Russia in the Korean War, Essay Example

Introduction

Though not officially involved in the Korean War (1950–1953), the communist Soviet Union contributed to the conflict in a covert way. Over the course of the conflict, Soviet MiG 15 jet fighters were sent to North Korea as a form of aid. These units engaged in warfare with United Nations Forces. Between 1945 and 1948, the Soviets occupied Northern Korea. Following the end of World War II, the Soviet 25th Army played a major role in the advance of the Soviets as they entered into Northern Korea. The Soviets headquartered at Pyongyang and very similar to the American occupation objective, the Soviets stayed in Korea following the war for the purpose of rebuilding the region (Armstrong, 2004). Soviet soldiers played a critical role in the establishment and training of the Korean People’s Air Force and North Korean People’s Army.  These implementations as can be attributed for initiating the start of early Northern Korea regime. For example, Soviets were responsible for bringing the very first North Korean Air Force Academy; The Shineuiju was an academy founded by the Soviets in 1945 to train new pilots (“North Korea: The Founding of the Armed Forces,” 2013).

Cold War

The Cold War emerged in 1950, when China the Soviets and their allies became trapped in a socioeconomic and political standstill with capitalist countries. For more than 40 years, the Cold war lasted, specifically from 1945-1989, over which time the USSR and their allies remained in political and diplomatic conflict with the West. Despite the high tensions between the two regions, the conflict never came to open warfare. The reason The Cold War never resulted in real warfare or actual military engagement is due to the fact that nuclear weapons presented the potential for mutually assured destruction for both parties.  This potential threat is the core reason why the conflict remained a ‘cold war instead progressing to military engagement. Both parties attempted to undermine one another through policy, but neither wanted these interactions to escalate any further, as both the U.S and it’s allies as well as Russia and their allies understood a nuclear war would result in their mutual demise. Both sides identified conflicts in Korean as having the potential for further destabilizing the hazy and complex relations between both sides of The Cold War while also providing considerable advantages to the beneficiary of those arrangements. Influences in Korea in regards to their conflicts were also seen as a potential way to escalate the Cold War into an all out war. This motivated western forces to get involved in conflicts that were brewing between North Korea and South Korea.

American and U.N. soldiers were deployed to South Korea. During this time, instead of issuing a declaration of war, which would have escalated the Cold War into a full military engagement and a potential nuclear holocaust, the Soviet Union chose to keep their influences in Korea secret, while continuing to take part in the conflict. Had Russia publicly acknowledged their participation in the Korean war with NATO and the United States elsewhere, it most certainly would have led a nuclear war. Through officially denying its participation, the Soviet Union presented the Korean War from escalating. This potential for world war that could have evolved out of the Korean war stems from the fact that North Korea’s actions were in violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 84, a policy which North Korea is bound to and and the Soviet Union is also bound to following.

The reason why the USA and USSR become rivals in the period 1945 to 1949, was due in large part to the fact that the two regions are divided by significant ideological differences. The USSR and the USA were so divided that the only thing that the two regions together in alliance was their mutual pursuit of Hitler and the need to destroy his Nazi regime. Considering the underlying conflicts and differences between the US and the USSR, it can be argued that entering the Cold War upon the end of World War II was inevitable.   The most fundamental difference between the two powers can be seen in the fact that the USA is a capitalist democracy, while  the USSR at the time was a communist dictatorship.  Both sides took the position that their ideologies were the answer to how the future of the human race would achieve happiness and prosperity. Authors note that conflict was a standard issue share between the west and Russia, stating that “Stalin could not forgive Britain and America for helping the Whites against the Bolsheviks in the Civil Wars (1918-1921), and he believed that they had delayed D-Day in the hope that the Nazis would destroy Russia.  In the meantime, Britain and America blamed the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 for starting the Second World War” (Clare, 2005). The author further notes that differences in how the two sides viewed how Germany should be managed after the war was also a point of major conflict between the two regions. This could specifically be seen in the fact that, “Stalin wanted Germany to be ruined by reparations, and he wanted a buffer of friendly states round Russia to prevent a repeat of the Nazi invasion of 1941.   Britain and America wanted a democratic and capitalist Germany as a world trading partner, strong enough to stop the spread of Communism westwards” (Clare, 2005).  As the USSR was a communist dictatorship, it is very clear why the two regions could not agree on this ideological difference. He further points out that is very difficult to figure out what it was that truly caused the Cold War or the official moment when the Cold War broke out. After 1945, a series of clashes and misunderstandings meant that the ideological differences widened more and more into open hostility. This was further enhanced by many ideological and strategical maneuvers by Stalin. The conflict between the two becomes a battle to evolve or reform society (Hayenes, n.d.). “After the Second World War, and with the onset of the Cold War, the Soviet Union advised the Arab Communist Parties to sever popular front alliances with bourgeois nationalist groups and to assert their independence” (Hayenes, n.d.). Many of these conflicts, between the United States and Russia and how they utilized Korea to war with one another, were deeply rooted in historical events that happened prior to even World War I, before one can can truly understand the cause of the Cold War and how Russia played a role in Korean development to date from policies that occurred during this period, the historical context must be assessed.

World War II was the continuation of unresolved tensions and conflict born out of World War I, but the failed peace which followed the war set the tone for new conflicts that never existed prior to or during World War I. Both contributing factors as they impacted European and Asian development ultimately spawned what would become World War II. The Russian Revolution and the rise of Stalinism were both the result of capitalism and modern industry growing in popularity in Russia in the late nineteenth century. This transition destroyed the domestic village industries that had prevailed until then and Russia’s social structure dramatically changed.  Peasants worked under conditions of extreme poverty during this industrial transition (Bluden, n.p.). Blunden notes that “the working class of Russia confronted not simply the tasks of achieving their rights and living standards within bourgeois society, but was faced with the tasks that had been achieved by the bourgeoisie in Europe in the struggle against feudalism in the 17th and 18th centuries” (Blunden, n.d). The Bolshevik party was formed out of political struggles such as the relation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, as well as the relation between peasantry and the working class. These fundamental conflicts are what fueled the Russian revolution as Blunden notes, “from 1901, the principal axis of this struggle was the struggle between the Bolshevik and Menshevik wings of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). This struggle continued up until November 1917 when the Russian workers took state power under the leadership of the Bolshevik wing of the RSDLP” (Blunden, n.p). Blunden goes on to point out that it’s a major misconception of the Russian Revolution that Stalinism was a core aspect of the Russian revolution that transformed the workers movement to empower it. The truth is that Stalinism represented the opposite of everything the Russian Revolution was about. He actually gained acclaim through the process of corrupting the movement. Blunden notes that Stalin is actually the one who can be credited for killing the Russian Revolution as he exploited the momentum and favor it had among the people to leverage his own political agenda.

Western Powers imposed a series of harsh treaties on the defeated nations (“Treaty of Versailles”, n.p.).In the treaty of Versailles, signed May 7^th, 1919 the Germans were forced to concede territories to Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. In addition to conceding these territories the Treaty of Versailles called for the “War Guilt Claus.” Article 231 of this clause forced Germans to take responsibility for starting World War I. It’s further noted that in the treaty, “the German army was to be limited to 100,000 men, and conscription proscribed; the treaty restricted the Navy to vessels under 100,000 tons, with a ban on the acquisition or maintenance of a submarine fleet” (“Treaty of Versailles”, n.d.). The country was also not allowed to maintain an air force and obligated to conduct judicial hearings putting the Kaiser and other official on trial for war crimes. German viewed these terms as a dictated peace and inauthentic. They resented many of the mandates and ultimately the treaty did not resolve any of the conflicts that caused the war in the first place. The text is clear in identifying the fact that this treaty failed at resolving the initial conflicts that had caused the war. The authors note that, “The newly formed German democratic government saw the Versailles Treaty as a “dictated peace” (Diktat). Although France, which had suffered more materially than the other parties in the “Big Four,” had insisted upon harsh terms, the peace treaty did not ultimately help to settle the international disputes which had initiated World War I” (“Treaty of Versailles”, n.d.). These unsettled conflicts eventually manifested to becomes the precursor to World War II.

Adolf Hitler in Germany and Benito Mussolini in Italy both believed in fascism as a political system. Fascist government systems give absolute power to a dictator.  Individual rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press are denied. The strength of the nation is put before the individual (Burns, n.d.). Hitler and Mussolini promoted extreme nationalism to build up national pride. This in turn united their people to be blindly obedient. An additional aspect of fascism is that it emphasizes a belief in racial superiority to empower national pride (Burns, n.d.). Nationalism in Japan was encouraged by Hirohito and in the 1920’s and 1930’s. He was an emperor who was considered to be a living god among the country people. Burn notes that the real power of Japan resided in the hands of military leaders, specifically Hideki Tojo, who was a Japanese general who then turned into a fascist dictator and convinced Japan to join the Axis of Powers with Germany and Italy. Hideki is also responsible for planning the Japanese war with the United States.

The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn that began in 1929 and lasted until about 1939. It’s recognized as one of the longest and most difficult depressions ever endured by the industrialized Western world (Romer, 1).One many don’t realize about the Depression is that, despite the fact is originated in the United States, it resulted in acute levels of deflation and drops in output and production around the world. The Great Depression started began in the summer of 1929 as the downturn worsened until early 1933. The peak of the problem, the United States had a production decline of 47 percent and the GDP dropped to 30 percent.  The wholesale price index fell, or deflated, to 33 percent (Romer, 1). The core cause of The Great Depression was a decline in spending, which led to a ride in inventory and a decline in production. Consumer purchases of durable goods and business investments also declined severely (Romer, 3). Romer point out how the most noted impact of the Great Depression was the human suffering it caused, but also the fact that The Great Depression caused the end of the gold standard, while there was a system of fixed currency rates that was eventually established, the world economies never embraced the new system the way they did the gold standard.

The Sino-Japanese War was the product of Japan and China competing to modernize their military forces. Rivalry on the Korean peninsula broke out into conflict which turned into full scale war identified as the Sino-Japanese War in 1894. During this war Japan and China were able to test the status of their armament efforts. The war lasted between 1894 and 1895 and Japan was victorious. As Minoru and Siyun note, “when Japan emerged victorious from the conflict, the already tenuous longstanding, China-centered international order in East Asia disintegrated (Minoru & Siyun, 1).” They further elaborate that this mean the Beiyang Fleet and Haui Army of China were demolished never to be seen again. This defeat did motivate Qing China to concentrate on building better land based army forces with the assistance of Germany.  Minor and Siyun note that Japan could have easily lost the First Sino-Japanese War, and that Japanese demanding reparations for war is what put China into an economic spiral.“In addition to economic advancements, human-induced factors created the separation between urban and rural Chinese. One of them was obscurantism (the act of withholding knowledge from the general public) (Minoru & Siyun, 53).”

In sum, when the Treaty of Versailles was signed following World War I, there had already been geographical, sociological, and economic conflicts and issues brewing leading into World War I, which were consequentially unresolved in the signing of the treaty. One of the main issues included the resentment and one-sided nature of the Treaty and its biased condemning the Germans and demoralizing them by limiting their army size and forcing them to publicly recognize WWI as their fault.  Likewise, the United States at this time was dealing with the great depression which contributed both to its social despair and to its need for something like World War II to uplift it economically through the demand for war production. Likewise China and Japan had been embroiled in conflict with one another battle testing their armaments, while Russia had its own conflicts between Stalinism and the Russian revolution.  All of these respective issues contributed to the transition from WWI to WWII.

The social, political, and cultural developments that came out of World War II played a large part in the transition into the Cold War. The conflicts that arose were as much sociological and based in geography as they were grounded in religious beliefs. World War II had a devastating effect on the Soviet Union. 1,700 towns and 70,000 villages were completely destroyed, and twenty-one million people were killed, and Stalin had over a million people deported. It is estimated that even after 1950, the USSR still barely had 90 percent of its pre-war population as well as a declining birth rate. (Blunden, n.p.) There was equality under soviet law in Eastern Europe, but it just posed a double burden on women when men were nearly killed off after the war and women had to take their place in the work force. Generations of young men were killed by the war, much more than they were in the west. This forced women to take on jobs in their place that would have traditionally been occupied by men.  Blunden notes that during this era the Stalinist policy of resurrecting capitalism was enthusiastically embraced by the Communist Party leaders in Western Europe (Blunden, n.p.).” This new trend did not work well in Eastern Europe and the people fell under the control of the Soviet Union, who instead of encouraging loyalty and building morale by providing the people with work benefits, the government instead imposed military force to get its way.

Medical Aid

Along with several “Eastern Block” countries (notably Czechoslovakia), the Soviet Union provided North Korea with more than 20 doctors to assist with necessary medical aid of their troops. This was done to counter medical aid provided to South Korea, by Italy, Norway,  and Sweden. Russia also notably provided aid for war material and to supplement other needed military resources to North Korea during the Korean War. These actions by Russia attribute to much of the success Korea and China had in establishing effective forces in North Korea during war time.  significant role to equip both North Korean and Chinese military and their actions in Korea. The Soviets supplied both North Korea and China with PPSh-41 guns, titled the Burp Gun by U.S. Troops, and T-34/85 tanks were widely supplied to both armies. The T-34/85tank was a highly valued tool utilized by North Korea to win the Korean War. This was due to the fact that there were no anti-tank rockets capable of damaging these tanks.  Soviet material aid has an invaluable impact on the performance of the air force. By April 1950, the Soviet Union contributed 63 of the North Korean air force’s 178 aircraft.

The Korean War

The Korean War was a conflict that was identified as a significant part of the Cold War. It was different in many ways from the Berlin Blockade, but the Korean War was also recognized as being a war of diplomacy or political war, often referred to as as ‘war without war.’ During the Korean War, America and Russia fought one another through other people and through policy, which resulted in them avoiding any real conflict. As Communism grew in the far east, and in Europe, after the Second World War, Korea and Vietnam were divided between Communists and non-Communists. Author John Clare note that, ”the peacemakers solved both problems by simply drawing a line across both countries, giving the northern area to the Communists, and the southern part to the non-Communists. Korean was thus split at the 38th parallel” (Clare, 2005). In 1949, the leader of North Korea was  Kim Il Sung, he engaged in negotiations with Mao Zedong, the leader of China and Stalin. During the interactions between these leaders, he was able to gain their support in a decision to attack South Korea. Clare noted that, this conflict spawned from an incident ”when Syngman Rhee (the leader of South Korea) bragged that he would attack North Korea, the North Koreans attacked on June 25 1950 to beat him to the punch. North Korea had no problem  easily defeating South Korean forces. By September 1950, North Korea conquered all of South Korea except for just one minor region in Pusan in the south. Truman did not expect, nor plan for, the fall of South Korea. He was especially not prepared to see it fall to Communism. At the time,  Americans held the belief that if one region of the east fell to Communism, they all would. This view was known as  the ‘domino theory.’ To further add on to America’s paranoia about North Korea’s victory, by April 1950, American foreign policy had changed and become more aggressive. America’s National Security Council released  (NSC 68), a document suggesting America should abandon ‘containment’ and start ‘rolling back’ Communism. Truman does not plan a form of direct attack on 27 June he went to the United Nations and persuaded them to oppose the North Korean invasion. The UN forces, led by the American General MacArthur, landed in Pusan and Inchon in September 1950 and by October 1950 had pushed back the North Koreans almost to the Chinese border. At this point, the Chinese got involved, and drove back the Americans. A front line was eventually established around the 38th parallel (where it had all began), although the war went on for another three years. Truman refused Mac Arthur’s advice to use the atomic bomb.   Russian troops went to help the communists, but they went as ‘advisers’ and dressed like North Koreans. This is how Russia avoided a direct war with America avoided direct war. In Seung-Ho Joo’s article “Russian Policy on Korean Unification in the Post-Cold War Era” he notes that as far as Korea is concerned, the Cold War is still a functioning and very apparent factor within the region. The author notes that “the Cold War continues on the Korean peninsula, and the Korean knot has yet to be untangled. Korean unification remains a central issue in Northeast Asia. The major powers surrounding Korea, including the U.S., Russia, China, and Japan, continue to have high stakes in the future of Korean because of its geo-strategic importance and growing economic strength” (Joo, 1996). He goes on to note that the fall of the Soviet Union in December 1991, made way for the Russian Federation to become the legal successor of North-East Asian interests due to the historical ties. As the Russia’s military influences declined, it became more of regional power symbol than a global one but still maintained correspondence between Moscow and Korea. This influence in Korea, in addition to sustaining it as an ally that could potentially be harboring Cold War agendas, Joo notes that Russia could eventually be the mediating factor that results in the reunification of the two divided Koreas. Joo notes that, Russia applies its general policies in regards to dealing with Korea. Joo states that the fall of the Soviet Union resulted in Russian Federation adopting many western policies in order to be viewed as an equal on the global economic stage, and this could be true of Korea as well. It’s clearly seen in the developments within South Korea.

History of Literature

In Min Kyung Hyun’s study on “Russia-Korea Relations and the Soviet Collapse” notes that “it has been twenty years since the Republic of Korea and the Soviet Union normalized their diplomatic relations on September 30th, 1990. The diplomatic links between the two countries had been severed as a result of Russo-Japanese War that followed the 1905 Protectorate Treaty, which deprived Korea sovereignty of the Chosun Dynasty” (Hyun, 2011). He goes on to note that forty years after the 1905 Proctectorate Treaty, Russia engaged in formal interactions and negotiations with North Korea. It would take another half century for Russia to engage in dealings with the Republic of Korea. Once the flood gates had opened for discussion between both Koreas and Russia in the 1940’s and 1950’s, a wide range of constructive cooperation would be established. Hyun notes this was taken to another level in November 1992, when “President Roh Tae-Woo signed a pact known as ‘A Treaty on Basic Relations between the Republic of Korea and Russia’ and Presidents Kim Young-Sam and Kim Dae-Jung of the Republic of Korea and President Vladimir Vldimirovich Putin of Russia visited the other party’s country” (Hyun, 2011). The author notes that these summits between these regions can be attributed to numerous agreements regulating international policies. For example, ‘A Treaty on Criminal Justice Cooperation,’‘A Treaty on Economic Cooperation,’ ‘A Memorandum of Understanding on the Industrial Production Sector,’ and ‘A Treaty on the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Power,’ are all treaties that resulted from these summits between Russia and the two Koreas. In regards to Russo-Korean interactions, these treaties demonstrate that dramatic change can be achieved through their engagement. These treaties showed that important changes had occurred in the Russo-South Korean relations.

These advancements in policy and engagement between Russia and the Koreas that evolved in the 1990’s are all a a direct biproduct of relations first established out of the Cold War. Hyun notes that Russia and North Korea were not immune to their share of conflicts with one another but after a few conflicts, North Korea and Russia improved their relationship in the 1990s. In the middle of the 90’s Russian leaders turned down the one-way line policy toward South Korea. Following this olive branch of policy extended to North Korea, in April 1996, North Korea  and Russia organized the first ‘Committee on the Inter-Governmental Level Cooperations of Trade and Scientific Technology.’ The result of this committee was that the ‘The Treaty on the Cultural and Academic Cooperation between North Korea and Russia,’ was signed into action. This has been viewed as a major diplomatic step for both regions and Russo-North Korean relations as a whole. Furthermore, in February 2002, North Korea and Russia enacted ‘A Treaty on Friendship, Good-Neighbourhood, and Cooperation.’

Since then leaders from both countries, President Vladimir Vldimirovich Putin and Chairman of the North Korean National Defense Commisssion, Kim Jung Il, visited each other and resumed formal relations. It should be noted  that the South Korea-Russia and North Korea-Russia discussions resulted in speculation about economic cooperation  among the three countries. Progress was influenced by these negotiations and the first summit meetings held in Pyongyang in 2000 between South Korea, North Korea and Russia.  As a result of this summit the ‘The Joint Communique between South Korea and North Korea’ was enacted. Russia’s foreign policy toward Korea,  focused primarily on the independence of Korea and the development of their nation-state.

It is firmly believed  that Russo-Korean relations initiated  in 1860 when the countries shared borders. History of the relationship shows the pre-Soviet era “has characteristics of ideal description of the Tsar’s despotic rule over Korea and other Asian countries. Russian scholars conferred legitimacy to the Tsar’s foreign policy and criticized other powerful nations’ colonial policies” (Clare, 2005) . These Russian scholars provided many publications and written data on condemning Japanese and Chinese polices in Korea. These doctrine played a substantial role in swaying Korean stake holders and power brokers towards redrafting policies affiliated with their regimes. Clare notes that,  “while glorifing the Tsar. During the Soviet Union period, an in-depth study of the policy toward Korea had emerged. In the 1920s and 1930s, many papers on the history of Russia’s policy in the Far East were published, and some of them covered the Korean Peninsula1). In 1948 Nihamin completed his PhD thesis, ‘The Russo-Japanese Relations from 1894 to 1898 and the Korean Peninsula” (Clare, 2005). These works assessed diplomatic activities in the Korean Peninsula where Russia and Japan competed with one another other during the Sino-Japanese War. Nihamin dealt vast amounts of foreign relations documents and other materials from ‘The Foreign Relations Archives under the Soviet Union Department of Foreign Affairs (Currently it is referred ?????)’. In his works, Nihamin described Russia’s position on the Japanese invasion into Korea, the Korean royal refuge at the Russian legation from 1896 to 1897, and activities of Russian military instructors and financial advisors during 1896 and 1898. In 1951 Galperin attempted to prove the thesis that Russia was the only world power which continuously supported Korea’s independence after the Russo-Japanese War2).

International relations between Russia and Korea become a promoted ideal of national pride and a concern of diplomacy and national security within the region. Scholars from the Far East from the Soviet Union era contributed significantly to the research on Russo-Korean foreign relations and furthered the establishment of cultural understanding within the country. Authors note that, “their collective work, The Foreign Relations in the Far East3 and  the works of A. Narochnitski’s seminal work deserve attention. These two books disclose Russia’s policy toward the Chosun Dynasty during periods when great powers forcefully coerced the dynasty to open her ports to trade and when tensions between China and Japan on the Korean Peninsula escalated” (Clare, 2005) . The author goes on to state that Narochnitski argues that “Russia attempted to persuade Ching Dynasty not to collaborate with the United States at the time of ‘The Chosun-the U.S. Friendship and Commerce Treaty of 1882.’ Also on December 4th, 1884, the Gapsin Coup took place when China, Japan, the Great Britain and other powerful nations engaged in a heated competition. After the coup Russia defended the principle of Chosun’s independence and inviolability of territory. In his work, revealed China’s reactionary policy on the Korean Peninsula and focused on the attitude of Chosun’s ruling class between 1885 and 1895” (Clare, 2005). These articles early on revealed many of the issues regarding political policy. This was an essential aspect of international consciousness towards policy and understanding how countries were engaging one another.

In sum, the history of diplomatic relations between Korea and Russia started in 1895 when Korea assisted Russia during the Russo-Japanese war. The conflict started with competitive trade, but the official wart was launched in1904 and lasted until 1905.  Russia also took on diplomatic initiatives  to assist Korea in defense of their independence during ‘The Treaty of Portsmout,” and adamantly expressed their favor for Korean rights in regards to the Korean Peninsula and Japan’s annexation of Korea. There were also numerous  Russian scholars during the Soviet Union era that published studies on Korean, Russo-Chinese relations and foreign policy as it related to theories on dealings with Korea, especially in regards to economic and political history of the country. Russian scholars .  Japan’s colonization process of Korea also played a significant role in Soviet Union history  classes providing understanding of the details of economic policy and their feudal regime..  Many of these reports by Russian scholars and historians motivated favor in the hearts of Soviets towards Korea and likewise Koreans developed the same favor towards Russia which influenced to the power struggles that were taking part in the the Korean ruling class and ultimately this resulted in many Koreans migrating to Russia during the late 19^thcentury up to the early 20^th century.

References

Anisimov, A. P., & Gulyaihin, V. N. (2013). The Study Of The Phenomenon Of “Mystifying Russian Soul” Within The Context Of Russian History And Its Significance For Increasing Mutual Understanding Between The Russian People And Other Nations.Global Journal of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), 131-145.

Armstrong, Charles K. (2004). The North Korean Revolution: 1945-1950 (1. printing Cornell Paperbacks. ed.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. pp.251–252.

Edwards, P. (2003). The Korean War: A Historical Dictionary (Historical Dictionaries of War, Revolution, and Civil Unrest, No. 23). Scarecrow Press.

Hallion, R. P. (2011).The Naval Air War in Korea. University of Alabama Press.

Haynes, Jeff. (n.d.)‘Religious Fundamentalism and Politics’. Diss. Emory University School of Law, Atlanta: n.p. Print.

Hickey, M. (2011). The Korean War: An Overview. BBC History, http://www. bbc. co. uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_hickey_01. Shtml, 16(3), 2012.

Jervis, R. (1980). The impact of the Korean War on the Cold War. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(4), 563-592.

Jian Chen. (1994). China’s Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American Confrontation. Columbia University Press.

Joo, S. H. (1996). Russian Policy on Korean unification in the post-Cold War era. Pacific Affairs, 32-48.

Leckie, R. (1996).Conflict: the history of the Korean War, 1950-53. Da Capo Press.

Lee, S. H. (2013). The Korean War. Routledge.

“North Korea: The Founding of the Armed Forces.” (2013). ROK National Intelligence Service.

Robert Dornan, (1996). Accounting for POW – MIAs from the Korean War and the Vietnam War.  p.31-32

Sandler, S. (Ed.). (2014). The Korean War: An Encyclopedia. Routledge.

Stueck, W. (2013). Rethinking the Korean War: A New Diplomatic and Strategic History. Princeton University Press.

Goncharov, S. N. (1993). Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War(Vol. 4). Stanford University Press.

Whiting, A. S. (1968). China crosses the Yalu: The decision to enter the Korean War. Stanford University Press.

Van Evera, S. (2013). Causes of war: Power and the roots of conflict. Cornell University Press.

Vasquez, J. A., & Kang, C. N. (2013). How and why the Cold War became a long peace: Some statistical insights. Cooperation and Conflict, 48(1), 28-50.