70 Years Later: The Legacy of the Korean War

June 25 marked the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War, one of the deadliest conflicts of the last century. In addition to North and South Korea, the war involved combat and support forces from 18 countries and would claim millions of lives, most of which were civilians, in just three short years. As many recently commemorated the fighting that took place decades ago, it is also worthwhile to reflect on how today’s world has been influenced by the conflict, especially as many of the issues precipitating the war continue to underpin tensions on the peninsula.

The division of Korea into two ideologically opposed states, providing the necessary adversaries for war, directly resulted from post-World War II planning among the victors. The peninsula had been united for centuries under the Joseon dynasty before its short-lived elevation to the Korea Empire in the very late 1800s. Then came Japanese occupation of Korea from 1910 to 1945. With Nazi Germany’s defeat, the Soviet Union (USSR) declared war on Imperial Japan in early August 1945 and started marching troops down the Korean Peninsula. This was in line with what Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin and U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt had agreed to during the Yalta Conference in February 1945, which also committed the United States to the invasion of Japan. Yet, with the final development and use of the nuclear bomb resulting in Tokyo’s imminent collapse by August 1945, Washington was not prepared to completely hand over the Korean Peninsula to the Soviets. The United States thus proposed placing the peninsula into zones of occupation divided along the 38th parallel, which was accepted by the USSR.  

Although Moscow and Washington agreed to joint trusteeship of Korea in 1945 to be followed by independence within five years, rising Cold War tensions and internal disagreements about the future of governing the peninsula would solidify what was supposed to be a temporary split into a lasting one. It should be remembered that at the onset neither the Soviet nor American sphere, which would become North and South Korea, respectively, in 1948, was naturally aligned with the ideologies of the great powers. There were anti-communist riots in the north in 1945 and Communist Party members in the south even after the country’s official establishment, leading to bloody internal suppression in Jeju and South Jeolla provinces. Each side was far from politically homogenous, but became increasingly more so in the lead-up to conflict.

The Korean War was born out of this antagonistic environment, which the war in turn helped to cement. North Korean leader Kim Il Sung may have struck the first blow when his troops crossed into the south on June 26, 1950, but it was with the blessing of Stalin, who had been persuaded by Kim’s depiction of a weak enemy and lukewarm commitment in Washington to aid their friends in Seoul. Kim was right about his ability to roll over South Korean forces, but misjudged American willingness to get more involved. U.S. General Douglas MacArthur’s amphibious assault on Incheon with UN forces in September turned the tide of the war in favor of the United States, but his march nearly to the Yalu River resulted in Chinese forces coming to North Korea’s aid. The joint Chinese-North Korea effort pushed UN forces back across the 38th parallel by early the next year.

What ensued was two and a half more years of bloody and destructive conflict without a resolution to the partition of the peninsula. The two sides fought at or around the 38th parallel until July 27, 1953 when the armistice was signed. It laid out plans to transform the ceasefire into a peace deal the following year. However, when all parties met in Geneva they were unable to come to an agreement, keeping in place the border that we still see on the peninsula today.

Of course, the enduring relevance of the Korean War is more than just how it set political borders. In North Korea, the war still serves as a major source of legitimacy for leader Kim Jong Un, much as it did for this father and grandfather. In the course of the war, the United States dropped more bombs on North Korea than it had in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. This destruction, alongside atrocities committed by American soldiers during the war, both real and fabricated, has buttressed the Kim dynasty’s power through claims of keeping foreign aggressors – namely the United States – at bay. This has contributed to perpetuating the status quo as the two Koreas have increasingly drifted apart in everything ranging from the outlook for economic growth to individual freedoms.

While the South has grown used to the threat of the North, the lack of a conclusion to the war continues to shape the everyday lives of millions of people. This especially rings true for young South Korean men, who are conscripted into military service for nearly two years in case of attack from North Korea. Additionally, U.S. forces may have been on the peninsula prior to the war, but the conflict played a major role in creating the U.S.-South Korea military alliance, resulting in the long-term deployment of American troops and establishment of U.S. military bases. Perhaps most important is how the drawn-out separation is affecting perceptions of national identity. According to recent polling, South Koreans now view unification as less necessary and even the majority of those who support it do so for pragmatic reasons, such as eliminating the threat of war, rather than a sense of shared identity.

The Korean War should also be remembered for its impact beyond the peninsula. The massive U.S. demand for provisions and logistics sparked Japan’s decades-long economic miracle, later encouraging other countries in the region, including South Korea, to adopt similar developmental state policies to support growth. Seoul has also long shown its appreciation to countries that contributed to its defense, mostly recently sending COVID-19 test kits to Korean War veterans around the world. Indeed, without UN help during the conflict it seems unlikely the South Korea that we know today would have ever existed, posing a long list of questions with unknowable answers as to what would have taken its place instead, particularly after the collapse of the USSR. Similarly, Taiwan’s existence as a separate polity may have been short-lived if the United States had not sent a fleet to defend it at the outbreak of the war, while Beijing put its planned invasion on hold to assist its communist brethren in Korea.

Although the Cold War may have ended 30 years ago, the Korean Peninsula is a reminder that not all of its many conflicts have been resolved. Despite numerous advancements since, the same issues that were too difficult to address in 1950 still have proved insurmountable today, though influenced by different factors. Disagreement on North Korea’s nuclear program has sidelined recent peace deal efforts, which could open the door for the normalization of relations between Pyongyang and Seoul. Behind this disagreement are the same forces of division incubated from 1945 to 1950, underpinned by great power influence, that led to conflict. It may feel strange that the effects of a war started over 70 years ago and without a major battle in nearly as many years are still in some ways as strong as they once were, but such is the complicated reality with which we are faced.