• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why is the history of the Korean War shrouded?

kpopSuperstar

kpopSuperstar

Gold Member
Korea was relatively short but ultra-violent, with estimates ranging from 900 thousand to 1.5 million dead per year. For context, Vietnam was 350 to 500 thousand per year (during the US involvement).

There were some absolutely wild battles in Korea, in the Pusan battle, Americans and South Koreans took out over 60 thousand soldiers in 6 weeks to defend the entirety of South Korea from falling.

It's estimated that over 3 million civilians were killed through bombings and massacres from both sides during the war.

It was a mad scramble that saw both China and America throw massive resources into a hellscape that featured horrendous massacres and insane human wave tactics.

Why is this huge war so little known?

Is it because it was so soon after WW2 and people had no taste for it? Is it because of how brutal it was, and how many died from the massive U.S. bombings? Was there an acceptance among the leadership of the states that this is best not explored, as they feared that citizens might turn on them, as they later did during Vietnam?

Hollywood has mostly ignored it as well, and they are the ones who decide what history lives in the spotlight.
 
kpopSuperstar said:
Korea was relatively short but ultra-violent, with estimates ranging from 900 thousand to 1.5 million dead per year. For context, Vietnam was 350 to 500 thousand per year (during the US involvement).

There were some absolutely wild battles in Korea, in the Pusan battle, Americans and South Koreans took out over 60 thousand soldiers in 6 weeks to defend the entirety of South Korea from falling.

It's estimated that over 3 million civilians were killed through bombings and massacres from both sides during the war.

It was a mad scramble that saw both China and America throw massive resources into a hellscape that featured horrendous massacres and insane human wave tactics.

Why is this huge war so little known?

Is it because it was so soon after WW2 and people had no taste for it? Is it because of how brutal it was, and how many died from the massive U.S. bombings? Was there an acceptance among the leadership of the states that this is best not explored, as they feared that citizens might turn on them, as they later did during Vietnam?

Hollywood has mostly ignored it as well, and they are the ones who decide what history lives in the spotlight.
Click to expand...
There was a sitcom about the war that lasted four times as long as the war.
 
Korea does get called the Forgotten War at times. It does seem to avoid the draft/culture war of Vietnam or the heroic aspects of WW2. I think the main reason folks don't mention it much is that it was a strategic stalemate with no real shift. But I don't think anyone in geopolitics thinks it was a small war or anything.
 
Is it really that little known? Compared to WWII sure, but then all the wars of the 20th century kinda get little coverage compared to WWII.
It's also a war that only really involves the US and NK/China. It isn't particularly relevant to the rest of the world compared to WWII or WWI, so you aren't going to see it covered as much.
 
I know almost nothing about the war but the map timelapse is nuts:


Within the first four months the reds almost took the entire country, then the blues reversed it and almost pushed them back into china.
 
Because the last significant movement is the allies being pushed back hundreds of miles and ending in a stalemate I guess. Not very inspiring from a 'celebrating US military invincibility' perspective or a very satisfying conclusion from a narrative perspective.
 
Possibly because there is only so much war you can get people interested in, and the wars of the 20th century were all incredibly bloody and intense. WW2 involving most of the planet and ending with the nuclear bombs, and Vietnam having been put front and center by cinema and pop literature right from the start and for the last 50 years, stole the spotlight from everything else. The Jugoslav wars of the 1990s were happening very close to me, and for most people it's like they never happened. Same for the African wars from the same period. Too far from home, stakes not high enough, not enough US involvement to make a good narrative out of it.

Just think about it, Ancient Rome and its wars are subjects closer to most people's interests than incredibly violent wars that are barely 30 years in the past.
 
NeoIkaruGAF said:
Possibly because there is only so much war you can get people interested in, and the wars of the 20th century were all incredibly bloody and intense. WW2 involving most of the planet and ending with the nuclear bombs, and Vietnam having been put front and center by cinema and pop literature right from the start and for the last 50 years, stole the spotlight from everything else. The Jugoslav wars of the 1990s were happening very close to me, and for most people it's like they never happened. Same for the African wars from the same period. Too far from home, stakes not high enough, not enough US involvement to make a good narrative out of it.

Just think about it, Ancient Rome and its wars are subjects closer to most people's interests than incredibly violent wars that are barely 30 years in the past.
Click to expand...
I think people tend to gravitate to the conflicts that have been framed as existential crises with the fate of civilization in the balance. So persia vs the greeks, Rome vs Carthage, that stuff is where our very way of life could have been eradicated. Of course you could probably say that of Charles Martel and the entire Reconquista but a lot of that wasn't in an english speaking body of literature compared to the classics or stuff that directly involved England or later on, the US. Of course here in the states there is a ridiculous amount of time spent on the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression?) compared to the Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War, 1812, or even the War for Independence. Scale trumps everything, I guess.
 
Didn't win outright, McArthur wanting to nuke the reds, arse end of Asia at the time, no cool music to make a soundtrack to.

I find it a fascinating war just from the equipment used. We were using Cromwell's and Churchill's alongside Centurion tanks, jets alongside props etc.
 
What if part of the reason the Korean War is overshadowed by the Vietnam War is Hollywood's influence? Most people aren't history buffs, and get their info from movies whether they (including me) realize it or not.

Look at these most popular movies for each war--which one has the least impact/culturally significance?

WWI:
Saving Private Ryan
Schindler's List
Casablance
The Pianist
Das Boot

Korean War:
MASH
Taegukgi: The Brotherhood of War
The Steel Helmet
Pork Chop Hill

Vietnam War:
Apocalypse Now
Platoon
Full Metal Jacket
The Deer Hunter
We Were Soldiers
Hamburger Hill
Good Morning, Vietnam

Granted, there's a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg question, though: were the Korean War movies less culturally significant because of relative lack of interest in the war? Or is the war less culturally significant because the movies weren't as popular?
 
Sakura said:
Is it really that little known? Compared to WWII sure, but then all the wars of the 20th century kinda get little coverage compared to WWII.
It's also a war that only really involves the US and NK/China. It isn't particularly relevant to the rest of the world compared to WWII or WWI, so you aren't going to see it covered as much.
Click to expand...
There are a few more countries that are also at war with NK. (eg. parts of the Commonwealth)
 
Not the Korean war, but one of the few K-Dramas I love is Mr Sunshine which is a fictional show covering the Japanese occupation of Korea and the end of the Joseon dynasty.

Well worth a watch.

MrSunshine_Moment-Vertical_PRE_US.jpg
 
daffyduck said:
There are a few more countries that are also at war with NK. (eg. parts of the Commonwealth)
Click to expand...
Yes I know. But our role was relatively minor. ie Canada sent under 30k men, while in WWII we sent over a million. It's just not a very significant war to most countries.
 
kpopSuperstar said:
Why is this huge war so little known?
Click to expand...

Because its a war of "logistics" that ended on a stalemate. Because the US got hammered pretty hard at the beginning and at "second half" of it.
McArthur gambit at Inchon was brilliant, what came after it not much.

And because the Koreans are trying to conquer the world via Doramas and K-pop, not war movies.
 
Korea was a very dangerous war. The number of British soldiers there was not great compared to the US but 4 Victoria Cross medals were awarded, which is a lot for a medal like that. Britain was not in Vietnam but 4 VCs were given to Australians fighting there. For America the war was very significant because it put them in direct conflict with Chinese forces and forced US military and political executive to have difficult conversations about when to use the nuclear deterrent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Netflix: The Great Flood, Korean apocalyptic drama
3
126
shamroxor replied
Why the end of support for Windows 10 is uniquely troubling.
2
61
963
EverydayBeast replied
Jeff Wayne's The War Of The Worlds
19
865
TheUnicornGuy replied
The Why Files
26
1K
Diatribe1974 replied
  • Poll
Which one of these GOATs is the greatest?
20
435
Grildon Tundy replied
Top Bottom