Rating: 
Summary: See yourself as others see you.
Review: I thought it was a pretty good book. Hastings describes some of the American shortcomings as illuminated by declassified British military memos describing poor discipline during the early part of the war. He also describes the air war, including what was like to be stationed out in the Pacific servicing and arming B-29's.As a draftee I spent some time in South Korea in 1971 and 1972. It's good to have some more background on what went on there during the war.
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent One Volume Compact History
Review: Max Hastings has achieved one of the most difficult feats in writing a good survey history about a particular event. That is, Hastings was able to cover the Korean War well from the political, diplomatic, social, and military aspects. In addition to this, Hastings was able to bring in a very personal feel to the drama by including touching accounts of the war from a wide range of people including American, British, Korean, and Chinese soldiers; and the people of Korea who suffered very dearly. I found especially gripping and well constructed, the epic U.S. retreat to the Pusan Perimeter and the stunning counterstroke at Inchon. As an American, I found the heroic British battle with the Chinese at Imjin welcome to my limited knowledge of English military contributions. Hastings also illustrates quite well how the U.S. and China were both and at varying times close to total victory, and how the failure to achieve total victory put themselves in a worse postion diplomatically. (i.e. the U.N. push to the Yalu that failed in the fall of 1950, and the Chinese advance to the 38th Parallel in the winter of 1950-51.) Hastings also shows just how different General MacArthur's strategic thinking on the war was from both Washington and London. Also interesting is the author's exploration into the typical poor moral within the U.N. ranks resulting from the frustration of having to fight a limited war in a cold-inhospitable place. Anyone looking for a good one volume compact history of the Korean War should buy this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Korean War Readers: Advance Cautiously
Review: The interpretations of the Korean War are varied and numberalmost as many as the pages that have been devoted to the conflict'shistory. The Korean War is an attempt by the British author MaxHastings to paint a portrait of the war, focusing upon some human and military aspects less familiar to readers on both sides of the Atlantic. From the outset, Hastings does not purport to give a comprehensive account of the war and cites the works of David Rees (Korea: The Limited War, New York, 1964) and Bruce Cumings (Origins of the Korean War, New Jersey, 1981) as the best in these categories. The author also professes his belief in the rightness of the American commitment to Korea in 1950. One of the more interesting passages in the Korean War is the author's coverage of the Inchon operation. Hastings defends the decision of General MacArthur to maintain X Corps as a separate tactical unit from Eighth Army: ... there was an entirely legitimate case for placing the conduct of the Inchon landing in hands other than those of General Walton Walker. MacArthur well knew the low morale that existed in Eighth Army headquarters.... [Although] Walker had conducted a stubborn defense of Pusan.... there was grave reason to doubt his ability now to lead the sort of imaginative and dynamic operation MacArthur planned. MacArthur considered, and rejected, the possibility of relieving him [Walker] of his command.... MacArthur's compromise was to entrust the amphibious operation to Almond. The author's argument is plausible, but he fails to cite his references. One of the strong points of the Korean War is the author's analysis ofthe Chinese and their intervention in the war. Hastings visited Peking while researching this book and incorporates the oral histories gained from interviewing veterans of the People's Liberation Army. He succeeds in using this material (although his journalistic, vice scholarly use of oral history gives the book a spurious creditability) in supporting his main thrust regarding the Chinese; that patriotism, not Communism, drove their intervention. The Chinese viewed the naval blockade of Formosa as a threat to their sovereignty; the Chinese sought the liberation of Taiwan and now equated the attainment of this goal with the defeat of the United States. Additionally, the Chinese refused to remain idle with the approach of foreign troops towards their border: Throughout the Korean War, Washington persistently sought the communist ideological logic behind Chinese actions. It might have been more profitable to consider instead historic Chinese nationalistic logic. Korea had provided the springboard for the Japanese invasion of Manchuria only a generation before. As the Americans drove north after smashing Kim Il Sung's armies in September 1950, Peking was appalled by the imminent prospect of an American imperialist army on the Yalu. (p. 134) Hastings also refutes the belief by the United States that the Chinese were acting in concert with the Soviet Union. The Russians regretted the North Korean's invasion and wished to distance themselves from Korea; thus, the Chinese acted unilaterally Hastings, to his credit, also gives ample analysis of the misjudgments of the Communists. The Chinese, after their initial success in late 1950, were led into the same trap as the United States after Inchon: they allowed their military success to change their original political goals. However limited the war aims of the Chinese in November 1950, there is no doubt that their early triumphs opened up, in the eyes of Peking, illusory visions of absolute military victory in Korea, of an all-embracing Communist success. Hastings argues correctly that the Chinese would have greatly boosted their own prestige had they sought a negotiated end to the struggle after the winter of 1950. Nevertheless, his argument that China lost a prime opportunity to gain a seat in the United Nations by not negotiating a truce after 1950 is a weak one. Although the United States wished to downplay their support of Chiang and Nationalist China, they were far from formally recognizing the Communists. Another area receiving little attention elsewhere is the intelligence-gathering operations in Korea. Hastings boldly asserts that "the Korean War put the CIA on the map". The United States already possessed a growing hunger for information on their chief enemies; the Communists. They were prepared to seize upon any means in which to gain more knowledge and Korea provided an ideal opportunity. The author chronicles the buildup of the Central Intelligence Agency, beginning with the appointment of Bedell Smith as its first director. The CIA launched numerous operations in attempt to learn more of the Communists and their intentions in Korea. Hastings concludes, "it is difficult to judge that its [the CIA's] operations remotely justified the scale of resources it eventually deployed or the lives that were squandered in its name." Hastings does add that the initial errors made by the CIA in Korea resulted in a better intelligence gathering effort in Vietnam. The author makes sparing use of maps, but does provide a sufficient number to keep the reader oriented. Hastings also includes a helpful chronology of the war and a listing of the military assistance provided by each member of the United Nations in the appendix. Although Hastings may draw criticism for devoting an inordinate amount of attention to Britain's involvement in Korea, his argument that a "British officer's or private soldier's recollection of the experience of fighting the Chinese in Korea is no less valid ... than that of an American" is legitimate. To his credit, Hastings gives fair treatment to all parties by incorporating interviews with Americans, Chinese, South Koreans, and soldiers from other participating UN armies. Overall Hastings presents some valid arguments and his writing style is good. As the editor of the Daily Telegraph in London, Hastings writes with a more journalistic than scholarly style and sometimes lacks the in-depth analysis to carry some of his arguments to completion. Nevertheless, his work still has value among the sociopolitical literature on the war. I would recommend this book as supplemental reading to those already possessing a solid understanding of the war.
Rating:
Summary: An Independent and Concise Introduction
Review: THE KOREAN WAR is the kind of introduction one wants. It recounts the history, but it also incites. The author, although supporting the aims of this first of "limited" wars, also never fails to give his own opinion about the US Armed Forces' conduct in the war. The account has several strong points. First, he uses interviews and personal memoirs, to make the account personable. Second, his narrative is fluid and exciting, even when he leaps between battlefield and briefing rooms. Third, he includes an excellent account of the post-WWII situation in Korea and Japan. Fourth, his discussion of MacArthur does not stoop to iconography. Hastings also refers to incidents and policies repeated in Vietnam which help to put the "forgotten war" in its proper context. He does not hesitate to criticize actions, such as the incidents on Goje Island, and is very fair in his portraits of commanders. This book is both a good introduction for students of Korean history and of military history.
Rating:
Summary: An Independent and Concise Introduction
Review: THE KOREAN WAR is the kind of introduction one wants. It recounts the history, but it also incites. The author, although supporting the aims of this first of "limited" wars, also never fails to give his own opinion about the US Armed Forces' conduct in the war. The account has several strong points. First, he uses interviews and personal memoirs, to make the account personable. Second, his narrative is fluid and exciting, even when he leaps between battlefield and briefing rooms. Third, he includes an excellent account of the post-WWII situation in Korea and Japan. Fourth, his discussion of MacArthur does not stoop to iconography. Hastings also refers to incidents and policies repeated in Vietnam which help to put the "forgotten war" in its proper context. He does not hesitate to criticize actions, such as the incidents on Goje Island, and is very fair in his portraits of commanders. This book is both a good introduction for students of Korean history and of military history.
Rating:
Summary: Adding Understanding to a Confusing Time In American History
Review: They call Korea the "forgotten war", even though over 33,000 U.S. soldiers were killed in this horrifically short three year span. The conflict for the Korean peninsula is most likely forgotten because it is the most misunderstood of all U.S. conflicts. It arose from the still smoldering ashes of World War II, at a time when many Americans were just nicely adjusting to a life free of strife and death. The people were not ready to make another commitment to bloodshed and most, simply looked away. Max Hastings provides an excellent work discussing the complex history of the Korean War. He not only gives excellent detail and historical insight into battles and other facets of military history, but he also discusses the global ramifications of the war. For example, Hastings discusses the global political instability following World War II, and how this lead to the U.S. policy of containment. Through out the book, Hastings provided equal parts political history and military history. Thus providing the reader with an in-depth understanding of the conflict as a whole. Hastings work comes highly recommended for any that thirst for a greater understanding of the `forgotten war."
Rating:
Summary: Adding Understanding to a Confusing Time In American History
Review: They call Korea the "forgotten war", even though over 33,000 U.S. soldiers were killed in this horrifically short three year span. The conflict for the Korean peninsula is most likely forgotten because it is the most misunderstood of all U.S. conflicts. It arose from the still smoldering ashes of World War II, at a time when many Americans were just nicely adjusting to a life free of strife and death. The people were not ready to make another commitment to bloodshed and most, simply looked away. Max Hastings provides an excellent work discussing the complex history of the Korean War. He not only gives excellent detail and historical insight into battles and other facets of military history, but he also discusses the global ramifications of the war. For example, Hastings discusses the global political instability following World War II, and how this lead to the U.S. policy of containment. Through out the book, Hastings provided equal parts political history and military history. Thus providing the reader with an in-depth understanding of the conflict as a whole. Hastings work comes highly recommended for any that thirst for a greater understanding of the 'forgotten war."
Rating:
Summary: Remarkably detailed and involving
Review: This is a top rate book. The interviews with actual participants in the Korean War make the conflict personal and real. Most interesting are the conversations with the Chinese. Max Hasting's coverage of the 3rd People's Liberation Army involvement in the war is very well done. Between the depth of the coverage of the 1950-51 winter campaign and the intensity of the personal interviews, it's possible to really connect with the people who were there. The book is very well researched. It is presented fairly and the issues all sides bring to the conflict are brough to light. This is not easy reading though and the reality of some of the subject matter (executions of civilians, etc.) is troublesome.
Rating: 
Summary: Uncle Sam's arse saved by bloody Tommies!
Review: This is an ego trip by Max Hastings, a yellow press Brit journalist masquerading as serious historian, who disparaged the US army in Korea as unruly mob saved by the almighty Brits from total communist rout and destruction., when the fact is Tommies have never won any wars since the Boer War, without going to Uncle Sam for help and salvation.
Rating:
Summary: HEARTBREAKING . . . AND DISTURBING
Review: This is an excellent starting point for a study of the Korean War (but certainly not a "sole source.") I grew up during the Viet Nam era and remember questioning how our government and military could have been so incompetent -- how so many lives could have been wasted for no apparent gain. I purchased Max Hastings' book after realizing that I knew very little about the Korean Was (except what I had read in William Manchester's "American Caesar" or in the biograpies of Harry S Truman by David McCullough and Alonzo Hamby). After reading this work, I now find it difficult to understand how the US government could NOT have looked back on this first attempt at a "limited war" and their total misunderstanding of Asian cultures and avoided Viet Nam altogether. Why did I find this book heartbreaking? The descriptions of the humiliating collapse and retreats of the US Army -- only five years after victory in WWII. Why disturbing? Why has this war been "forgotten"? How could the lessons learned here not be applied to Viet Nam? Why has it taken so long for veterans of this conflict to receive (belated) recognition? And just how close did the US come to using nuclear weapons?
| 
