As almost every other reviewer has noted, this book is not a history of the Korean War, despite the title. It's more of a collection of historical essays on the Korean War, focusing largely on atrocities committed by US and ROK forces on South Korean civilians and the lack of balance in what little there is written about the war. Cumings is not shy about his political sympathies, which will turn off many readers.

That said, every horrifying event presented in the book is backed up by thorough research from unimpeachable sources, including declassified US and ROK documents as well as the findings of the South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

This would be a five-star if the title were more honest and the writer were a little less strident. I'm afraid the general tone of the book is going to alienate the people who need to read it the most.

An excellent (and detailed history) of the Korean War (my father fought there), yet the effort would have been more appreciated had the author not marbled the book so heavily with opinions blaming a permissive society for a sub-par US fighting force. The ranting does nothing to further the book, and the author doesn't support his assertions. The rest of the books is first-rate.

times change and so do our expectations and language. there's some 1920s era world history free ebook floating around, and although the work is completely readable, the modern reader is somewhat shocked to see written without any sense of irony

the Negro should blame himself for his plight, for nations must organize themselves first...

as if, of course, Africans or African-Americans are one person, 'the Negro...'

T.R. Fehrenbach wrote his classic 1961 Korean War history just before the 60s sexual and social revolution. so in two or three places, Fehrenbach writes things like

the North Korean soldier could survive on three rice balls a day

but actually aside from this and the de rigeur criticism of the ROK army, Fehrenbach's work is still surprisingly readable, accessible, and valuable today. he isn't quite as military-focused as the paratrooper officer Max Hastings. unlike Halberstam he doesn't drown the book half in criticism of Douglas MacArthur, but he does provide some coverage of Chipyongni and the North Korean prison revolt on their POW island in the south. overall the work is professional and proficient.

one can imagine the steel nerves
required of leaders in Pyongyang, observing
a lone B-29 simulating the attack lines that
had resulted in the devastation of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki just six years earlier, each time
unsure of whether the bomb was real or a
dummy.

with lines like this, we call Bruce Cumings a "pinko" or "Commie" and return to our mint juleps on dis heah hot suh-thern daye.

ah have read three accounts of thuh korean woah ... and this is the mos' leftie of them.

are you a communist sir? are you telling me that King Jong Un has 'nerves of steel?' well sir, ah am questioning how american you done call yoahself. mai great great granddaddy he done fought at shiloh and at coald ha-bah. when he had taken off his loyal gray... I mean a'hem...anyways

in contrast to the 50% MacArthur-obsessed [a:David Halberstam|42850|David Halberstam|http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1177391309p2/42850.jpg] or the militant [a:Max Hastings|31233|Max Hastings|http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1269308046p2/31233.jpg], Cumings provides a fairly straightforward but modern story, one that dwells for only three chapters on the actual war and them summarizes much of the post-war liberal reassessment, namedropping even to Don DeLillo as an illustration of its modernity, and pointing out UN atrocities that have only recently come to light. this 2010 work has none of the martial certainty of the 1980s Hastings work [b:The Korean War|55407|The Korean War (Pan Grand Strategy)|Max Hastings|http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1170449855s/55407.jpg|2252480].

Popular history is a difficult genre--this is not a scholarly book. For my part I wish it were, but Pettid does a fairly good job (if not a particularly engaging one) of striking a balance.

One sour point: for a literary scholar he's oddly credulous re: the Tangun myth. A little more history, Prof. Pettid, eh?