In the middle of the 20th century, China, the United States, North Korea and South Korea fought fiercely on the Korean Peninsula for three years. Millions of lives were devastated and countless homes were destroyed, but the ceasefire line returned to the 38th parallel. Entering the 21st century, Northeast Asia is still shaken and dominated by the fierce war 60 years ago, and it is difficult to get rid of it. In contrast, other old enemies in the hot and cold wars of the 20th century have already made peace (with the possible exception of Japan). Only on the Korean peninsula, millions of troops are still eyeing each other, ready to fight against each other; although there is no war, there are constant frictions.

A paper agreement in 1953 said it was a truce, but it was actually a truce, and it was also a resumption of war? ! In this sense, the "little bitter war" that broke out 63 years ago can be regarded as a real battle across the century. However, no matter what future generations comment on the gains and losses, victories and losses, crimes and punishments of that war, history has been rewritten when China, the United States and North Korea (except South Korea) signed the armistice agreement 60 years ago: it was the first war since the founding of the United States. The invincible battle is also China's first undefeated record in overseas wars since the Opium War in more than a hundred years.

Relying on crude equipment, tenacious will, and flexible strategies and tactics, the soldiers of the Chinese Volunteers faced opponents with absolute technological advantages in land, sea and air, and forced the coalition forces approaching the Yalu River back to the 37th line. The ending of the Korean War was a pioneering move by the young republic, and it was also the first step in the historic rise of our troubled nation in the past century, and it was recorded in history as a turning point in Northeast Asian geopolitics. The book "Korean War: The Unrevealed Truth", which was published in the United States 30 years ago, from the perspective of an American author, records this "limited war" that lasted three years and shocked the world. ".

Over the past 60 years, the views of the U.S. ruling and opposition parties on the Korean War (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean War") can be summed up as "collective amnesia" (national amnesia).The American publishing industry has a huge number of publications on the Vietnam War, but there are very few books on the Korean War, and most of them are "forgotten" (forgotten), "untold" (untold) and other themes.The famous writer David Halberstam became famous in 1972 with "The Best and Brightest" (The Best and Brightest) which exposed the wrong decision-making in the Vietnam War. The Corps' devastating tome, The Coldest Winter: The Korean War Through American Eyes, was not published until months after his death in 2007.Publishing is aphasic, and Hollywood is amnesiac.The screens in the United States are full of scenes from World War II and the Vietnam War, but Korean War works are rare.Even the Korean War sculpture group in the capital Washington was completed in 1995, 42 years after the armistice, 12 years later than the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall built in 1982, which was completed seven years after the end of the Vietnam War.It was not until the end of 2009 that the US Congress passed a bill commemorating the Korean War.

The Korean War: The Unrevealed Truth, published in 1982 by the American political commentator Joseph Gulden, is an earlier comprehensive work that is rare among American writings on the Korean War.The "Freedom of Information Act" (Freedom of Information Act) promulgated by the US government in 1967 requires that the records and archives of the federal government be limited to 25, 50 and 75 years, and in principle be open to everyone.Gulden made full use of the U.S. government's archives on the Korean War that were declassified in the late 1970s, and interviewed many people involved and insiders in the following four years to complete this "insider" work. The American public could be regarded as a dose of sobriety.

The United States has collectively lost its memory of the North Korean War for many years. There are at least three reasons.First, there have been many foreign wars in the history of the United States.The three-year Korean War, which was less than one-third the length of the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War, which was less glorious than several months, naturally has no place in the national memory.Second, the U.S. government minimized major events and defined the Korean War as a "police action" in order to bypass the "trouble" of congressional trial and declaration of war (coincidentally, after the "9.11" incident, the United States regarded what should have been a "police action" The definition of "anti-terrorism" as "war" in order to infinitely expand the power of the president to control the war).However, the Vietnam War was also defined as "police action". Why do Americans never forget it? !

In the author's opinion, there seems to be a deeper reason for the "marginalization" of the Korean War in the memory of the American people.American political culture has a strong religious overtone, and is used to choosing between the enemy and us, black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, and victory or defeat. The records of World War I and World War II, which triumphed and reshaped the international system, are also different from the Vietnam War (1964-1975), when the U.S. military was exhausted and forced to withdraw.This is why the United States has been wandering between two extremes for many years in its concept of the Korean War: it is necessary to "forget", but it is difficult to let go; It is hard to give up the policy of hostility to the current North Korean regime. On the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War in 2010, Obama suddenly declared that the United States had won the Korean War and did not accept the term "tie".Regardless of whether Obama is doing it for sensationalism or to appease people, the brilliant Harvard student and Nobel Peace Prize laureate violates both history and reality in his understanding of the outcome of the Korean War.According to American historian Walter LaFeber, "Americans always complain that 'America always wins wars but loses peace', neither of which is quite accurate. In fact, The Korean War was the first stalemate the United States was forced to accept, and America's defeat in the Vietnam War, which began a decade later, was even more certain."

Since the 19th century, American diplomacy has actually oscillated between the two extremes of isolationism and interventionism.It is almost impossible for the United States to coexist in a gray world where good and evil coexist, neither black nor white. The Bush Doctrine of "be with us or against us" after the "9.11" incident is the best proof.The U.S. has been relentless towards North Korea so far, and its policy toward North Korea remains in the past tense of hostility and sanctions. This is not only due to North Korea’s rigid policy, but also the extreme religious and ideological nature of U.S. foreign policy.When Bush Jr. came to power, he poured cold water on Kim Dae-jung's "Sunshine Policy", first labeling North Korea a "bastard country", and after "9.11", he classified North Korea as one of the "axis of evil" (axis of evil) List.After Obama took office, he changed the policy of actively engaging with North Korea in the last two years of the Bush administration, and positioned the US policy toward North Korea as the so-called "strategic patience", that is, "do nothing" with less contact and no negotiation with North Korea. " policy.Secretary of State Hillary took the lead in supporting and even connivating Japan to use the so-called "kidnapping" issue to interfere and delay the six-party talks, create excuses and provide space for Japan's right-wing constitutional revision and military expansion, and directly or indirectly intensify the confrontation between the North and the South, which greatly disturbed the peninsula. of stability.The Cheonan incident, the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, and Kim Jong-un's brinkmanship policy after his succession are all related to the United States' distorted concept of North Korea.

In fact, the "forgetting" of the US ruling and opposition parties about the Korean War is only a superficial phenomenon.When Gulden's "Korean War: The Unrevealed Truth" came out in the early 1980s, it was also the time when the American historians began to reflect on the Korean War on a "large scale", and it was unacceptable.To this day, the orthodox, the revisionists, and the revisionists in the study of the Korean War in the United States hold their own opinions on the root, process, and outcome of the Korean War, and they refuse to give in to each other. In 2010, the writer Alan Maylay declared that the "remembrance" of this "forgotten war" was "more than enough" (enough), and no longer needed time and effort.In this regard, the author calls it "Korean War Research Fatigue".

The “blossoming” and “excessive reflection” of the American military historians’ research on the Korean War seems to be in great contrast to the “collective amnesia” of the American people on the Korean War.Whoever is right, the war that ended 60 years ago is still pretty much a blank slate in the American national consciousness.However, it is the elite class that really dominates the U.S. policy toward North Korea. The reflection of the American military historians on the Korean War is still the focus of Chinese counterparts. A simple and easy way for American historians to sort out the many schools of research on the Korean War is to classify all opinions and works critical of the United States into the so-called "historical revisionism".Bruce Cummings, a professor of history at the University of Chicago, wrote "The Roots of the Korean War, Volume I: The Restoration of Korea and the Formation of the Two Regime, 1945-1947" in 1981, explaining the US official explanation of the roots of the Korean War (that is, communism Expansion) questioned that during the occupation of the southern part of the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. military supported and fostered the puppet government and people in the military and police system during the Japanese colonial rule. One of the main causes of the outbreak of the Korean War.The first volume of Cummings' controversial "historical revisionist" work in the United States was only written until 1947, and the second volume, which dealt with the official outbreak of the Korean War (June 25, 1950), was not completed until 1990.During this period, Cummings, as the second author, published "The Unknown War: North Korea" with Jon Halliday.The above three books have laid the cornerstone of the "revisionists" in the study of the Korean War in the United States.

In fact, American historians have never stopped reflecting on the Korean War. Even when the Korean War was still going on, the American writer Stone published the famous "Behind the Scenes History of the Korean War: 1950-1951".Fehrenbach's 1963 book Such a War: The United States Was Unprepared, and Bevin Alexander's 1986 book North Korea: Our First Defeat mainly sharply criticized the wartime operations of the U.S. military from a military perspective.However, the strength of the above-mentioned revisionist works is not as strong as Cummings' "three axes". Some American historians include Joseph Gulden's "Korean War: The Unrevealed Truth" as a "revisionist", and I do not agree with this.First of all, although Gulden's book is critical of official U.S. policies, it is not as sharply political as Stone's book, so that it is suspected of "personal attack" on President Truman.Gulden's vision is the panorama of war decision-making and conduct, not the role of individual decision-makers.The use of historical materials in this book also far exceeds that of Stone and Fehrenbach.Although the book criticizes high-level decision makers such as Truman and Acheson as well as MacArthur, it still maintains a high degree of unity with the US government and military on a series of major issues (such as prisoners of war, germ warfare, etc.); In the description of the Chinese and North Korean characters, the author can't help but slip into "incomprehension" and even contempt for the Orientals.It is obviously far-fetched to say that Gulden is "unpatriotic". The opposite of the "revisionists" is of course the orthodox school, whose main masterpieces include Clay Blair's "The Forgotten War: America in Korea, 1950-1953", John Tolan's "Desperate Battle: North Korea 1950 —1953", Alan Maylay, The Fight for Korea: 1950-1951, The War Comes from the North. The vast majority of American writings on the Korean War are "professional" studies on specific military issues, such as the causes of the war, the performance of the South Korean military, the role of allies, the assessment of the various services, logistics, and coordinated operations.Ashgate Publishing House of the United Kingdom will soon publish a collection of 32 chapters on the Korean War, which covers almost all aspects of the Korean War, including the situation before the war, the role of the participating parties (the United States, China, Soviet Union, Britain, South Korea and the United Nations), and the various American military forces. Arms performance, nuclear/chemical/bacteriological weapons issues, logistics, amphibious operations, intelligence, special warfare, Battle of Pusan, mobile warfare, positional warfare, post-war arrangements, etc. In my opinion, the most common phenomenon in the study of Korean War history in the West and the United States is West/American-centralism, that is, from the perspective of the West and the United States, using Western/American materials to draw a Western-style / American conclusion.This observation is not intended to deny the lasting influence of Cummings and other "revisionists" and Whiting's realism on Western and American academic circles.What I want to explain here is that the views of these "revisionist schools" have been basically marginalized after more than 20 years of "counterattack and reckoning" by the "mainstream schools". The Western-centric school, that is, the research object and focus of the mainstream school, is the performance of the West, especially the U.S. military, in the specific combat tactical environment in the Korean War, while other non-American and non-Western (or non-white) The experience, fate and consequences of the tragic war recorded in the book are basically used as auxiliary and supporting roles, and are rarely even mentioned.However, when the "mainstream" looked at the war that forced the United States to accept the "stalemate" ending 60 years ago, it emphasized more than ever the legitimacy of the United States' involvement in the Korean War, the heroic dedication of American soldiers, and The legitimacy of South Korea's Syngman Rhee regime's policy towards North Korea, etc.The representative works of mainstream schools mentioned above, such as "The Forgotten War: America in Korea, 1950-1953" by Clay Blair, and "The Desperate War: Korea 1950-1953" by John Toland, etc., all belong to this category. . In fact, there is nothing wrong with the concept and method of "self-centered" in the history of war. Historians from all over the world almost do this intentionally or unintentionally, just don't go too far.However, some recent studies on the Korean War in the West intentionally or unintentionally "downplay" China's "role" and role, which is surprising.For example, Canadian scholar Robert Lee’s 2001 book covers almost all issues related to the Korean War—historical background, current situation inside and outside the Korean Peninsula, McCarthyism in the United States, the situation of the Commonwealth, the death of Stalin, the impact of the war on The influence of women in the warring countries, the racial and venereal problems in the US military, and so on--there is very little writing about China.Such a huge country, in the three-year war with extremely simple equipment and at the cost of 360,000 casualties, was tied with the most powerful military force in the world, but it was almost "extinct" in the pen of this North Korean war expert, as if It is unbelievable that the Korean War was a 16-nation coalition fighting the "shadow".Coincidentally, Cummings' recent book "The Korean War: A History" does not have a chapter about China.The motives of Western historians’ “cold treatment” of China are still unknown. I don’t know whether there is some kind of subconscious thinking among mainstream and non-mainstream people today, “If you can’t win, why don’t you write about it?!” Among the new round of "China-avoiding" writings in the West, the most incredible is the "Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Military History of the Korean War" compiled by Spencer Tucker in 2002.In the 851-page "encyclopedia" written by 102 experts, only one author cited the 1995 book "Mao Zedong's Military Romanticism: China and the Korean War, 1950-1953" by Chinese scholar Zhang Shuguang ( 256), and also misspelled Zhang's name.At the same time, Tucker, the editor of this book, also declared that the sudden disappearance of the Volunteers after the first battle is still a mystery, "So far, there is no clear answer to the sudden withdrawal of the Chinese Volunteers" (p. 132).And Zhang Shuguang described in detail the Chinese strategy of "playing hard to get" seven years ago, luring the coalition forces to continue to advance northward, and finally made it a big mistake (pp. 104-107).Not only that, but the book has very little space for the South Korean army, the allied force of the United States. Most of the descriptions of the South Korean army are in passing, accompanied by an obvious contemptuous tone; But nothing big or small.In fact, the South Korean army has always been the main target of China's attack, especially during the first to fifth battles.It should be pointed out that before the publication of Tucker's Encyclopedia of the Korean War, the three-volume "History of the Korean War" by the Korean Institute of Military History had been translated and published by the University of Nebraska Press.Tucker's so-called "encyclopedia" book is actually full of Western troops in action.This kind of selective "picking" of history (cherry picking history) is at least not very professional. In fact, Alan Melay's statement in 2010 that the Western historians have "reflected" and "excessively" the Korean War is at least one point untenable, that is, the Western Korean War historians have not yet publicly translated and published Chinese official Korean War history books , That is, "History of the Chinese People's Volunteers' War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea" published by the Academy of Military Sciences in 1988 and "History of the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea" published in 2000.For the U.S. military and intelligence community, which has always made China a research focus, this is an incredible strategic "ignorance".Of course, the author does not know whether this "ignorance" was intentional or unintentional, but the feeling I have made with Western publishing houses for many years is that it is almost impossible to translate and publish Chinese history books and memoirs about the Korean War in their original form. .In 2001, a Chinese scholar studying in the United States translated selected chapters of the memoirs of several senior Chinese generals during the Korean War. He encountered various resistances when the publishing house reviewed the manuscript, and the manuscript was once put in the cold by the publishing house.The author participated in the "rescue" work, fought hard and "resurrected from the dead", deeply aware of the various ideological "forbidden areas" that can be understood but hard to express in the American publishing industry. Whether it is the tendency of "going around China" or "going around South Korea" in the recent studies of the Western Korean War, in fact, it is not necessarily a matter of scholar's methodology and personal likes and dislikes.The late Columbia University professor Edward Said pointed out in his book "Orientalism" (Orientalism) published in 1978 that Western research on the Orient is based on shaping and distorting the Orient into the Orient imagined by the West. above.The reason why Western Orientalists do this is not out of ignorance, but to make the West’s cultural and ideological suppression of the East reasonable and legitimate. Therefore, the distorted image of the East in the eyes of the West is a tool for the West to rule the East.It should be pointed out that the so-called "Orientalism" does not obviously run through all the writings on the Korean War. However, "Orientalism" to varying degrees is ubiquitous.At the policy level, choosing not to understand the opponent due to ideological reasons is a taboo for military strategists. Compared with Western centralism, China's research on the Korean War has been more open in recent years. Take the "History of the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea" published by the Academy of Military Sciences in 2000 as an example. The book is richer and deeper than the 1988 edition of "History of War", and to a considerable extent more objective than its American counterparts.To give an example, in the Korean War Memorial Hall completed in Dandong in the early 1990s, the root cause of the outbreak of the Korean War was defined as the civil war that broke out in 1948. The official positioning of the outbreak of the Korean War still continues the Cold War saying that the communist system means aggression. Echoing the openness and inclusiveness of China’s research on the Korean War, China’s policy on the Korean Peninsula is also advancing with the times. Over the past 30 years, China's policy on the Korean Peninsula has gradually shaken off the shadow of history.The framework of the China-North Korea alliance remains, while China's policy toward the Korean peninsula abandons ideology and is increasingly neutral.In fact, as early as the 1970s, Mao Zedong persuaded Kim Il Sung, who was once again hot-headed after the reunification of Vietnam in 1975, not to send troops south again. Since the 1980s, China's policy of impartiality and keeping pace with the times towards the Korean Peninsula has been established on the basis of profound reflection on history.The most profound lesson of the Korean War for China is at the strategic level. At the beginning of 1950, out of wariness against the CCP, which was independent of the Soviet Communist Party, Stalin finally agreed to the Kim Il Sung regime supported by the Soviet Union to go south to maintain and even expand the interests of the Soviet Union in Northeast Asia; he tried to get China to send troops to the United States through the Sino-Soviet alliance. Afterwards, it will assist North Korea to avoid direct confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States.North Korea's insistence on going its own way and the Soviet side's selfishness finally escalated the Korean Civil War into a historic confrontation between China and the United States.Although China stabilized the front line at the 38-degree line under extremely difficult circumstances, the results achieved and the price paid were huge.During the war, the upper and lower limits of the alliance between China and the Soviet Union and China and North Korea were greatly impacted, highlighting the contradictions and conflicts at the level of national interests, and paving the way for the future split between China and the Soviet Union. In view of this, insisting on independence and formulating peninsula policy based on the merits and fundamental interests of the country is probably the most valuable experience given to China by the Korean War. In the early 1980s, China began to pursue an independent foreign policy.On the North Korean issue, China opposes any behavior that undermines the stability of the peninsula, regardless of who it comes from; at the same time, it is committed to developing economic and trade relations with the North and the South and normal state relations. Since 2003, the six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue led by China have long gone beyond China’s own interests, and have taken regional stability and nuclear proliferation prevention as a higher pursuit goal; at the same time, they have created conditions to replace the armistice agreement with a peace agreement, so as to promote the US-DPRK Normalize the relationship. In the world of the 21st century, the two poles end, one superpower dominates, and multiple poles loom. However, the situation on the peninsula is still confusing and dangerous.For China, which is realistic and future-oriented, how to interact with the United States, North Korea, and South Korea, which are still living in the past tense, and how to find a balance point in history, reality, and the future that not only safeguards China's interests, but also takes into account the glory and dreams of other countries is still an issue. A challenge to the intelligence and capabilities of China's political and intellectual elite. Thirty years ago, when we began translating Joseph Gulden's just-published book, The Korean War: The Untold Truth, the international community was still bipolar, and the Cold War was not only continuing but intensifying: the Soviet Union Invaded Afghanistan in the last week of the 1970s; on March 8, 1983, US President Reagan declared the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire", and on March 23 announced the implementation of the "Star Wars" plan aimed at gaining absolute nuclear superiority; on September 1 of the same year On the 1st, the Soviet Far East Homeland Defense Air Force shot down a Korean Air Boeing 747 passenger plane that entered the airspace of the Soviet Far East, killing all 269 passengers and crew members on board. At the end of the same year, NATO decided to deploy medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe.Gorbachev, the "Terminator of the Empire" of the Soviet Union, had to wait two years to enter the Kremlin, while the current Russian President Vladimir Putin had just entered the KGB school in Moscow.None of the politicians, scholars, and military intelligence figures in the West predicted that the Soviet "empire" would fall into crisis and collapse rapidly in the next few years.In Northeast Asia, China, which has just stepped into reform and opening up, has begun to undergo subtle changes in its attitude towards the Korean Peninsula.China is committed to maintaining political and economic relations with Pyongyang, but after the Yangon bombing on October 9, 1983, China began to distance itself from North Korea on similar "international" issues.At the same time, China began to pay attention to South Korea's economic development model, and China-South Korea entrepot trade was also launched in 1983. While "looking ahead" to the Korean Peninsula issue, Chinese military historians have also begun to look back at the Korean War that ended 30 years ago.However, throughout the 1980s, there were very few memoirs of generals, or other works and translations about the Korean War; the Korean War archives of various countries, including the Soviet Union, were still unpublished.This situation changed fundamentally in the 1990s, and a large number of memoirs and works came out one after another.After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, some archives were released one after another, and scholars from all over the world went to "seek gold" one after another, and the study of the Korean War entered a golden age. Gulden's "Korean War: The Unrevealed Truth" was published in 1982, just at a time when China and the world's research on the Korean War was gaining momentum but was inactive. This is also the background and background for our immediate translation power.As an early work of the Western "revisionist school", it provides readers with a brand new perspective covering politics, strategy and battlefield "interaction", and the large number of newly declassified internal US files it uses provide China's research on the history of the Korean War. some original material.Gulden's own critical discourse also differs from Western and American "orthodoxy". Today, 30 years later, when the academic circle of American Korean War history seems to have returned to the "orthodox school" and began to praise the war that could not be won and could not be let go (including Obama himself), Gulden's book is even more prominent. value. Gulden's account is not perfect. His words often reveal contempt and even resentment towards the Volunteers. Some well-intentioned actions of the Volunteers, such as the release of prisoners of war, are denounced as "propaganda" in the standard "caliber" of the US military.In the first edition of PLA Press in 1990 (published in-house, titled The Korean War: The Untold Story), many of these "undesirable" elements were removed from Gulden's book.Under the historical conditions at that time, this approach was understandable. Today, 23 years later, China’s steady rise is irreversible; at the same time, China’s Korean war research and publishing system is also prolific, and a growing and mature Chinese readership is more tolerant of the future and history strength and self-confidence.Gulden's American concept is actually not surprising; it would be puzzling to expect Gulden to sort out the Korean War completely according to the Chinese side.In view of this, when republishing after 23 years, we try our best to maintain the style and viewpoint of the original work, which is also our trust and respect for the readers' perception. More than 20 years later, Tan Feng, one of the original translators, and the author have both worked and lived overseas for many years, and have a more accurate understanding of some slang and professional terms in English, especially military terms.Tan Feng undertook most of the workload for proofreading this time.He is rigorous in his studies and never tired of writing. More than 30 years ago, when I was a graduate student in the International Journalism Class of the Graduate School of the Academy of Social Sciences, I benefited a lot from the co-translation of "Lippmann's Biography" with him;Li Mo and Zhang Qingli, editors-in-charge of Motie Books, are role models for the younger generation in the publishing industry with their high sense of responsibility, excellent professional quality and unique attention to detail.The re-proofreading and translation of this book also benefited from the various assistance provided by Mr. Ni Qisheng, the responsible editor of the internal edition of the People's Liberation Army Publishing House.Through the concerted efforts of this team, we believe that the quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved, the translation is more accurate, and the expression is more Chinese.Not only that, but the retranslated version has added more than 50,000 words, including the lives of people such as Rhee Syngman and Kim Il Sung, and for the first time included two chapters describing MacArthur's trip back to China after his dismissal.The details of the activities of these famous figures not only highlight their personalities, but also provide a dynamic social and political panorama for recreating the history of the Korean War. Twenty-three years have passed, but the current situation in the peninsula is still unpredictable, and there are many differences in the discourses of various parties, which brings various inconveniences to the further "localization" of this book.In the re-editing process, we have tried to respect the uniqueness of the original book.Such as "North Korea" (Korea) and "North Korea" (North Korea), "Republic of Korea/South Korea" (ROK) and "South Korea" (South Korea), "Soviet Union" and "Russia" (Russia), "Manchuria" (Manchuria), etc., are all translated from the original text.In addition, place names such as "Seoul" and "Andong" all retain the old names under a specific historical environment. I hope this will help readers gain a deeper understanding of this tragic "limited war", which not only dominated the second half of the 20th century. The current situation in Northeast Asia is still hampering the multilateral interaction between China, the United States, Japan, Russia, North Korea and South Korea. The Korean War, which ended 60 years ago, is drifting away after all.Today, the division between North and South is still there, and things are right but people are not.However, those 180,000 volunteers who will forever sleep in the three thousand miles of mountains and rivers in North Korea and the black waters of China's Baishan Mountains, those millions of heroes who forced the powerful US war machine to stop at the 38th parallel with primitive equipment and flesh and blood, As well as all the founders of the Republic, their great dedication in the "limited war" 60 years ago is an eternal monument in the hearts of younger generations.