Coming soon - Get a detailed view of why an account is flagged as spam!
view details

This post has been de-listed

It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.

9
Did the US government intentionally encourage the outbreak of the Korean War in order to justify defense budget increases?
Post Body

The podcast When Diplomacy Fails has a series on the Korean War that proposes, in extreme brief, the following narrative of how the Korean War broke out:

  1. Stalin wanted the North to invade the South in hopes of creating a quagmire that would suck in China and hamstring Mao's efforts to create a strong and stable regime that was substantially independent from the USSR. In the worst case scenario, the North is too successful and succeeds in conquering the South too easily, scoring a PR win for communism internationally.

  2. Truman hoped for the same war to break out, but instead to justify a massive military buildup that could be used to counter the Soviets more broadly. The attack could also justify more aggressive anti-communist posturing in general, on account of such a war being a communist war of aggression.

  3. Stalin actively encouraged the war to break out by supply the North with the materiel needed to fight the war and by putting in the work to convince Kim Il-sung he should launch the war.

  4. Truman's government also encouraged the war by intentionally keeping the South undersupplied with arms and troops, in hopes of making it appear as an easy target. The Americans also turned a blind eye to a military buildup in the North that would have been impossible for American intelligence to have missed and sent intentionally weak and confusing diplomatic and public press messages regarding American defense commitments.

So, in summary, the story is that America set up the South as bait and the North took it, given that they rather wanted to take it anyway.

My question is simple: is this narrative true? The podcast acknowledges that this is something of a revisionist narrative. Some of the evidence it adduces is reasonable (comments on various internal US strategy documents) while other strikes me as less persuasive (speculation about what was an intelligence failure and what was a matter of intentional ignorance). I do not know enough context to fairly judge the matter, however, and am hoping some among you may be able to tell me more!

Author
Account Strength
100%
Account Age
15 years
Verified Email
Yes
Verified Flair
No
Total Karma
56,306
Link Karma
2,918
Comment Karma
52,286
Profile updated: 19 hours ago
Posts updated: 6 months ago

Subreddit

Post Details

We try to extract some basic information from the post title. This is not always successful or accurate, please use your best judgement and compare these values to the post title and body for confirmation.
Posted
4 years ago