crossed the border between Manchuria and Korea and attacked a police post in Pochonbo. Japanese newspapers dubbed the young Kim "the most dangerous communist bandit" - it's cooler than getting to "Peacemaker" today!


Kim Il Sung (center) with the surviving soldiers of his unit in Khabarovsk

Fame has its downside: the Japanese began hunting down the "Kim Il Sung Division" in earnest. Soon, only Kim remained alive out of the entire 1st Partisan Army command; the division was visibly disappearing, the Japanese encirclement tightening around the partisans... The division commander made the decision to retreat to the USSR. In December, what remained of the division crossed the Amur River—13 men escaped encirclement with Kim Il Sung.


Red Army Captain Kim Il Sung (circled)

A large number of Manchurian partisans had accumulated in the USSR. They formed the 88th Brigade, which included a battalion of Koreans, commanded by Kim Il-sung, who had received the rank of captain in the Red Army. During the war, the brigade remained in the Far East: the Chinese and Koreans had plenty of work to do there—from time to time, warehouses exploded on the other side of the border, police stations burned, and local partisans were blamed for everything.


The Soviet command introduces the Koreans to their Great Leader

Then came 1945. Korea was being liberated by Soviet troops from the north, and by Americans from the south. The demarcation line was drawn in the middle, around the 38th parallel. In the north of the peninsula, the secular occupation administration encountered an unexpected problem: the troops lacked Korean interpreters—they were planning to fight the Japanese, so Japanese interpreters had been trained. This resulted in misunderstandings with the local population, and a group of Korean soldiers arrived on the steamship Yemelyan Pugachev to assist the Soviet commandants. The most senior among them was Captain Kim Il-sung. Clearly, when the question arose of who would lead North Korea, Comrade Kim Il-sung emerged as the most suitable candidate.


The Young Great Leader assesses the amount of work that remains to be done

True, this didn't become clear immediately. The fact is that both the USSR and the US understood that Korea was a single country, inhabited by a single people. Therefore, they attempted to negotiate the creation of a unified state, with Kim Il Sung to become Minister of Defense. However, they were unable to agree on a candidate for the head of a unified Korea: the Soviet comrades were unsatisfied with the American candidates, and the Americans were unsatisfied with the Soviet candidates. As a result, in 1948, the DPRK was proclaimed, and a former Red Army captain was appointed its leader.


Lee Seung Man, your grandfather is just bursting with energy!

And what about the South? In the south of the peninsula, the Americans were facing exactly the same problems! Their military administration was also completely ignorant of Korean affairs, and they needed someone who was both local and knowledgeable about English and American realities. And they found just the man! It was Syngman Rhee—the complete opposite of Kim Il Sung. Kim was young, Rhee was born in 1875. Kim was an experienced and talented commander, Rhee a civilian, a politician to the core. Kim had no desire to become head of state (his complaints to the Soviet ambassador after his appointment as leader of the DPRK have survived: “I want a regiment, I want a division, but why do I need all this?”), Lee was ready to go to power over heads (in 1919, in Shanghai, emigrants created the Provisional Government of Korea, which had no influence on anything, and Syngman Lee was elected president; in 1925, even in this shady office, he was impeached "for abuse of power").


The March 1st march of 1919, one of the first Korean nationalist protests, was massacred by Japanese troops. A month and a half later, the "March 1st Movement" would form a provisional government in Shanghai, with Syngman Rhee as president.

Syngman Rhee spent most of his life in exile in the United States. After participating in the 1899 uprising, he was sentenced to life imprisonment but released after the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War. He went to Hawaii and wisely stayed out of Korea until 1945. When General MacArthur needed someone knowledgeable about Korean affairs, the 70-year-old Syngman Rhee was flown to Tokyo, and after a private meeting, he was flown to Seoul on the American general's private jet. There, he launched a vigorous campaign to establish a puppet government and combat the communists. He considered all his enemies, regardless of party affiliation, to be communists, and he never hesitated to physically eliminate them. The regime of "this powerful old man, the father of Korean democracy" resembled a dictatorship far more closely than the initially vegetarian administration of Kim Il-sung.

However, there were similarities between the two Korean leaders. Both believed that Korea should be a unified state. However, the existence of an opponent within this unified state was not envisaged. Therefore, a clash was inevitable...
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -4
    3 February 2026 05: 18
    Why such a historical excursion if the real confrontation between the north and the south was caused by the division of the country following the Second World War, and not by economic structure?
    1. +12
      3 February 2026 05: 41
      Well, why not, it’s very interesting, and it shows the chain of events that directly or indirectly led to the war.
      1. +1
        3 February 2026 05: 45
        Quote: Nagan
        directly or indirectly leading to the war

        The war was caused by the confrontation between the socialist bloc and the capitalist bloc. For ordinary Koreans not involved in politics, there was no reason at all to kill each other; they would not have done so if puppets like Kim Il Sung and Rhee Syngman had not appeared.
        1. +4
          3 February 2026 07: 35
          Do you have any other candidates in mind for the "puppets"?
          Or do you know an ideal candidate for the position of "Father of the Korean Nation" who is capable of uniting Korea without external forces?
        2. +6
          3 February 2026 14: 42
          This is certainly true, but in my opinion, it would be a good idea to explain how Korea ended up in a situation where its fate was being decided by the confrontation between the capitalist and socialist blocs.
          1. 0
            4 February 2026 03: 29
            Quote: Georgy Tomin
            This is certainly true, but in my opinion, it would be a good idea to explain how Korea ended up in a situation where its fate was being decided by the confrontation between the capitalist and socialist blocs.

            Do you mean to say by this that the USSR pursued its expansionist policy not within the framework of the spread of socialism, but as a continuation of the expansionist policy of the Russian Empire?
    2. +10
      3 February 2026 05: 49
      Not necessarily. For centuries, northern Goguryeo was a bitter enemy of the three southern Korean kingdoms, and it's unlikely they considered themselves a single people back then. Perhaps some echoes of this still linger in the popular imagination. Unfortunately, we know very little about both Koreas, mostly propaganda clichés. What people really think there is anyone's guess.
      1. +1
        3 February 2026 12: 22
        Why 3? In the center of the peninsula was the state of Baekje, and in the south was Silla. Silla eventually absorbed Baekje and Goguryeo. The Liaodong Peninsula and most of the lands that had been part of Goguryeo were lost.
        1. +1
          3 February 2026 12: 48
          There was some Kae floating around there for a while until they ate him.
          1. +1
            3 February 2026 13: 32
            Gaya was a tribal union that was later absorbed by Silla. The three main states listed above were its founders. Goguryeo was founded by Jumong, the third prince of the Buyeo kingdom, which was later absorbed into Goguryeo. Six more tribes were among the founders of Goguryeo.
      2. +1
        3 February 2026 12: 46
        Quote: paul3390
        Goguryeo was a bitter enemy of the three southern Korean kingdoms.

        This is the 7th century, since 935 Koryo, a united Korean state, politically the nation must be united, for that long.
      3. +2
        3 February 2026 14: 50
        This is a complex issue: initially, the populations of the North and South were somewhat different: the northerners were stronger, owing to the blood of the steppe warriors, while the southerners were weaker, being closer to the Japanese. But all this is ancient history! Yes, there were Goguryeo, Silla, and Baekje, but by the time the Korean War began, the peninsula had been united for several centuries (at least three hundred years, I can't remember the exact number, and I'm too lazy to dig into the sources). At the same time, the people, language, and culture were united. Today, the situation is changing: southerners and northerners increasingly feel like separate nations.
    3. +2
      3 February 2026 11: 51
      Quote: Puncher
      Why such a digression into history if the real confrontation between the north and the south was caused by the division of the country following the Second World War,

      The lion's share of the article is devoted to the personalities of Kim Il-sung and Syngman Rhee. Incidentally, Syngman Rhee could have become a communist. He approached Stalin for support before Kim Il-sung. But Stalin was afraid to openly support the Korean nationalists, fearing that the USSR would lose the Far East in a one-on-one war against Japan. Kim Il-sung himself vividly described the ups and downs of Syngman Rhee's relationship with his Soviet comrades in his memoirs, "In the Whirlwind of the Century." Incidentally, they are available online in Russian, both as text and as an audio recording—or rather, audio with photographs. Kim Il-sung's memoir suggests they were understanding, at least until Korea's liberation.
      1. +1
        3 February 2026 14: 51
        In my opinion, the memoirs of politicians should generally be treated with a certain degree of skepticism, and even more so the memoirs of Korean politicians: the war there is not officially over...
        1. +1
          3 February 2026 16: 02
          Quote: Georgy Tomin
          In my opinion, the memoirs of politicians should generally be treated with a certain degree of skepticism.

          And who has more access to real information than a politician in power? Journalists and historians of all stripes lie just as much as even North Korean propaganda. But Kim Il-sung's memoirs suggest that the West also lies a lot about the DPRK.
          One must be able to analyze any information, both that posted by the North Koreans and that voiced by Latynina on Radio Liberty.
  2. +7
    3 February 2026 09: 07
    "Kim Il-sung became political commissar of the 3rd partisan detachment, a position the partisans didn't offer just anyone. A couple of years later, he became commander of the 6th partisan division: all this at the age of 24—Gaidar would be envious!"
    Dear author! What did Gaidar have to envy? A.P. Golikov (Gaidar), who suffered wounds and concussion, fought on various fronts, on varied terrain, in various regions of a vast country, trained in military affairs, including as a regiment commander, and commanded a regiment after training. At 18, he was discharged from the army due to the consequences of wounds and concussions sustained during his service. And he died with arms in hand, fighting the Nazis.
    Or are you talking about Yegor Timurovich Gaidar?
    1. +3
      3 February 2026 12: 01
      Quote: Tests
      A.P. Golikov (Gaidar), who had been wounded and suffered a concussion, fought on various fronts, on different terrain, in different regions of the vast country, trained in military affairs, including as a regiment commander, and commanded the regiment after training.

      Fighting in the partisans is harder than in the regular army. Gaidar was trained to fight, supplied with weapons, food, and medical treatment. Korean partisans themselves seized weapons from the enemy, foraged for food, built shelters in the winter forest, and conducted mountain raids in rain and snow. And all this while surrounded for months by superior Japanese forces. The Japanese quickly destroyed the Russian partisans on Sakhalin in 1905.
      Quote: Tests
      And he died with weapons in his hands, fighting the fascists.

      Kim Il-sung emerged victorious in the war with the United States and survived. His grandson's troops routed US proxies in the Kursk region. His son and grandson remained true to his ideals. Much of the country curses Yegor Gaidar for the tragedy of the collapse of the USSR and the destruction of science, industry, and agriculture.
      1. 0
        3 February 2026 13: 12
        Kim Il-sung emerged victorious in the war with the United States and survived. His grandson's troops routed US proxies in the Kursk region.

        Mild, no, heavy drug addiction laughing
        1. +3
          3 February 2026 13: 27
          "Mild, no, heavy drug addiction"
          Oh yeah? Comrade Eun once bent Trump, if anyone remembers. laughing
          1. -1
            3 February 2026 13: 38
            Comrade Yn made a clown look like a clown. But that has nothing to do with the events under discussion.
        2. +1
          3 February 2026 13: 40
          A draw in the war with the United States meant a victory for North Korea. Just a year later, the United States acknowledged its impossibility of victory and began peace negotiations.
          1. 0
            3 February 2026 13: 48
            Success in war (operation, battle) is, first of all, the implementation of one’s plans
            The Communists intended to seize the south and started the war. The Communists' plans to seize the south completely failed (according to Girkin).
            The DPRK army was defeated by the Americans and Kim and co fled Pyongyang.
            North Korea had to be saved with Chinese meat.
            Chinese aid allowed Kim to remain in power.
            1. +3
              3 February 2026 14: 16
              The North defeated the South and achieved a stunning victory in the civil war. If American troops hadn't intervened, Korea would have been united. The North didn't start the war; it raged daily, with skirmishes along the dividing line and provocations from the South.
              The KPA was not defeated, but was forced to retreat north through the center of the peninsula and along the east coast because the Americans and British cut off their supplies along the east coast.
              A hundred thousand strong Chinese army group routed the allied forces of the United States and South Korea and drove them to Seoul, which changed hands several times during the fighting.
              American aid prevented North Korea from reuniting North and South Korea. Just as NATO aid prevented Russia from successfully completing the Second World War.
              1. -3
                3 February 2026 14: 31
                It was the North that started the war, turning local skirmishes on the border into a monstrous massacre.
                This is a fact.
                The North's plans to conquer the South are well known. This was a failure.
                This is also a fact.
                The KPA was not defeated

                Yeah, I just made a gesture of goodwill. laughing
                The 100,000-strong Chinese Army Group

                Exactly. ChineseThe Chinese crossed the Yalu River with 270 troops. A force of 170 approached Seoul. This is well-known information.
                American aid prevented North Korea from unifying north and south Korea.

                It's wonderful, isn't it? Tens of millions have been saved from life in a totalitarian cesspool.
                1. +2
                  3 February 2026 15: 17
                  Well, blaming everything on the North is a bit presumptuous! Syngman Rhee also harbored plans to unify Korea, and the South's army wasn't much weaker than the North's: within the margin of error: eight divisions to ten (in reality, nine). The North had more tanks and artillery, but the South could count on air cover from the American air force. So both sides had plans. Another thing is that the DPRK had Soviet military advisers who expertly planned the operation, and Kim himself was a man with military experience, so he almost succeeded in crushing the South. He would have succeeded completely, but the Americans intervened.
                  1. 0
                    3 February 2026 15: 23
                    This is not about blaming, but about presenting facts.
                    The South was preparing for war and had military plans. Like any normal state, the presence of war plans doesn't automatically mean a decision to attack. This must be proven separately.
                    The North started the war, with hundreds of thousands of casualties and negative results for itself.
                    The Americans saved the South, which was unable to defend itself. This is the main result of the war.
                  2. +1
                    4 February 2026 20: 08
                    Quote: Georgy Tomin
                    Both sides of the conflict had plans

                    Thanks for the article, it rekindled my interest in Korean history, which had somewhat faded into the background!
                    I was personally deeply impressed at one time by a series of articles (about two dozen) by Konstantin Asmolov, a research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies, "on the history of the Korean Peninsula"... perhaps you'll be interested in reading them too...
                2. 0
                  3 February 2026 15: 24
                  You're really fantasizing! What kind of massacre did the North commit? It was the Americans who killed millions of civilians with carpet bombing. They dropped about the same amount of napalm as in Vietnam, but over a shorter period and on people, not on jungles.

                  Defeat and retreat are two different things. The KPA was on the offensive, attempting to drive the allied force into the sea despite a three-to-one numerical superiority. Even as they approached the Pusan ​​beachhead, the KPA force was second only to the American forces, not to mention the enemy's absolute superiority at sea and in the air. Without ammunition and fuel, the KPA was forced to retreat, but it was not routed. Having retreated to the north of the peninsula and received supplies, the Koreans went on the offensive in the center and on the eastern coast, approaching the 38th parallel.

                  Who said that the Chinese army group numbered 270 thousand? The Americans themselves, in the film "Korean War in Color," talk about 100 thousand Chinese soldiers crossing the Yalu.

                  By the way, North Korea is very clean, and the garbage dump is in India or maybe where you live.
                  It's estimated that the last ethnic South Korean will die by 2750. In the southern paradise of the peninsula, 40 people commit suicide every day; people don't want to have children so as not to condemn them and themselves to such a "paradise" life.
                  1. -2
                    3 February 2026 16: 35
                    What kind of massacre did the North commit?

                    The aggressor is always to blame for all the victims of war. "Their blood is on them."
                    It was the Americans who killed millions of civilians with carpet bombing.

                    Well, the aggressor got punched in the face. What a tragedy. Maybe we should also feel sorry for the Third Reich?
                    The KPA was on the offensive and was trying to drive the allied force into the sea despite having three times the enemy's numerical superiority.

                    True stories that cannot be kept silent about

                    Who said that the Chinese army group was 270 thousand strong when it crossed the Yalu?

                    This is the general consensus.
                    It is usually formulated as follows:
                    Peng Dehuai, commander of the Chinese People's Volunteers, informed Kim Il Sung that he had 12 divisions under his command, organized into four armies, as well as three artillery divisions. The total number of Chinese troops was 260.
                    For example here on page 141
                    https://books.google.nl/books?id=NztlWQeXf2IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=zhou+enlai&hl=en&ei=wBkuTdKyB4H_8AaJucigAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
                    380 thousand people crossed the 38th parallel
                    There were already over half a million Chinese in the fifth Seoul

                    The Americans themselves, in the film "Korean War in Color," talk about 100 Chinese soldiers crossing the Yalu.

                    Really? Are you ready to provide a link with a time code? laughing ?

                    In the paradise in the south of the peninsula, 40 people commit suicide every day; people do not want to have children so as not to condemn them and themselves to a hellish life.

                    Demagoguery has begun. And incredibly stupid, at that. I never called the South a paradise. But at least they've evolved into a normal state. With a much higher standard of living than the northerners.
                    The level of brutalization in the DPRK can be assessed here
                    https://vk.com/video-28477986_456280065
                    And the situation with childbirth is very bad in all developed countries and it will get even worse.
                    1. +2
                      3 February 2026 18: 25
                      The aggressor is always to blame for all the victims of war. "Their blood is on them."

                      Firstly, North Korea is not the aggressor because this was a civil war and it took place on Korean soil, not American soil. The aggressor is the United States.
                      Well, the aggressor got punched in the face.

                      So, millions of peaceful Koreans, including southerners, were killed by the Americans, and they deserved it? What cannibalistic logic.
                      For example here on page 141

                      Page 141 does not open, it says it is skipped.
                      Are you ready to provide a link with a time code?

                      Watch the movie, who doesn't give it.
                      With a much higher standard of living than the northerners.

                      In the DPRK, unlike the USA and South Korea, there is no prostitution or drug addiction.
                      The level of brutalization in Europe and the USA is hard to surpass - gays, lesbians and everything in between.
                      And the situation with childbirth is very bad in all developed countries and it will get even worse.

                      Well, that means Israel is an undeveloped country, and the Jews are underdeveloped.
                      1. -2
                        3 February 2026 18: 44
                        Firstly, the DPRK is not an aggressor because it was a civil war and on Korean, not American soil.

                        And the DPRK started the war.
                        So, millions of peaceful Koreans, including southerners, were killed by the Americans and that's what they deserve?

                        They were killed because the communists decided to start a war. It's all indecently simple.
                        Page 141 does not open, it says it is skipped.

                        Oh really? laughing
                        Attached a screenshot
                        Watch the movie, who doesn't give it.

                        I watched the part where China enters the war. You lied.
                        Expected
                        The level of brutalization in Europe and the USA is hard to surpass - gays, lesbians and everything in between.

                        You should be watching Solovyov, not going to the history section. laughing
                        Well, that means Israel is an undeveloped country, and the Jews are underdeveloped.

                        A demagogic ploy with a substitution of thesis. Israel has nothing to do with the topic. Responsibility and blame for unleashing the conflict rest with the DPRK and its "patrons."
                      2. 0
                        4 February 2026 04: 01
                        And the DPRK started the war.

                        North Korea attacked the United States? It was the United States that attacked Korea. Korea was in the throes of a civil war.
                        They were killed because the communists decided to start a war. It's all indecently simple.

                        Just like the Jews who killed 70,000 people in Gaza. Or the Americans who dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
                        Oh really? laughing
                        Attached a screenshot

                        First of all, it's strange that you can open it, but I can't. Do you work for the State Department?
                        Secondly, the text contains fabrications by American authors. Zhou Enlai himself never said this. One could just as easily cite excerpts from other sources.
                        I watched the part where China enters the war. You lied.
                        Expected

                        You're lying in every sentence here. For Americans and liberals, it's second nature.
                        You should be watching Solovyov, not going to the history section.

                        I don't look at this Jew, unlike you. Well, it seems you get paid for this.
                        A demagogic ploy with a substitution of thesis. Israel has nothing to do with the topic.

                        Once again you demonstrate a lack of logic. I will quote you.
                        And the situation with childbirth is very bad in all developed countries and it will get even worse.
                      3. -1
                        4 February 2026 11: 13
                        You are starting to tire me with your aggressive ignorance.
                        First of all, it's strange that you can open it, but I can't. Do you work for the State Department?

                        To Mossad. Maybe you just have limited cognitive abilities?
                        Secondly, the text contains inventions of American authors.

                        It's understandable that you don't like this information. Incidentally, one of the book's authors is Yu Changren.
                        Zhou Enlai himself did not say this.

                        The passage doesn't specify what Comrade Enlai said. It says he ordered the deployment of 260 men along the Yalu River.
                        One could just as easily cite excerpts from other sources.

                        Please provide other sources on the Chinese army forces allocated for the invasion. You're having a hard time with that so far.

                        It's time to sum things up
                        Why do you always jump between topics, bringing in Jews, Western gays, liberals, and the demographics of modern Korea?
                        Do you have a personal grudge against Jews? Did your wife run off to Haifa to be with her lover?

                        You haven't cited a single source for your "knowledge." The discussion is quickly degenerating into an analysis of your complexes.
                      4. 0
                        4 February 2026 11: 42
                        To Mossad.

                        One does not cancel the other.
                        By the way, the name of one of the authors of the book is Yu Changren.

                        Chinese dissidents are also Chinese. What childish logic, or lack thereof.
                        It says he ordered the deployment of 260 men along the Yalu River.

                        That's what I'm saying: these are American authors' fabrications, not official Chinese documents. Again, there's a problem with logic.
                        Do you have something personal towards Jews?

                        Why are you offended on behalf of Jews? Change the subject right away. It seems this is personal.
                  2. -1
                    1 March 2026 15: 11
                    После высадки американце в Инчхоне из частей КНА, участвоваших в Пусанской операции мало кто смог отойти на Север, попали фактически в окружение.
                    В Корейской войне участвовало примерно 1 млн китайских "добровольцев".
                    Рай у все только после смерти, может быть.
                    Индия, как бенчмарк уровня жизни, уже о многом говорит, не находите? РК, кстати, в прошлом году Японию обогнала по уровню ВВП на душу населения.
                    Проблема с низкой рождаемостью - это общая проблема высокоразвитых стран.
            2. +2
              3 February 2026 14: 30
              Didn't "UN meat" take part in the battles with the DPRK army and Chinese volunteers?
              And why did the "UN troops" decide to go to war if the ROK army was "doing quite well"?
              Or they couldn't cope...
              1. -1
                3 February 2026 14: 37
                You have a cognitive impairment.
                And why did the "UN troops" decide to go to war if the ROK army was "doing quite well"?

                She couldn't cope, and no one claimed otherwise. The Americans and others generally coped. There were hiccups and tragedies, but they coped.
                For some reason, the local public has an aggro on the word "meat" and they are sadly trying to overpower it.
                But it was the UN troops who inflicted far greater losses on the enemy
                1. +2
                  3 February 2026 16: 05
                  What did the Americans and Co. cope with?
                  With the fact that the demarcation line remained at the 38th parallel?
                  Didn't they want more?
                  1. -1
                    3 February 2026 16: 37
                    With the fact that the demarcation line remained at the 38th parallel?

                    Yes, despite the invasion of the northerners and the repeated invasion of the Chinese hordes.
                    Didn't they want more?

                    So tell us what they wanted. Relying on sources, of course.
                    1. +3
                      3 February 2026 17: 16
                      Your phrases remind me of the Wehrmacht general from "Seventeen Moments of Spring".
                      He said "hordes of mangy Cossacks."
                      You say - Chinese hordes.
                      1. -3
                        3 February 2026 17: 23
                        What's with the American plans? Will they happen or not? laughing
                      2. +1
                        3 February 2026 18: 50
                        "hordes of mangy Cossacks"
                        Hi Alexey!
                        Could you please include a clip of the film with this phrase? I'm especially interested in the adjective.
                      3. +1
                        3 February 2026 18: 57
                        “General: It will be those who put us in the dock, not these, and first of all you, diplomats….
                        Stirlitz: You killed, you destroyed, you burned, and you judge us?
                        General: We were following orders. We were burning the SS, we were fighting.
                        Stirlitz: What, have they invented a new way to fight? Without burning and without casualties?
                        General: War is necessary one way or another... Not that stupid, of course... It's a war of amateurs. He (Hitler) decided that he could fight without studying at an academy, by intuition. He decided that he alone knew what we all needed. He decided that he alone loved Great Germany, while the rest of us were thinking only about how to sell it to the lousy Bolshevik Cossacks... ...You can expect anything from the Reds, and from the Americans too, by the way... I've been fighting them for a year now. These fools will be destroyed by their own technology; they think the war can be won by bombing alone. They will build up their technical might and choke on it. It will rot them like rust. They will decide that they can do anything. The Reds think this way because they are savage and poor, the Americans think this way because they are too rich. That's why warriors are necessary.

                        Hello Anton!
                        There are difficulties with uploading photos and videos from the phone.
                        I am posting part of the text of the conversation.
                      4. 0
                        3 February 2026 19: 20
                        You see, here's the thing... I'm not at all sure that the term "flitters" was in common use when the film was released...
                        I am also not sure that this term was supported by the cultural and security agencies of the USSR.
                      5. +1
                        3 February 2026 19: 28
                        Parhaty
                        Singular, nominative case, qualitative adjective, masculine gender, inanimate, animate.

                        1. Adj. colloquial-lowered.
                        Sick with scab.
                        Dictionary of Efremova T.F.
                        1. Parhataya, parhatoe (colloquial). 1. Large with scabies.
                        2. Used in abusive expressions (vulg.).
                        Dictionary of D.N. Ushakov
                    2. +2
                      3 February 2026 17: 47
                      So tell us what they wanted. Relying on sources, of course.

                      If the Yankees wanted less, then why did they push back the DPRK army, cross the 38th parallel and continue their victorious advance?
                      Was the light of democracy brought to the "unreasonable" Koreans?
                      Captured Pyongyang.
                      We should have stopped at the 38th parallel...
                      1. -2
                        3 February 2026 17: 56
                        That is, there will be no analysis of American plans, only demagoguery.
                        If the Yankees wanted less, then why did they push back the DPRK army, cross the 38th parallel and continue their victorious advance?

                        Why did the USSR, having regained all its territories, continue to advance? It would have stopped at the 1941 border.
                      2. +2
                        3 February 2026 18: 19
                        There is plenty of demagoguery in your "speeches"!
                        D. MacArthur
                        Memorandum "How to End the Korean War".

                        "Atomic bombing of enemy military concentrations and installations in North Korea," "seeding suitable radioactive substances from the accompanying elements in the production of an atomic bomb in order to cut off the lines of communication and supply leading south of the Yalu River, with simultaneous landing of troops on both coasts of North Korea."
                        “The Soviets should further be advised that it may be necessary to neutralize Red China’s ability to wage modern warfare (this could be achieved by destroying a limited number of Red Chinese airstrips, industrial centers, and supply bases, and disrupting the supply line from the Soviet Union) and by landing [9] Nationalist Chinese (i.e., Taiwanese—L.K.) forces in Manchuria near the mouth of the Yalu River...”
                        "to take advantage of the advantage in nuclear weapons, because over time it may diminish."


                        A bit of demagoguery from MacArthur...
                      3. -2
                        3 February 2026 18: 23
                        MacArthur was removed, there were no atomic bombings. There's nothing left to discuss.
        3. 0
          3 February 2026 15: 43
          Quote: Engineer
          Kim Il-sung emerged victorious in the war with the United States and survived. His grandson's troops routed US proxies in the Kursk region.
          Mild, no, heavy drug addiction

          Chinese websites interpret the events in the Kursk region as something like "North Korean troops, supported by the Russian army, completely liberated the territory of the Kursk region." Incidentally, a ceasefire was signed in 1953, and the DPRK lives on this victory. Ukraine didn't dare invade Russian territory, but the US and Japan haven't dared to invade the DPRK since 1953.
          1. -1
            3 February 2026 15: 54
            Chinese websites interpret the events in the Kursk region approximately as follows:

            Ah, well, if Chinese websites interpret it that way, then that’s how it is. laughing
            By the way, a truce was signed in 1953, and the fact that the DPRK lives on is a victory.

            This is the achievement of the Chinese, who saved Kim's ass.
            Just like the existence of South Korea is an American achievement.
            1. +1
              3 February 2026 16: 10
              Quote: Engineer
              This is the achievement of the Chinese, who saved Kim's ass.

              Kim Il-sung deserves more credit for this. The Chinese were unable to keep Pol Pot in power. Russia was unable to maintain its integrity in 1991.
              1. 0
                3 February 2026 16: 43
                This is the Chinese army's achievement, and nothing else. Without them, the northerners would have lost the war and fled to the Sino-Soviet border, abandoning the capital.
                1. 0
                  4 February 2026 13: 45
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Without them, the northerners lost the war and fled to the Soviet-Chinese border, abandoning the capital.

                  We began by discussing Kim Il-sung's wisdom and his ability to be considered the victor in the war against the United States. He received assurances of support from the PRC and the USSR approximately six months in advance. In the event of an unfavorable military development, four Soviet tank divisions were to be dispatched against the United States. When faced with the inevitability of war on the Korean Peninsula, Mao immediately began preparing troops and moving them to Manchuria in anticipation of a US offensive. Thus, Kim Il-sung hedged his bets in advance against the US and Europe entering the war against Korea. A significant portion of the KPA troops simply retreated to the mountains after their defeat, but did not surrender and joined forces with the Chinese during their advance. North Korean losses in captivity were approximately 100,000, compared to over a million killed. The USSR, as a percentage, lost more prisoners than killed than the KPA, even in 1943.
      2. +2
        3 February 2026 13: 25
        "Most of the country curses Yegor Gaidar for the tragedy of the collapse of the USSR and the destruction of science, industry, and agriculture."
        This Jew had nothing to do with the real Gaidar (Golikov)
        1. 0
          3 February 2026 15: 53
          Quote: ZloyKot
          This Jew had nothing to do with the real Gaidar (Golikov)

          He's supposedly his grandson. There's a wonderful North Korean story about a Red Army commander who becomes a drug addict and his granddaughter a prostitute during the perestroika years, renouncing her grandfather's ideas.
          1. 0
            9 February 2026 12: 08
            "He's like his grandson."
            yeah, I don't think it was even close laughing
    2. +2
      3 February 2026 15: 05
      Arkady Golikov's combat experience, in my opinion, is less than Kim Il-sung's: he fought only in the Civil War, from December 1918 to November 1922. He was interrupted by training at the "Vystrel" (Shot) course and injuries. Kim Il-sung fought as a partisan from 1932 to 1940, including a couple of years as a partisan division commander. Again, Golikov had no military reputation, while Kim Il-sung was no ordinary partisan: his name was known for its high-profile operations. And, if we're being honest, Kim Il-sung was more like the target of Golikov's hunt. And his hunts were brutal and not particularly effective. He was the punisher, Kim was the partisan...
      1. +1
        3 February 2026 18: 30
        "Dear author! Again, Golikov had no military reputation, while Kim Il Sung was no ordinary partisan: his name was known for its high-profile operations. And, if we're going to compare, Kim Il Sung was more like the one Golikov hunted, brutally and not very effectively. He was the punisher, Kim was the partisan..."
        Dear author! You consider the Polish regular army near Borisov and Polotsk to be civilians, albeit with artillery (Golikov was wounded by Polish shrapnel), against whom Arkady Petrovich carried out punitive actions? What an unexpected twist of logic... And Denikin's men were also civilians?
        Golikov fought against Antonov. Did you brand him a "punisher" for these military actions? Please share your knowledge: which specific actions (or inactions?) of Regimental Commander A.P. Golikov constituted a punitive action? Who did Golikov "hunt cruelly and ineffectively"? Or were you referring to his service in the Yenisei Province Special Purpose ...
        Or does Golikov's membership in the Bolshevik Party prevent you from viewing him and his service objectively? Or do you find the ChON repulsive, and do you regard anyone who served in them as "punishers"?
        And who were the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR and the Russian Federation who served in the Caucasus from the 80s to the 2010s for you then: heroes or punishers?
        And what heroic deeds did Kim accomplish? He attacked a four-man police post with a 20-man detachment and skillfully destroyed it with small arms and machine gun fire, capturing three rifles and a revolver? Until what year was Kim a partisan? And the army in Manchuria, where he was a commander, wasn't supplied from bases in the USSR, and he never entered the USSR for rest or training? So maybe he was a saboteur? Or a partisan, in the Red Army. Like Hero of the Soviet Union, Dmitry Nikolaevich Medvedev was a partisan in the NKVD (special agent and Hero of the Soviet Union Nikolai Ivanovich Kuznetsov was based in his detachment). True, while serving in the Cheka, he liquidated gangs near Odessa, served in the NKVD during the construction of the Baltic Sea Canal and in Norillag, and in 1945, he crushed the freedom fighters of Belarus, Poland, and Lithuania... Who is Medvedev to you? And what about Kuznetsov? After all, he worked as an NKVD agent for many, many years...
        1. +1
          3 February 2026 19: 01
          Who is Medvedev to you? And Kuznetsov?
          Hello, Eugene!
          Let's be honest. Medvedev and Kuznetsov are professional saboteurs. No matter how lowly that term was held in our Soviet past.
          1. +1
            3 February 2026 19: 31
            Kuznetsov was probably from the category of intelligence saboteurs.
            He not only destroyed enemy officials and officers, but also obtained information by communicating with German officers and officials.
            1. 0
              3 February 2026 19: 44
              I'm not very knowledgeable on this topic, but it's worth admitting that in Soviet Russia, sabotage operations behind enemy lines were quite well-organized. In the immediate rear, it was a complete disaster! Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya will confirm.
              1. 0
                3 February 2026 20: 18
                1941 year!
                And Kuznetsov is already 1943.
                And sabotage in the army's immediate rear is always more risky.
                There are more enemy forces protecting the rear and less room to maneuver for retreat or "laying low."
                When the Germans decided to leave Rzhev in March 1943, they cleared their rear areas with a fine comb.
                Having driven away the local population or liquidated the few partisans.
          2. +3
            3 February 2026 19: 57
            3x3zsave (Anton), sir, I was taught in the USSR that the "Pobediteli" detachment was primarily sent to the German rear to organize reconnaissance work, as a mobile residency; secondarily, to organize a partisan movement and train saboteurs; thirdly, to carry out sabotage... Honestly, I don't know who in the Soviet past held professional saboteurs in low regard. The "shuffling" and purges after Stalin's death within the MVD-MGB were, but the GRU special forces units remained in the army, and after "dear Nikita Sergeyevich," the KGB began to gain strength. The USSR's saboteurs themselves were skilled in many things, and they taught comrades around the world, and learned themselves.
            1. +2
              3 February 2026 21: 08
              Tests
              +2
              Today
              "They were involved in everything, judging by the documents." hi
              1. +1
                5 February 2026 14: 49
                bubalik (Sergey), sir, thank you very much! I haven't seen these documents... Here's the "Shal" agent in Vinnytsia - how many people were there and what were they doing that blew up five echelons?... A self-propelled gun and a twin-engine plane - pretty cool.
            2. 0
              9 February 2026 14: 11
              Quote: Tests
              "Sharakhani" and purges after Stalin's death in the MVD-MGB,

              The USSR effectively destroyed the Soviet Alpha special forces, which failed to eliminate Yeltsin, Luzhkov, Chubais, and Gaidar in 1991 and prevented the people from overthrowing this gang in 1993. So Khrushchev's actions to reduce the role of the special forces can be considered justified.
      2. 0
        9 February 2026 12: 13
        "In my opinion, Arkady Golikov's combat experience is less than that of Kim Il Sung."
        Why are you comparing Kim and Golikov? Then compare them with Budyonny or Chapayev. laughing
  3. +5
    3 February 2026 13: 33
    Here, in Japanese-occupied Jilin, Kim Sung-ju joined a Marxist circle and, at the age of 17, found himself in prison for the first time.

    Kim was born in 1912 and was 17 years old in 1929. At that time, Manchuria had not yet been occupied by Japan (1931) and there was no armed resistance to the Japanese occupation.
    For this reason, the anti-Japanese guerrilla detachment of Kim Il Sung was created in April 1932.
    And then came 1945. Korea was liberated by Soviet troops from the north, and Americans from the south.

    It's worth noting that, despite Japan's overall defeat in the war, a mass uprising of Koreans arose, establishing the authority of local people's committees. For example, when the Soviet landing force entered the port and fortress of Wonsan, they were met by local Koreans who disarmed the Japanese garrison. While Soviet troops were still forced to fight in the north and did not disband the local committees, the Americans not only refrained from fighting the Japanese in Korea but also disbanded the local Korean authorities. This makes a significant difference.
    In general, it is clear that when the question arose of who to put at the head of North Korea, the most suitable candidate was Comrade Kim Il Sung.

    The people of the North elected the leader of the new state—their local authorities, not the Soviet commandant's office. In the South, however, the Americans dispersed the Korean authorities and installed their own man.
    The difference is enormous and for this reason, without American intervention, the division in Korea in 1945 could not have been broken and the civil war in 1950 could have ended in a few days and with minimal losses.
  4. +1
    3 February 2026 16: 09
    Dear Author!
    Will the "Jeju Uprising" be covered in your series of articles?
    1. +2
      3 February 2026 21: 42
      Absolutely! In my opinion, it played a role in the outbreak of the Korean War: Kim began to anticipate an uprising in the southern rear, which gave him considerable courage.
  5. +3
    3 February 2026 16: 27
    Quote: Engineer
    But it was the UN troops who inflicted far greater losses on the enemy

    The information available today does not in any way confirm the "significantly superior losses" of the opponents of the UN forces.
    Official information from South Korea about 700 thousand military losses (killed + wounded) of the South Korean armed forces + over 100 thousand losses of UN troops.
    Chinese data on the losses of Chinese volunteers is approximately 530 thousand and the Korean People's Army 290 thousand, or 820 thousand together.
    In other words, military losses are approximately equal.
    The civilian population suffered the heaviest losses—over 2 million, primarily due to living conditions and UN bombings. Moreover, civilians in North and South Korea suffered roughly equally—1,2 million died in the North and 1 million in the South.
    The UN (in other words the USA) bombed both the north and the south to destruction during the period when it was being liberated.
    1. -3
      3 February 2026 18: 20
      I only wrote about the ratio for UN troops.
      According to Wikipedia, if we only take into account the number of dead combatants:
      40 thousand UN, 140 thousand SC
      против
      150 China, 250 SK
      The South Koreans were losing 1:1 at best. In total, UN troops lost 40 killed, roughly outscoring the 260 communists.
      This is the arithmetic in first approximation.
      1. +1
        3 February 2026 18: 41
        UN troop losses with or without Americans?
        1. 0
          3 February 2026 18: 44
          With the Americans, of course.
        2. +1
          4 February 2026 04: 53
          For decades they claimed and believed that a million Chinese soldiers died in the Korean War, but now Wikipedia says 148.
      2. +3
        3 February 2026 21: 45
        A difficult question: I seriously doubt that the American Marines and regular infantry outnumbered these Koreans and Chinese twice as much, but rather the Air Force, which means that comparing the combat qualities of the fighters is incorrect.
        1. -1
          3 February 2026 22: 03
          Don't attribute to me what I didn't write.
          "UN troops" doesn't necessarily mean just marines and infantry; it's a collective term. And I haven't yet considered the combat qualities of the soldiers at all.
          1. +1
            3 February 2026 23: 11
            I see some arrogant idiot trying to make it sound like they won Vietnam too. The Vietnamese losses there were much higher, too. Or is that just Ukraine squeaking?
            1. +1
              3 February 2026 23: 29
              Babah
              There was a pop and smoke. Apply plantain. laughing
            2. 0
              1 March 2026 15: 25
              А оттого, что вы обзываетесь на американцев, это как-то их слабее делает? Или нас сильнее?
              Тут 20 лет талдычили, что у нас все "не имеет аналогов" и вы мы всех за 3 дня победим, а они все там гейропа и неженки.
              So how did it help?
              Нужно знать сильные стороны противника и свои слабые стороны, чтобы над ними работать.
        2. 0
          1 March 2026 15: 21
          А что вы подразумеваете под "задвухсотили американские морпех с простой пехотой"?
          По статистике 2 мировой пулевые ранения - 20% от всех сертельных ранений, из этого вы еще нужно вычесть тех, кто был поражен пулеметами боевых машин, там на каждом Шермане 3 пулемета.
          Я понимаю, что многие считают, что американцы не в состоянии без туалетной бумаги воевать. Но не стоит недооценивать противника. Инчхонская операция - практически эталонная операция по высадке морского десанта и дальнейшим окружением противника;
      3. 0
        4 February 2026 04: 19
        The US suffered approximately 150,000 irreparable losses in the Korean War.
        1. 0
          4 February 2026 10: 42
          https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3418679/america-marks-anniversary-of-end-of-korean-war/
          About 37,000 Americans lost their lives during the Korean War and over 92,000 were wounded and 8,000 were missing.

          Where are you going with such a level of "knowledge"?
          1. 0
            4 February 2026 11: 36
            I knew you worked for the State Department. Probably an intern? And a lady, despite the nickname. Weren't the Americans the ones who spent decades harping on about a million Korean War veterans, and now they're saying 148? Trump honestly acknowledged the Department of War, but forgot to rename the United States a nation of lies.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
            2. -1
              1 March 2026 15: 32
              Товарищ всех, кто с ним не согласен, записывает в агенты Госдепа)
              Поверьте, Госдепу дела нет до этого сайта.
    2. 0
      4 February 2026 04: 18
      Chinese data on the losses of Chinese volunteers is approximately 530 thousand.

      Even in the Russian-language Wikipedia, which is supposedly written by Jews, the KND losses are 148 thousand.
      https://tinyurl.com/2cthl7c5
  6. Ash
    0
    3 February 2026 18: 18
    "Who are Koreans? They're Chinese who think they're Japanese." Old naval proverb
    1. 0
      1 March 2026 15: 26
      Ну вот это корейцам и скажите.
  7. +1
    4 February 2026 11: 34
    It was the North that started the war, turning local skirmishes on the border into a monstrous massacre.

    It was US aggression that turned a local civil war into a monstrous massacre. Moreover, the US alone is 100% responsible for this monstrous massacre of civilians.
    There is no doubt about this obvious fact.
    1. 0
      1 March 2026 15: 29
      США действовали по мандату Совбеза ООН. Этот случай под агрессию не попадает.
      Если бы Север победил Юг быстро, жертв действительно было меньше.
      Но это странная логика.
  8. +1
    4 February 2026 11: 55
    Quote: Engineer
    I only wrote about the ratio for UN troops.
    According to Wikipedia, if we only take into account the number of dead combatants:
    40 thousand UN, 140 thousand SC
    против
    150 China, 250 SK
    The South Koreans were losing 1:1 at best. In total, UN troops lost 40 killed, roughly outscoring the 260 communists.
    This is the arithmetic in first approximation.

    In the second approximation, if the brother is only the deceased combatants:
    1. Of the 290 killed and wounded SK combatants (according to Chinese data, as the Chinese must have more knowledge on this issue than Wikipedia), it's impossible to calculate 250 dead. More likely, the number of dead is no more than 80-100. Then the total number of dead "communists" is no more than 240.
    2. There is no information that the South Korean kill ratio differs significantly from that of other UN forces (South Koreans are also part of the UN force). It differs significantly in terms of captured personnel, but not in terms of fatalities.
    And so, to a second approximation, the ratio of the dead: 180 thousand UN forces against 240 thousand “communists” or 1 to 1,3.
    Or, very roughly, the ratio of UN forces (excluding Koreans) to "communist" casualties was no more than 1 to 1,5, and probably even less. And this was with absolute dominance in the air, at sea, and in heavy artillery, and hundreds of times more ammunition used!
    1. 0
      4 February 2026 14: 36
      According to official Chinese data, their losses in killed and deceased are even higher than those in Wikipedia.
      The data was announced in 2010 by Major General Xu Yang, a professor at the Chinese People's Liberation Army's National Defense University.
      According to statistics compiled by the army's medical departments and hospitals, 114,084 servicemen were killed in military action or accidents, and 25,621 soldiers had gone missing. The other about 70,000 casualties died from wounds, illness and other causes, he said.
      To date, civil affairs departments have registered 183,108 war martyrs, Xu said.

      https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-06/28/content_10026788.htm#:~:text=Xu%20said%20in%20the%20article,Korea's%20side%20in%20October%201950.
      Here are the official data
      I'm too lazy to parse the rest of the writing. Without citations, it's just thumbsucking or worse.
  9. 0
    4 February 2026 14: 45
    Quote: Engineer
    It's thumb sucking or worse.

    Yes, you love this business. Especially when your own lies are pointed out to you like a clueless kitten.
  10. 0
    5 February 2026 12: 43
    Quote: Engineer
    I'm too lazy to parse the rest of the writing. Without citations, it's just thumbsucking or worse.

    Here's some more thumb sucking:
    Data on losses from the Consulate General of the People's Republic of China in New York http://www.nyconsulate.prchina.org/eng/xw/t31430.htm It says that The Korean People's Army suffered 290 casualties, including deaths and injuries.(casualties), South Korean military losses were 220 killed and 750 wounded. American casualties alone were 53, yet their names are on the Korean War Memorial in Washington.
    Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War mentions that the South Korean authorities counted up to 257 thousand South Korean military casualties from all causes, while one American source puts the South Korean death toll at 415 thousand.
    So, there are many and varied estimates of enemy losses, but I trust the statistics of each side's own losses or those of its allies more. And since there are no official North Korean statistics on military losses, the best information currently available comes from their Chinese allies. And 290 killed and wounded suggests no more than 80-100 dead alone.
  11. The comment was deleted.