‘The Korean War was never going to escalate to a wider war, Stalin’s attitude made sure of that.’ Is this convincing? Why or why not? (Midterm)

HY2217 WAR AND SOCIETY, POST-1945

Midterm Exam 2006:

‘The Korean War was never going to escalate to a wider war, Stalin’s attitude made sure of that.’ Is this convincing? Why or why not?

Name: Wong Ern Ching Ian

“The Korean War was never going to escalate to a wider war, Stalin’s attitude made sure of that.” This statement suggests that a wider war was impossible due to Stalin’s attitude. Stalin’s attitude in this matter was his refusal to allow the USSR to get into an open war with the US. A “wider war” in this case would mean a war beyond the borders of Korea, or a war which would include more participants beyond China, the UN coalition, the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). To a large extent, this statement is not convincing because it places all the initiative and impetus for widening the war in the hands of Stalin.

However, Stalin did play a major role in the containment of the war in Korea. His absolute refusal to start open war with the US meant that the war was fought for interests pertaining to the Korean peninsular. In essence, China fought for the DPRK’s existence while the UN Coalition fought for the ROK’s existence, other war aims were secondary, which is why the eventual armistice was accepted. The lack of proper Soviet assistance meant that there was no legitimate reason to extend the war to Soviet territory. Stalin forbade his pilots from flying near the frontline, as a captured Soviet pilot could allow the US to take the moral high ground on any retaliation.

Stalin’s willingness to give up North Korea shows the extent of his wish to prevent a war with the US. This results in the initiative falling to America and China. Neither of them wished to extend the war beyond Korean borders, so it is safe to say Stalin’s insistence not to get deeply involved in the conflict meant that he did not force the US to take more extreme measures. The Chinese also understood that conquest of the peninsular was very unlikely without proper Soviet help, resulting in more limited war aims. Piecemeal Soviet assistance thus prevented escalation of the war.

It is highly improbable that China could have escalated the war as a key actor. It simply did not have the resources to do so. It did have antagonists in Taiwan, and Japan was the base re-supplying UN forces, but China lacked the impetus to deal a blow to either of them while the Korean War raged. Writing off China as a possible candidate for escalation of the conflict lends weight to the argument that Stalin held all the cards.

However, the statement’s key weakness is its failure to recognise the US as a key actor who could have widened the conflict. The US had the means to carry the war over to China and Russia, and indeed Gen. MacArthur and many Americans expressed the willingness to do so. Truman fired MacArthur to ensure US foreign policy remained in the hands of the President. Truman’s aims were to prevent the expansion of the war. Thus Truman’s attitude, in effect, also prevented the widening of the conflict.

It can be said that the general Soviet attitude also worked to prevent the widening of the conflict, not merely Stalin’s. The Soviets were well aware that it was not in their interests in fighting a war with the US, especially since they were still recovering from a ruinous WWII. Thus it can be said it was the USSR in general who ensured no widening of hostilities.

Some might say Stalin’s death worked to prevent widening of hostilities. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union became receptive to end the conflict on acceptable terms instead of victorious terms. Stalin was increasingly deranged up till his death, and could have dragged the USSR into open war in a fit of madness, but we will never know.

Had the Chinese been unwilling to end the conflict on acceptable terms, the Americans could have escalated the war. Indeed they threatened to do so and had the means to back up their threat: “… in all probability, it would not be possible to confine hostilities within the frontiers of Korea”. Thus China did not force the hand of the US, and shares some responsibility of ending the conflict. On the other hand, if China refused to negotiate, it would still fall to the US to take action.

One can also argue that the UN prevented widening the war by turning a blind eye to the Russian involvement. Although there was evidence of this, no Russian prisoners were ever taken. Thus the UN was not bound to taking any disciplinary action on Russia, allowing containment of the conflict.

However, of all the actors discussed, only Russia and the US had the actual means to widen the war. Other actors were still highly dependent on the actions of these two nations. Nationalist Chinese had a willingness to participate fighting in the Korean War. Such an act would extend the war to Taiwan. The US declined the offer, showing that initiative in containing the war also fell to the US.

It can also be said that if the US carried out any major operations on Chinese soil, Russia would be bound by her alliance with China to declare open war with the US. US military action in Manchuria was very limited and mainly covert, thus making it convenient for the Russians to remain assisting the Chinese on a lukewarm basis as well, despite Chinese requests for increased Russian involvement.

In conclusion, the statement “The Korean War was never going to escalate to a wider war, Stalin’s attitude made sure of that.” is not convincing firstly because this assumption was based on hindsight. We cannot assume something was impossible just because it did not happen. Secondly, the statement fails to acknowledge the US as a key player in containing the war. Throughout the war, the US also held the initiative and impetus for widening the war. It would be safer to say “US and Russian policy prevented the Korean War from escalating to a wider war.”

(word count: 999)