Was the Korean war a success or failure?
It was a success what they were in the war for was to fulfill their containment policy. it said that they could keep communism but they weren't going to allow it to spread.
It was a success only in that the North Koreans were prevented from invading the South. It was a failure in that it didn't result in a true peace.
the success was the communist north did not occupy south Korea. the failure was NATO had to accept an armistice instead of surrender
What was the result of the Korean War Looking back on the war how was the war both a success and a failure for American forces?
Mission accomplished; communists stopped at the 38th parallel.
more of a stalemate then failure..............
The Treaty of Ghent returned everything to pre-war conditions. As such, the war could be considered a draw, and there wasn't really any 'success' or 'failure' on either side, other than the lives lost.
The communists were stopped. The nation of South Korea was preserved. That's success.
It was a success because the mission was accomplished; the communists were stopped; and the Republic of South Korea was preserved. It was never a failure. THAT IS NOT TRUE! Gosh people... North Korea is STILL COMMUNISM, and if you need to know if FOR the US it was a success then DON'T ask Answer.com! NO offense but there are SO MANY ignorant people that DON'T know what to say! NORTH KOREA IS STILL COMMUNIST… Read More
Really the only US success during the Korean War was South Korea continued to exist. America did not winthe war (they probably would have if it weren't for Chinese intervention) and Korea is still divided among a highly guarded political boundry.
because transformers took over the world
Failure = virgin success = sex
Considering containment and the Truman doctrine do you think the Korean war was a success or a failuer?
eh, it was a bit of both.But it had some early success, but later on it became useless
yes, if gaining a cease fire, which is still in affect, a matter of success.......
US military intervention has been a success in some situations and a failure in others. Some of the successes include the intervention during the First World War, while a failure was the intervention in Somalia.
the XYZ Affair was not a success it was a failure
Christopher Columbus was both success and failure
•The Boston Tea Party was considered successful and a failure because the king lowered taxes but right after it started a war.
Yes: It's dificult to see it as an Imperialistic success.
The Esperanto words for success and failure are sukceso and malsukceso.
i do not know but if you were on the colonist side it would be a succes, i am a scientist that likes poo
He was a failure because he didn't find any gold or silver. He was a success because North and South America were named after him. So he was technically both: a failure and success.
Life certainly has its ups and downs. But 'success' and 'failure' are not physical objects we can perceive with our senses. Therefore, they are both abstract nouns.
The Roman government is considered neither a success nor a failure.
Sir Francis drakes expeditions were all success and not a failure.
Success has many fathers while failure is an orphan
yes it is. If you fail you learn from your mistake therefore failure is the inspiration of success.
Success, victory, win...any of these words could be antonyms to the word failure. Success.
It was somewhat of a failure.
The Red Chinese pushed the US/UN forces back into South Korea (the great retreat).
Like most things in life; it was neither a failure nor a success; it was a bit of both. 1. Considered a failure, because it did not discourage the North from continuing it's war against the South. 2. Considered a success, because it taught US airmen how to fight both AAA/SAM defenses and NVAF MiG jet aircraft. Lessons that would bring success for future campaigns.
success because of the amendments and emancipations proclamation and failure because of all the harm it did to the blacks
During the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, the president began a series of programs aimed at reducing poverty in the US. This "war on poverty" has not been a success. Poverty remains a problem in the US.
If you were a Vietnamese nationalist, it would be regarded as a success. If you were pro-South Vietnam, it would be regarded as a failure.
It was a success.
this was a success.
Overall, you have to say it was a failure.
A fiasco is a failure. By Brendan
Korean; it's just that she had lots of success in Japan.
the difference between failure and success is determination and tenacity. i have both.
Success is achieving something more than I could have ever imagine. Failure is when you stop trying and believing you can do it.
Because the Korean War lacked the large audience that WWII had, historians didn't have the interest in it (the Korean War) to correct the statement, "stalemate." Korea was the world's first post atomic age "limited war." Limited due to nuclear weapons. "Limited wars" were the effect on the US & the world (which included the communist superpowers). NORTH Korea & SOUTH Korea existed before the Korean War broke out in 1950. NORTH Korea and SOUTH… Read More
No. Its two completely separate conflicts. The motives for both wars are however similar, as they both relate to the cold war. Both wars started because of the wests, mostly USA, efforts to stop the spread of communism. As the Korean war was seen as a succes on USAs behalf, the Vietnam war was a complete failure.
The Communist North Koreans INVADED South Korea, and the US & UN pushed them back into North Korea...the war was to preserve the Republic of South Korea from communist conquests; the Republic of SOUTH Korea still exists today because of the success of the US/UN forces during the Korean War (1950-1953).
It was a success for the Turks, but a failure for the Allies.
In Korean, Daebak basically means success or being successful.
Theodore Roosevelt wrote "There is no such thing as failure there is only early attempts at success."
Yes. MacArthur's success in total war was brilliant, but he did not grasp the concept of limited war which was necessary in the nuclear age. After much disagreement on the conduct of the war, Truman relieved him of command and replaced him with Ridgway.
Yes and no. The U.S. prevented South Korea from falling to communism, but failed to unite Korea under a non-communist government.
Depends on who you ask. Those who believe that America's goal was to stop Communism from spreading to South Korea would say overall it was a success. Those who think the goal was to eradicate communism altogether believe it was a failure. It's still considered too recent an event to see as 60 years is considered not that long to historians.
It was the major success of Napoleon as a legislator.
The Simon Commission was considered to be a success eventually.