logo
The US Army once ruled Pyongyang and 5 other things you might not know about the Korean War

The US Army once ruled Pyongyang and 5 other things you might not know about the Korean War

CNN —
Seventy-five years ago this week, more than 135,000 North Korean troops invaded South Korea, starting a war that cost millions of lives and left scars that linger to this day.
Yet, the Korean War has been forever overshadowed by World War II, a much larger conflict that ended less than five years earlier. Even the US Army refers to Korea as 'the Forgotten War' – despite more than 36,000 American lives lost.
Sixteen nations, including the United States, sent combat troops in aid of South Korea under the United Nations Command. Chinese troops intervened on the North Korean side.
War broke out on June 25, 1950, when North Korean forces stormed across the 38th parallel dividing North and South Korea. An armistice signed on July 27, 1953, stopped the conflict, but the war never officially ended because there was no peace treaty.
While the twists and turns of today's US-North Korea relationship have put a spotlight on the Korean War's legacy, it is still a widely overlooked conflict.
Here are six things you might not know about the Korean War:
The US Army once controlled one of the world's most secretive cities
It's almost impossible for Americans to travel to North Korea or its capital city Pyongyang. US passport holders are not allowed to go there without special permission from the US State Department.
But for eight weeks in 1950, Pyongyang was under control of the US Army.
Soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Division in Pyongyang in 1950
Everett/Shutterstock
On October 19 of that year, the US Army's 1st Cavalry Division along with a division of South Korean soldiers captured the North Korean capital, according to US Army histories.
The US forces quickly made themselves at home, according to the histories.
By October 22, the US Eighth Army had set up its advance headquarters in what was the headquarters building for North Korean leader Kim Il Sung.
US Marines take cover behind a barricade as street fighting rages in Pyongyang. On the wall in the background are images of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and North Korean leader Kim Il Sung.A picture from the time shows an American intelligence officer sitting at Kim's desk with a portrait of Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin hanging on the wall behind him.
But the US military's occupation of Pyongyang was short-lived. When Chinese troops entered the war in late November 1950, they quickly pushed south and vanquished US forces from Pyongyang by December 5.
The US dropped more bombs on North Korea than on the entire region during WWII
Most images of the Korean War are of ground battles fought in places like the Chosin Reservoir and Incheon. But much of the destruction wreaked on North Korea by the US military was done in a relentless bombing campaign.
During the three years of the Korean War, US aircraft dropped 635,000 tons of bombs – both high explosive and incendiary – on North Korea. That's more than the 500,000 tons of bombs the US dropped in the Pacific in the entirety of the Second World War, according to figures cited by historian Charles Armstrong in the Asia-Pacific Journal.
US Air Force B-29 Superfortresses dropping bombs during the Korean War.
Keystone/Journalists, international observers and American prisoners of war who were in North Korea during the war reported nearly every substantial building had been destroyed. By November 1950, North Korea was advising its citizens to dig holes for housing and shelter.
North Korea didn't keep official casualty figures from the bombings, but information obtained from Russian archives by the Wilson Center's Cold War International History Project put the number at more than 280,000.
Gen. Curtis LeMay, the father of US strategic bombing and the architect of fire raids that destroyed swathes of Japanese cities in World War II, said this of the American bombing of North Korea:
'We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, some way or another.'
An American soldier walks around the rubble of Hamhung, Korea, circa 1950.
stringer/afp/getty images
Armstrong said that bombing of North Korea has effects that linger to this day.
'The DPRK (Democratic Republic of Korea) government never forgot the lesson of North Korea's vulnerability to American air attack, and for half a century after the Armistice continued to strengthen antiaircraft defenses, build underground installations, and eventually develop nuclear weapons to ensure that North Korea would not find itself in such a position again,' Armstrong wrote.
North Korea convinced the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin to let the war happen
When World War II ended, control of the Korean Peninsula – occupied by defeated Japanese troops – was divided between the Soviet Union in the north and the United States in the south.
Kim Il Sung, the leader of North Korea, wanted to unite the two Koreas under communist rule and sought permission of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to do so by force, according to records from the Wilson Center.
A portrait of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin is prepared for a parade in Pyongyang in July 1947.Upon Kim's first request to invade in March 1949, Stalin was wary and did not want to be pulled into a conflict with the United States, which still had occupation troops in South Korea.
But when those troops were pulled in the summer of 1949, Stalin's opposition softened, and by April 1950 the Soviet leader was ready to hear Kim out again when the North Korean leader visited Moscow.
Stalin told Kim that the USSR would back the invasion, but only if Kim got communist China to approve too.
Emboldened by communist China's victory over Nationalist forces in 1949 – in a civil war in which Washington did not intervene – Chinese leader Mao Zedong agreed and offered to be a backup force for North Korean troops in the eventuality the US intervened.
With that, Kim had the green light to invade.
The Korean War saved Taiwan from a potential communist takeover
In 1949, communist China was amassing forces along its coast to invade Taiwan, the island to which Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist forces had fled after losing to Mao and the communists in the Chinese Civil War.
But the outbreak of the Korean War put a big roadblock in the way of communist China's plans – the US Navy. Fearful of the fighting in Korea spreading across East Asia, President Harry Truman dispatched US warships to the waters between China and Taiwan.
The US State Department tells how close Taiwan, now a self-governed democaracy that Beijing still claims as part of China, came to a potential communist takeover.
'In late 1949 and early 1950, American officials were prepared to let PRC (People's Republic of China) forces cross the Strait and defeat Chiang, but after the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, the United States sent its Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent the Korean conflict from spreading south,' reads a passage from the department's Office of the Historian.
'The appearance of the Seventh Fleet angered the Chinese communists, who transferred their troops poised for an invasion of Taiwan to the Korean front,' it reads.
By October 19, 1950, 12 divisions of communist Chinese troops, more than a quarter-million men, were in North Korea, according to a Brookings Institution account.
Those Chinese troops would inflict horrific losses on the US and South Korean troops they faced, eventually driving them out of North Korea completely.
But China also suffered massive losses; more than 180,000 of its troops were killed.
The first jet-vs-jet dogfight
F-80 Shooting Star Korean War-era fighter at National Musuem of the US Air Force
US Air Force
Jet fighters entered military service in World War II with the introduction of the German Messerschmidt 262. But the jet fighters didn't go head-to-head in a 'Top Gun'-style dogfight until the Korean War.
Records seem to agree that first dogfight occurred over Sinuiju in North Korea, near the Yalu River, and its border with China on November 8, 1950. The Americans, flying F-80 Shooting Star jets, were confronted by MiG-15s, Soviet-made jets that were probably being piloted by Soviet pilots from bases in China.
According to a report from the historian of the US Air Force's 51st Fighter Wing, eight to 12 MiGs came after an American flight of four F-80s that day. In a 60-second encounter with one of those MIGs, Air Force 1st Lt. Russell Brown hit a MiG-15 with fire from his jet's cannon and saw it explode in flames, becoming the first jet fighter pilot to score a kill in a dogfight, the report says.
But others dispute that account, with a report from the US Naval Institute (USNI) saying that Soviet records show no MiGs were lost that day.
What is certain is that the next day, November 9, 1950, US Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Amen, flying an F9F fighter off the aircraft carrier USS Philippine Sea, shot down a MiG-15 during airstrikes against bridges on the Yalu River.
Soviet records confirm the MiG-15 loss that day, according to the USNI report.
Four F-80 jet fighters flying at 30,000 feet on their flight from a Japanese base to their mission against the North Korean cCommunist army columns, Korea, July 13, 1950.Later in the war, the US introduced the F-86 jet to the Korean conflict. That plane won fame in battles against the MiG-15 in what was know as 'MiG Alley,' the area along the Korea-China border, where the Soviet pilots flew out of bases on the Chinese side.
The National Museum of the US Air Force in Ohio explains MiG Alley this way:
'Large formations of MiGs would lie in wait on the Manchurian side of the border. When UN aircraft entered MiG Alley, these MiGs would swoop down from high altitude to attack. If the MiGs ran into trouble, they would try to escape back over the border into communist China. (To prevent a wider war, UN pilots were ordered not to attack targets in Manchuria.) Even with this advantage, communist pilots still could not compete against the better-trained Sabre pilots of the US Air Force, who scored a kill ratio of about 8:1 against the MiGs.'
The United States never declared war
Though millions of lives were lost during the fighting on the Korean Peninsula between 1950 and 1953, they were technically casualties of what was called a 'police action.'
Under the US Constitution, only the US Congress can declare war on another nation. But it has not done so since World War II.
When North Korea invaded the South in 1950, US President Harry Truman sent the US military to intervene as part of a combined effort approved by the United Nations Security Council.
'Fifteen other nations also sent troops under the UN command. Truman did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress; officially, America's presence in Korea amounted to no more than a 'police action,'' reads a passage from the US National Archives.
1952: US soldiers dig in to a hill in Korea during the Korean war
Hulton Archive/And those police actions have become the norm for US military intervention ever since. The Vietnam War, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, all have seen US troops enter combat under congressional authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF), according to the US House of Representatives website.
Though the AUMF had been around since the beginning of the republic, 'after World War II … AUMFs became much broader, often granting Presidents sweeping authority to engage America's military around the world,' the US House website says.
'The war was the first large overseas US conflict without a declaration of war, setting a precedent for the unilateral presidential power exercised today,' Emory University law professor Mary Dudziak wrote in a 2019 opinion column for the Washington Post.
'The Korean War has helped to enable this century's forever wars,' Dudziak wrote.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

China Plans Nationwide Cash Incentives to Boost Birth Rate
China Plans Nationwide Cash Incentives to Boost Birth Rate

See - Sada Elbalad

time2 hours ago

  • See - Sada Elbalad

China Plans Nationwide Cash Incentives to Boost Birth Rate

Israa Farhan China is set to roll out a nationwide financial incentive program to encourage couples to have more children, amid a persistent decline in birth rates and a shrinking population. According to sources familiar with the matter, who spoke to Bloomberg on condition of anonymity, the Chinese government plans to offer annual cash subsidies of 3,600 yuan (about $503) for each child born after January 1, 2024. The payments would continue until the child reaches the age of three, as part of a new national policy aimed at reversing the demographic downturn. This initiative comes nearly a decade after China officially ended its decades-long one-child policy. Despite introducing a two-child policy in 2016 and later allowing families to have up to three children, birth rates have continued to decline. In 2023, China recorded just 9.54 million births, almost half the 18.8 million recorded in 2016, the year the one-child policy was scrapped. The trend has raised alarm bells in Beijing, as a shrinking workforce poses long-term risks to the world's second-largest economy by threatening productivity and economic growth. United Nations projections suggest that China's population could drop to 1.3 billion by 2050 and fall further to 800 million by the end of the century, significantly reducing its global economic and demographic influence. In 2023, China also lost its position as the most populous country in the world to India, underscoring the urgent need for effective population growth strategies. read more Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685 NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided News Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks News Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank News Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region News One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid News Israeli-Linked Hadassah Clinic in Moscow Treats Wounded Iranian IRGC Fighters News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier Sports Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer Videos & Features Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall Lifestyle Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt Business Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War News Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks News "Tensions Escalate: Iran Probes Allegations of Indian Tech Collaboration with Israeli Intelligence" Videos & Features Video: Trending Lifestyle TikToker Valeria Márquez Shot Dead during Live Stream News Shell Unveils Cost-Cutting, LNG Growth Plan

Twelve days that reshaped modern war - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
Twelve days that reshaped modern war - World - Al-Ahram Weekly

Al-Ahram Weekly

time17 hours ago

  • Al-Ahram Weekly

Twelve days that reshaped modern war - World - Al-Ahram Weekly

The 12 days of the Israeli-Iranian war were closely observed by both the US and China, who viewed it as a case study for potential future confrontations More than a week has passed since a ceasefire was agreed between Israel and Iran in the 12-day war, one of the most intense conflicts both sides have witnessed in the past two decades. It offers priceless lessons to all nations that fight according to Eastern or Western military doctrines or those blending the two approaches. The Chinese writer Sun Tzu wrote in his book the Art of War that 'if you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.' In fact, both sides understand each other well and have even developed the necessary tactics to achieve optimal results, not only on the military level but also politically. Iran, like other Eastern countries, depends on the A2/AD concept of Anti-Access (A2) and Area Denial (AD). The former is a set of measures aimed at slowing or preventing unfriendly forces from reaching the operational theatre or even operating from long distances. The latter is a set of measures intended to obstruct the manoeuvering of unfriendly forces within the operational theatre. To succeed in such a defence-oriented approach, it is essential to possess advanced electronic and cyber-warfare systems capable of jamming, disrupting, and intercepting communications or radar signals. These systems must be complemented by long-range surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, airborne, ground-based, and naval, as well as a layered integrated air-defence system (IADS) composed of mobile ground-based air defences (GBADs) to counter both long- and short-range threats. These systems should be reinforced by air defence fighters and air superiority assets. Maritime borders must be secured with thousands of naval mines of various types. On the offensive side, it is crucial to maintain an arsenal of thousands of highly accurate guided munitions and missiles of various classes with long ranges that can be launched from land, sea, and air platforms. Significant attention must also be given to submarine warfare, enhancing its capacity to launch cruise missiles and anti-ship weapons. Israel depends on the NATO JAM-GC doctrine, or the 'Joint Access and Maneuver Concept for the Global Commons' that dates from 2015. From this point of view, the ideal solution to counter Eastern military doctrine lies in developing a deeply integrated and interoperable force. This involves merging the capabilities of different branches of the armed forces, air, land, sea, and space, into a unified combat framework. The aim is to conduct offensive operations deep within enemy territory, known as Non-Linear Integrated Attacks (NIA), to achieve three key objectives: disrupting, destroying, and defeating (D3) the adversary's A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) systems. By accomplishing these, the NATO doctrine can ensure that allied forces have the freedom to manoeuvre and operate across contested battlefields without constraints. This strategy succeeds through three primary goals: first, disabling the enemy's command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems; second, destroying the adversary's integrated defence architecture; and third, neutralising any weapons systems introduced into the battlefield during the conflict. These goals are achieved in two main operational phases. The first focuses on the launch of military operations. It begins with resisting the enemy's initial strikes, whether on the frontlines or rear positions of NATO and allied forces, and limiting losses through defensive tactics and manoeuvre warfare. It continues with precision counterstrikes against pre-selected targets, especially command centres and strategic facilities that could disrupt enemy operations. These attacks also include strikes against ballistic missile stockpiles and launchers to neutralise the opponent's offensive capabilities. Simultaneously, efforts are made to regain the initiative across all domains: air, land, sea, and even space. The second phase, called follow-on operations, is designed to maximise bargaining power in any subsequent negotiations. It includes expanding the scope of combat to sustain dominance across all theatres of war, imposing blockades through military force or economic sanctions, and maintaining logistical supply lines alongside ongoing operations. Crucially, it also involves accelerating military production, especially of precision-guided munitions, to keep pace with the demands of high-intensity warfare. All this raises the essential question of which of these two doctrines is the best? Western military doctrine is built on achieving the highest level of combat effectiveness in the shortest possible time, primarily due to the extremely high cost of operations and the complexity of logistical support. In contrast, Eastern doctrine focuses on denying the adversary its points of superiority for as long as possible. It relies on endurance and the low cost of equipment and logistics, albeit with initially lower effectiveness compared to Western systems. However, over the medium and long term, the effectiveness of the Eastern doctrine approaches that of its Western counterpart through adaptive combat learning, studying the enemy, and employing a variety of evolving tactics. This differs sharply from the Western approach, which consistently seeks to impose its own rules of engagement on the battlefield. As a result, the 12-day war witnessed a significant shift and began moving towards its conclusion due to its staggering cost, reaching $2.9 billion in just 12 days for Israel, solely from the use of precision-guided munitions. These expenditures spanned across air defence systems such as Arrow, David's Sling, and Iron Dome, as well as the Israeli Air Force, which played a decisive role in the early stages of the conflict. This role included the use of ballistic missiles like Golden Horizon and Rocks, along with precision-guided bombs such as JDAMs and their Israeli counterparts the MPR500 and Spice series. These were delivered by F-35 fighter jets, which had a critical mission at the beginning of the campaign: penetrating and completely neutralising Iran's air defence network. Israel was spending millions of dollars per day in an intense war of attrition, while Iran was losing a significant portion of its air defence arsenal, air force, and even its missile capabilities, reportedly depleted by two-thirds. Despite these losses, Iran invested its remaining resources in prolonging the conflict as much as possible. It relied almost exclusively on drones of various types, particularly the Shahed-136, 238, and 101 families, as well as Al-Quds cruise missiles. Although these systems achieved limited success due to Israel's resilient air defences, they maintained a high threat level within Israel, with at least one drone reportedly reaching deep into Israeli territory. On the other side, Iran was unable to launch the intense barrages that were initially expected. However, even the small number of missiles that it did launch had a significant psychological impact, arguably more than operational, and this helped prolong Iran's presence in the conflict despite its mounting losses. Iran also employed hypersonic missiles such as the Khorramshahr and Fattah, which managed to breach Israeli air defences, along with highly manoeuverable systems like Kheibar Shekan and Haj Qassem Basir. Additionally, it deployed missiles capable of carrying glide vehicles such as the Emad and Ghadr as well as cluster-munition-equipped variants like the Shahin-3. This diversity of missile threats posed a daily danger to Israel that could not be underestimated. Even a single successful strike had the potential to cause significant destruction. Even when victorious, modern warfare can cost millions of dollars each day alongside the immense logistical challenges required to maintain battlefield dominance. This financial and operational burden is precisely what pushed the 12-day war towards a swift conclusion. Israel accepted a temporary end to hostilities after securing air superiority over Iranian territory, much like its ongoing operational posture towards Hizbullah in Lebanon and the Syrian regime. Iran, for its part, accepted the ceasefire to begin rebuilding its military forces following severe losses in weapons systems. The outcome was closely observed by both the United States and China, who viewed the conflict as a critical case study for learning lessons applicable to potential future confrontations in the Pacific. Sun Tzu defined the golden rule for victory and the supreme art of war as the ability to subdue the enemy without fighting. This is an accurate description of what is now known as 'strategic deterrence.' This primarily relies on a balance between effective strategic planning, efficient tactical execution, and a prudent political approach that avoids rushing into military operations. It denies the adversary an opportunity to fully assess and adapt to a state's military capabilities, something that could otherwise embolden it to escalate small-scale provocations into broader military campaigns. This dynamic played out with Iran, which engaged in repeated limited clashes before eventually escalating its operations. A similar pattern occurred with Israel during the events of 7 October 2023, which followed a series of prior skirmishes with Hamas. * A version of this article appears in print in the 3 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:

Ukraine kills one of the highest-ranking Russian officers of the conflict
Ukraine kills one of the highest-ranking Russian officers of the conflict

Egypt Independent

time21 hours ago

  • Egypt Independent

Ukraine kills one of the highest-ranking Russian officers of the conflict

CNN — The deputy chief of the Russian Navy has been killed by Ukraine in Russia's Kursk region, Oleg Kozhemyako, the governor of the Primorsky region in Russia's far east, said Thursday. Guards Maj. Gen. Mikhail Gudkov, the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy who also led a brigade that fought in Ukraine, was killed in the Russian border region that saw a successful Ukrainian incursion last year. He is one of Russia's highest-ranking officers to have been killed since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago. Kozhemyako previously handed Gudkov awards for bravery and said the two had spoken a lot over the years in a statement announcing the death. He described Gudkov as a 'strong-willed warrior' who had 'died while performing his duty as an officer together with his fellow soldiers.' Kozhemyako did not provide any further details on the circumstances of Gudkov's death. Russia's Ministry of Defense confirmed Gudkov's death on Thursday, saying he was killed in combat in the Kursk region. There has been no immediate comment from Ukraine. Gudkov was appointed as the deputy chief of the Russian Navy for coastal and ground forces by President Vladimir Putin in March. Putin said at the time: 'Since the minister and the Chief of the General Staff believe that your experience needs to be replicated in other units, I have decided to transfer you to a position – to increase your level of responsibility.' The Ukrainian military had previously accused Gudkov and other members of his former 155th brigade of committing war crimes in Ukraine, including the killing of civilians in the towns of Bucha, Irpin and Gostomel in the early months of Russia's war. Separately, the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine has said the 155th brigade was involved in executions of Ukrainian prisoners of war. Russia has consistently denied committing war crimes in Ukraine, despite evidence gathered by the Ukrainians and international investigators.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store