DOCSLIB.ORG

Here There Be Dragons: the Korean War and American Military Response in the Cold War Amanda Sweeney Clemson University, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Here There Be Dragons: the Korean War and American Military Response in the Cold War Amanda Sweeney Clemson University, Amandakayes@Gmail.Com Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 5-2007 Here There Be Dragons: The Korean War and American Military Response in the Cold War Amanda Sweeney Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Part of the Military History Commons Recommended Citation Sweeney, Amanda, "Here There Be Dragons: The Korean War and American Military Response in the Cold War" (2007). All Theses. 129. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/129 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HERE THERE BE DRAGONS: THE KOREAN WAR AND AMERICAN MILITARY RESPONSE IN THE COLD WAR A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts History by Amanda Kaye Sweeney May 2007 Accepted by: Dr. Edwin Moïse, Committee Chair Dr. Alan Grubb Dr. Donald McKale ABSTRACT Starting in June 1950, the Korean War marked the beginning of a new era of warfare. The first limited war to take place in the nuclear age amid increasing Cold War tensions, Korea raised numerous questions of how the U.S. would interact with the Soviet Union in the new international climate. In this climate, both sides strove to maintain the world’s balance of power. Small shifts in that balance, such as in Korea, assumed great importance, forcing the U.S. to act in areas not previously considered vital. Despite the need for a firm response, U.S. actions in Korea were tempered by influences such as atomic weapons, diminished military force, communist expansion, and containment. All of these factors were amplified by the pervasive Cold War mentality of mutual fear and distrust. The course of the Korean War further intensified these suspicions, setting a precedent for U.S. actions throughout the Cold War. iii iv DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my fiancé Phillip. His unfailing love and encouragement are such a blessing. I also dedicate it to my parents, Marla and John, and my church family. Their support has been invaluable. This is for them. v vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS “But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” (2 Corinthians 12:9) I could never have accomplished this on my own, and am deeply indebted to the many people who have helped me reach this point. I would like to thank my committee at Clemson University, Dr. Edwin Moïse, Dr. Alan Grubb, and Dr. Donald McKale. I greatly enjoyed the time in their classes, and appreciate all their guidance on this thesis. I am also very grateful for their flexibility in working with me this semester. I would also like to thank my undergraduate history professors at Erskine College, particularly Dr. Jim Gettys, Dr. Sandra Chaney, and Dr. David Grier. They helped me realize the joy of both the discovery and the recounting of history, and for that I am forever grateful. Most of all I would like to thank my Savior Jesus Christ. It is only through His grace and mercy that I am here. To Him be all the glory. vii viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE..........................................................................................................i ABSTRACT......................................................................................................... iii DEDICATION.......................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................vii LIST OF MAPS ....................................................................................................xi INTRODUCTION: LOOKING BACK AND LOOKING FORWARD ..................................................................................1 CHAPTER I: FORMULA FOR A CRISIS ........................................................................7 II: FIRE ON THE SNOW..............................................................................39 III: THE INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCE.................................................77 The Atomic Question...............................................................................77 Communist Influence on the Korean Conflict.....................................................................................94 IV: THE UNOFFICIAL LIMITED WAR...................................................121 CONCLUSION: ESTABLISHING A PRECEDENT ..............................................................................................165 BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................169 ix x LIST OF MAPS Maps Page 1. Balance of Power in East Central Asia, 1950...............................................16 2. MacArthur’s Areas of Defense .....................................................................20 3a. Pusan Perimeter, August 1950....................................................................140 3b. Pusan Perimeter, September 1950 ..............................................................141 4. U.N. Advance to the Yalu, 24 November 1950..........................................147 5. Chinese Communist Advance, 26 November to 15 December 1950 ................................................................................148 xi xii INTRODUCTION LOOKING BACK AND LOOKING FORWARD We didn't have any [advance] information on this at all. It was a complete surprise to me as it was to nearly everybody else even all over the world. Nobody thought any such thing would take place. I didn't think so. [The Commander in the Far East General Douglas] MacArthur didn't think so. I didn't know of anybody else who did. Then we had to meet the situation when it came up… Keep your minds open and be ready for whatever comes to meet it in the proper manner at that time and don't try to live in the past. Look to the future but use the past as a basis on which to figure out what you want to do in the future. -- Harry S Truman, December 19611 It has been called the forgotten war. In the late twentieth century, it was overshadowed by such events as the Vietnam War, the space and arms races, and the continuing threat of nuclear war. However, the war that began in 1950 would have long lasting implications on warfare in general, and particularly on interactions during the early years of the Cold War. The Korean War highlighted many of the changes in the international picture and mentality that had taken place since the end of World War II five years earlier. These changes were, on the whole, indicative of the mounting tensions between the Soviet Union and the non- communist world, tensions which would establish a manner of interaction that would be seen for the next forty years. One of the most remarkable characteristics of the Korean War was the way the mentalities of those involved with its execution differed from World War II. Part of the difference in mindset stemmed from the new issues in question. One 1 Harry S Truman, Talent Associates Fort Leavenworth Interview (15 December 1961), Papers of Merle Miller, available online <http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/korea/large/korea62550.htm#hst1.1>. Brackets in original text. 1 of the most obvious concerned atomic weapons. It was not until the last months of World War II that policymakers had such weapons to incorporate into battle plans. By the time the Korean War began, on the other hand, the U.S. had embarked upon a program of developing a hydrogen bomb, and the Soviet Union had successfully exploded its first atomic weapon. Each side was also clearly continuing development. Another difference concerned the extent to which the U.S. would intervene in Korea. In World War II, the U.S. joined other Allies whose goal was to force the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. With Korea, however, unconditional surrender ceased to be an option. Much of the mounting tensions centered on the question of the balance of power between the communist and non- communist worlds. This balance extended into peripheral areas of influence, such as Korea. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were determined at least to maintain, if not increase, their areas of influence. The common belief at the time was that the Soviet Union had this goal as part of its fundamental makeup. The U.S. therefore was acting to defend non-communist areas of the world from that inherent threat.2 In addition to the concern over the balance of power, another issue restricting U.S. action in Korea was that neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union wanted to embark upon another war similar to the one that had just ended. Along with the magnified threat that came with mutual development of increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapons, there was considerable belief that they would be 2 See George F. Kennan’s writings for this perspective, among many others. Also see Chapter II for more information on this perspective, as connected to the policy of containment. 2 used in any large-scale conflict. Even though policymakers in the late 1940s did not attribute to the weapons the same kind of destructive power as was seen a decade later,3 it was still clear that using these weapons would represent a fundamental—and dangerous—shift in international diplomacy. These and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Surprise, Security, and the American Experience Jan Van Tol
    Naval War College Review Volume 58 Article 11 Number 4 Autumn 2005 Surprise, Security, and the American Experience Jan van Tol John Lewis Gaddis Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation van Tol, Jan and Gaddis, John Lewis (2005) "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience," Naval War College Review: Vol. 58 : No. 4 , Article 11. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol58/iss4/11 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen van Tol and Gaddis: Surprise, Security, and the American Experience BOOK REVIEWS HOW COMFORTABLE WILL OUR DESCENDENTS BE WITH THE CHOICES WE’VE MADE TODAY? Gaddis, John Lewis. Surprise, Security, and the American Experience. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2004. 150pp. $18.95 John Lewis Gaddis is the Robert A. U.S. history, American assumptions Lovell Professor of History at Yale Uni- about national security were shattered versity and one of the preeminent his- by surprise attack, and each time U.S. torians of American, particularly Cold grand strategy profoundly changed as a War, security policy. Surprise, Security, result. and the American Experience is based on After the British attack on Washington, a series of lectures given by the author D.C., in 1814, John Quincy Adams as in 2002 addressing the implications for secretary of state articulated three prin- American security after the 11 Septem- ciples to secure the American homeland ber attacks.
    [Show full text]
  • BURTON I. KAUFMAN (Blacksburg, VA, USA)
    BURTON I. KAUFMAN (Blacksburg, VA, USA) INTRODUCTION: THE WORLD REMAINS A DANGEROUS PLACE Most politica! analysts agree that the Cold War ended in 1989, when revolutions in Poland and Hungary quickly spread to other East Eu- ropean countries, toppling existing Communist regimes and shattering the Iron Curtain that had divided Eastern and Western Europe for almost forty-five years. Much of the credit for these developments has been given to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who promoted economic and political liberalization in the Soviet Union through his policies of pe;e- s,rolka and glasnost', restricted the use of Soviet military power to main- tain Soviet hegemonic control over Eastern Europe and sought new and fruitful openings to the West. In 1992, of course, these same liberal poli- cies led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union itself, following an un- successful coup against Gorbachev. In a fine history on the end of the Cold War, Washington Post re- porter Don Oberdorfer has also attributed considerable credit to Presi- dent Ronald Reagan. Believing when he took office in 1981 that the So- viet Union was an "evil empire" (the term he used in a 1983 speech), Reagan was nevertheless anxious to ease tensions between Washington and Moscow. Determined to strengthen America's military posture, he was unalterably committed to his.Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or "Star Wars"), despite Gorbachev's equatty resolute opposition to it. Throughout most of Reagan's administration, in fact, SDI remained the major impedi- ment to a Soviet-American disarmament agreement. in the end, however, the Soviets realized they could not afford the costs of competing with the United States in the development of sophisticated and enormously expensive military technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Cold War Triumphalism and the Reagan Factor
    Cold War Triumphalism and the Reagan Factor Onur İŞÇİ* Abstract Key Words Three decades after Gorbachev’s 1986 Cold War Triumphalism, Reagan Victory Glasnost campaign, the sudden death of School, US-Soviet Confrontation, Demise of the the Soviet Union still continues to keep USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev. diplomatic historians busy with its momentous implications. The mutually excluding political realms of the Cold War forged a conservative In 1986 the Union of Soviet Socialist American historical discourse, which perceived the Soviet Union as an evil empire. Existing Republics finally became the toast of biases against Moscow continued after the American diplomats, who believed Soviet collapse and were conjured up in a new that global harmony was a step closer. scholarly genre that might properly be termed as After four decades of superpower “the Reagan Victory School”. The adherents of conflict, the new Russia was seen as a this school suggest that President Reagan’s resolve and unsophisticated yet faithfully pragmatic long lost friend that reemerged from its foreign policy designs – the Strategic Defense ashes, promising to adopt democracy Initiative (SDI) in particular – became the and a liberal market economy. Mikhail major factor behind the Soviet Union’s demise Gorbachev’s Glasnost and Perestroika and America’s “triumph” after the Cold War. signaled the end of a modern period Looking at several influential monographs on the subject, this paper seeks to demonstrate the in history that had been economically well nuanced yet often mono-causal notions and politically exhausting for virtually vocalized by American scholars of Cold War the whole world. Faced with a serious triumphalism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolving Interpretations of the Origins of the Cold War
    Háskóli Íslands Hugvísindasvið Rússneska The Evolving Interpretations of the Origins of the Cold War Have Historians Reached a Consensus on the Origins of the Cold War? Ritgerð til B.A. prófs Saga Helgason Morris Kt.: 011097-3329 Leiðbeinandi: Jón Ólafsson 1 Abstract The Cold War and its origins have been a constant source of debate among historians and quite rightly so. With no access to Soviet archives until 1991 and the outcome of the hostilities unknown, historians were left to draw their own conclusions from official documents and published propaganda. Hence, as with any historical event, interpretations have changed over time. In this paper, I set out to explore whether assessments have shifted to a degree whereby historians today have come together in their understanding of the origins of the Cold War. In order to answer this question, an investigation is required to explore how and why these historical perspectives have changed. First, the two traditional viewpoints of the Cold War are discussed, namely the orthodox and revisionist interpretations. The orthodox view places responsibility on the USSR for the development of the Cold War whereas the revisionist view argues that the hostilities developed as a result of reacting to one another’s actions. Subsequently, the viewpoints of a selected group of post-Cold War historians are explored. Gaddis argues that hostilities between the United States and Soviet Union had their roots in the nations’ different perceptions of security. Zubok and Pleshakov maintain that Stalin’s character and diplomatic actions were of particular importance in the onset of the Cold War.
    [Show full text]
  • Camp David's Shadow
    Camp David’s Shadow: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Question, 1977-1993 Seth Anziska Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2015 © 2015 Seth Anziska All rights reserved ABSTRACT Camp David’s Shadow: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Question, 1977-1993 Seth Anziska This dissertation examines the emergence of the 1978 Camp David Accords and the consequences for Israel, the Palestinians, and the wider Middle East. Utilizing archival sources and oral history interviews from across Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, the United States, and the United Kingdom, Camp David’s Shadow recasts the early history of the peace process. It explains how a comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict with provisions for a resolution of the Palestinian question gave way to the facilitation of bilateral peace between Egypt and Israel. As recently declassified sources reveal, the completion of the Camp David Accords—via intensive American efforts— actually enabled Israeli expansion across the Green Line, undermining the possibility of Palestinian sovereignty in the occupied territories. By examining how both the concept and diplomatic practice of autonomy were utilized to address the Palestinian question, and the implications of the subsequent Israeli and U.S. military intervention in Lebanon, the dissertation explains how and why the Camp David process and its aftermath adversely shaped the prospects of a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians in the 1990s. In linking the developments of the late 1970s and 1980s with the Madrid Conference and Oslo Accords in the decade that followed, the dissertation charts the role played by American, Middle Eastern, international, and domestic actors in curtailing the possibility of Palestinian self-determination.
    [Show full text]
  • Mestic Or Even International Economic Policies, the Country Was a Strategic Ally of the United States, Whereas the Soviet Union
    Book Reviews mestic or even international economic policies, the country was a strategic ally of the United States, whereas the Soviet Union was a geopolitical and ideological adversary after the war. Hearden’s determination to prove the revisionist thesis limits the value of his study in other places. Many scholars, including prominent revisionists, would dispute Hearden’s claim that the “foreign policy of the United States did not undergo any fun- damental change when Roosevelt died and [Harry] Truman moved into the White House” (p. 314). It is hard to square the statement that in 1933 “Roosevelt shared” the State Department’s “internationalist outlook” if we bear in mind the president’s ef- fort to sabotage the London Economic Conference, a meeting called to halt the world’s descent into economic nationalism. Hearden also seems unaware of the de- cades-old work of Marc Trachtenberg, Stephen Schuker, and Walter McDougall on the reparations question and Germany. It was the British, not the French, who inºated the reparations numbers, and, contrary to Hearden’s assertions, Woodrow Wilson did little to stop them. Furthermore, the reparations issue revolved around a political question—the willingness of Germany to pay—as opposed to a purely eco- nomic question, the capacity to pay. Finally, the link between economic depression and war is not clear-cut. Both the United States and the Soviet Union faced tremen- dous economic pressures in the 1930s. But instead of expanding, both giants turned inward and isolationist, with dangerous results. Most important, the new world order that emerged after World War II bore little resemblance to the vision espoused by the American “architects.” The British failed in their attempts to make sterling convertible and maintained many of their imperial preferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights in the Cold
    17 HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE COLD WAR Sarah B. Snyder Scholars interested in human rights during the Cold War are increasingly producing innovative new work on the issue.1 Unfortunately, human rights has not yet warranted serious, sustained consideration by those writing survey accounts of the Cold War. For example, John Lewis Gaddis’ The Cold War mentions human rights in connection with only four subjects: the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy, the United Nations, and the Helsinki Final Act.2 Yet, human rights mattered to international relations at far more points in the Cold War. We can think of the Cold War as bookended by two major human rights developments – agreement to the 1948 United Nations (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the influence of human rights and human rights advocacy on the end of the Cold War. In between, attention to human rights abuses internationally was inconsistent and often overshadowed by the perceived stakes of the Cold War in political, military, ideological, and economic terms. Existing scholarship on human rights in the Cold War has repeatedly pointed to two human rights “booms” – one in the late 1940s and one in the 1970s.3 This chapter, however, will argue that the pattern was more undulating and that moments might be a more useful framework for understanding when human rights emerged as a priority in international relations.4 Human Rights during the Early Cold War Building upon the UN Charter’s affirmation of respect for human rights, the UN Human Rights Commission began drafting a document that outlined international human rights norms and protected individual freedoms in 1947.5 Members of the Human Rights Commission considered the devastation of World War Two and former United States President Franklin D.
    [Show full text]
  • On Grand Strategy by John Lewis Gaddis
    On Grand Strategy of scholarship on post–World War II American foreign policy and strategies of containment, squarely in the camp of “historians.” As a rule, the By John Lewis Gaddis historians’ approach to grand strategy proceeds Penguin Press, 2017 inductively, reviewing historical cases and deriving 384 pp., $ 23.40 appropriate insights and lessons. In contrast, social ISBN: 9-781-59420-351-0 scientists proceed deductively, identifying theo- ries of grand strategy and citing relevant historical Reviewed By James MacDougall examples. Rounding out Martel’s general typology are practitioners whose views on grand strategy ith an historian’s keen eye for detail are based on practical professional experience and and nuance, John Lewis Gaddis sur- military strategists whose principal focus is the use Wveys a variety of case studies from the of military power to achieve national objectives.3 Peloponnesian War to World War II in his new In this his most recent book, Gaddis remains book On Grand Strategy, identifying in the pro- firmly in the historians camp. To begin, he defines cess several general precepts that may help guide grand strategy as, “the alignment of potentially modern-day grand strategists. The book is not, unlimited aspirations with necessarily limited however, a how-to guide for formulating grand capabilities.”4 He examines a range of historical strategy or conducting statecraft. It is rather more case studies to arrive at his central insight that an examination of select strategic leaders and the “You proportion aspirations to capabilities. These ways in which they pursued priority objectives; are opposites—the first being free from limits and some successfully, some not so.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO in the Beholder's Eye: Soviet Perceptions and Policies, 1949-1956
    WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS Christian Ostermann, Lee H. Hamilton, NATO in the Beholder’s Eye: Director Director Soviet Perceptions and Policies, 1949-56 BOARD OF ADVISORY TRUSTEES: COMMITTEE: Vojtech Mastny Joseph A. Cari, Jr., William Taubman Chairman (Amherst College) Steven Alan Bennett, Working Paper No. 35 Chairman Vice Chairman PUBLIC MEMBERS Michael Beschloss (Historian, Author) The Secretary of State Colin Powell; The Librarian of James H. Billington Congress (Librarian of Congress) James H. Billington; The Archivist of the United States Warren I. Cohen John W. Carlin; (University of Maryland- The Chairman of the Baltimore) National Endowment for the Humanities Bruce Cole; John Lewis Gaddis The Secretary of the (Yale University) Smithsonian Institution Lawrence M. Small; The Secretary of James Hershberg Education (The George Washington Roderick R. Paige; University) The Secretary of Health & Human Services Tommy G. Thompson; Samuel F. Wells, Jr. (Woodrow Wilson PRIVATE MEMBERS Washington, D.C. Center) Carol Cartwright, John H. Foster, March 2002 Sharon Wolchik Jean L. Hennessey, (The George Washington Daniel L. Lamaute, University) Doris O. Mausui, Thomas R. Reedy, Nancy M. Zirkin COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL HISTORY PROJECT THE COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL HISTORY PROJECT WORKING PAPER SERIES CHRISTIAN F. OSTERMANN, Series Editor This paper is one of a series of Working Papers published by the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. Established in 1991 by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Cold War International History Project (CWIHP) disseminates new information and perspectives on the history of the Cold War as it emerges from previously inaccessible sources on “the other side” of the post-World War II superpower rivalry.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cold War Was Not a Matter of Culpability
    APPENDIX The Cold War Was Not a Matter of Culpability “ idStalin...seeka Cold War?” The question is like asking: ‘[D]oes a fish seek water?’” With these words, John Lewis Gad- Ddis, the foremost U.S. analyst of the Cold War, seeks to under- score his conviction that the Soviet leader was responsible for the Cold War.1 Gaddis acknowledges that, because of the circumstances, even without Stalin a Cold War might have ensued. But he stresses that Stalin’s “dispositional behavior,” specifically, his lifelong “disposition to wage cold wars” annulled any chance that the United States and the Soviet Union could have overcome their differences at the end of the Sec- ond World War.2 Two factors led me to question Gaddis’s line of argument. According to Gaddis, social psychologists attribute causes to the actions of individu- als by categorizing them into either “dispositional” or “situational” behavior. Dispositional behavior, notes Gaddis, reflects deeply rooted per- sonal characteristics that do not change, regardless of the circumstances under which people find themselves. Situational behavior, on the other hand, changes with circumstances; the way individuals respond to events is determined more by the event than by the individuals’ personal traits. Gaddis uses this distinction to propose that Stalin’s dispositional tenden- cies prevented him from abandoning in world politics the paranoia that defined his domestic politics. Gaddis’s exceptional qualities as a historian notwithstanding, he wholly misconstrues the distinction between the two forms of behavior, and the intent for creating the categories. To begin with, the difference is spelled out by attribution theorists, who created the two categories not for the purpose of differentiating people according to whether they respond to an event based on their personality or the situation, but in order to contrast the way responses to events are perceived by the actors 280 • Appendix and those observing the actions of the actors.
    [Show full text]
  • John Lewis Gaddis on Learning the Scholar's Craft
    H-Diplo H-Diplo Essay 208- John Lewis Gaddis on Learning the Scholar’s Craft: Reflections of Historians and International Relations Scholars Discussion published by George Fujii on Friday, March 27, 2020 H-Diplo Essay 208 Essay Series on Learning the Scholar’s Craft: Reflections of Historians and International Relations Scholars 27 March 2020 Maybe You Can Go Home Again https://hdiplo.org/to/E208 Series Editor: Diane Labrosse | Production Editor: George Fujii Essay by John Lewis Gaddis, Yale University My home town in Texas has two claims to fame. Cotulla, founded in 1881 and located halfway between San Antonio and Laredo, quickly became notorious for its feuds, shootouts, and murders: it was, the El Paso Times reported five years later, “the toughest place” in the state.[1] In due course, though, it settled down, and by 1928 when the twenty year old Lyndon B. Johnson arrived to teach in its segregated “Mexican” school, Cotulla was on the way to earning its second claim—its very own chapter in Robert Caro’s epic biography.[2] It was, by then, a placid backwater. Or would have been if it had rained more often. I was born there in 1941. My parents grew up a block from one another. My brothers and I walked to school past only two houses, each occupied by relatives. Our dad’s drugstore, whose soda fountain made it the town’s social center, was three blocks in the other direction, past the telephone exchange where operators still asked, when you picked up your phone, “Number please?” None had more than three digits, and no calls came through during nap time.
    [Show full text]
  • Mao's American Strategy and the Korean War
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-2005 Mao's American strategy and the Korean War/ Wanli, Hu University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Hu, Wanli,, "Mao's American strategy and the Korean War/" (2005). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 864. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/864 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 312Qbb 02AA 7fifiM <1 MAO'S AMERICAN STRATEGY AND THE KOREAN WAR A Dissertation Presented by WANLI HU Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTORY OF PHILOSOPHY February 2005 History © Copyright by Wanli Hu All Rights Reserved MAO'S AMERICAN STRATEGY AND THE KOREAN WAR A Dissertation Presented by WANLI HU Approved as to style and content by: Stephen E. Pelz, Chair/ Steven M. Goldstein, Member ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this moment to express my great thanks to my advisor and committee chair, Stephen E. Pelz, for his thoughtful, patient guidance and support for many years. I also own a debt of gratitude to Steven M. Goldstein whose critical comments greatly increased the depth of my dissertation. Thanks are also attributed to the members of my committee, Carl Nightingale and Jonathan Lipman, for their useful instructions and suggestions.
    [Show full text]