Review the following documents .How do these two accounts reflect certain points of view? Which source is more reliable and why? Explain your answer, supporting it with reasons and evidence from the documents.

The United States had one goal following the war—to expand its military and economic power across
Asia. On June 25, 1950, President Truman ordered the invasion of North Korea. The United States
manipulated the United Nations to build an army that included fifteen nations. This American army
marched across the 38th parallel and spread across the peninsula, bringing war to the banks of the Yula
River. To resist the Americans and defend China, the People's Volunteer Army joined the North Korean
army in repelling the American invasion.

After the division, North Korea attempted to overthrow South Korea's government. When this proved
impossible, the North Korean communists began to prepare themselves for war while pretending to
negotiate peacefully.
On June 25, 1950, the north began its invasion of the south. The south was taken by surprise, but the
armies of South Korea fought bravely to defend their liberties. This action moved the United Nations
Security Council to declare the invasion by the north illegal and a threat to peace. A decision was made to
help the south, and a UN army, led by the United States, Britain, and France, joined the South Korean
forces in an effort to repel the invasion.

Obviously these are two highly contrasting views and accounts of the Korean War. The first account is supportive of the position of the North and her communist allies, primarily China, whilst the second supports the view of the South supported by the UN and US.

Generally speaking the second version would be seen as more reliable based on the history of events.

In terms of reflecting different views/accounts of events, the first article clearly sees it as an act of American aggression to secure vital interests in the area, whilst the second article sees Western involvement as a direct consequence of North Korean aggression in invading South Korea in 1950.

The intervention of UN forces, according to the first account is a reflection of aggressive US foreign policy in using the UN, "manipulating", to use force to secure its own interests. This led to the intervention of China. However according to the second article UN involvement was a legitimate response to an act of unwarranted aggression by the North against the South.

If we look at what happened, in June 1950 North Korea invaded and occupied South Korea. Within a few months almost the whole of the South was occupied. This invasion was illegal and unprovoked so the accounts in the second article appear to be more accurate.

However one of the main reasons for US involvement was to protect Japan which it saw as its most important ally against the spread of communism in South East Asia. Therefore in article 1, there is legitimacy in saying that the US was protecting its interests in becoming involved, and in legitimizing its action through the UN.

The intervention of the UN drove the North Koreans back as far as the Yula river in the south, as stated in article 1 which led to the intervention of the Chinese, again as stated in article 1.

annyksl annyksl · Answer 2 · 2022-06-02T12:55:52+02:00

The two texts show different views on the behavior of North Korea during the division of the Koreas. Both have the same level of reliability.

Why do the two research sources have the same degree of reliability?

Because both are secondary research sources.
Because both don't show proven evidence.

The first text shows that North Korea had no intention of attacking South Korea, but wanted to defend its territory and defend China from American occupation.

The second text shows that North Korea invaded South Korea to dominate the region and exploit its habitats.

None of the sources show substantiated evidence nor reports from primary sources, making them equal in reliability.

Learn more about research sources:

https://brainly.com/question/1307778

#SPJ2