James Matray claims that Truman’s decision to seek forceful reunification of Korea was unwise and ineffective and as a result it undermined his leadership home and abroad. Matray states that some historians argue that the main reason for the involvement was political gain. Matray states that Truman thought the United States could reconstruct Korea by containing Soviet Union expansion. It is interesting to note how Matray references the New Left as they saw the crossing of the 38th parallel as an example of American imperialism and economic expansion. The historical significance is that crossing the 38th parallel was the prelude to Truman’s plan for victory in Korea and around the world. However, Robert Jervis discusses that the Korean…show more content… Cumings a revisionist, addresses that the conflict was internal which led to a “revolution and reaction.” Cumings focus is that the actions in Korea governed the developmental logic of the origins of the war. Cumings then continues his argument with a second volume The Roaring of the Cataract, in which he argues that by then the focus shifted from Korea to Washington. Cumings reassures his argument in that internal conflicts were the main issue in Korea. Moreover, he claims that “the initial situation of the Korean War was the liberation in 1945, itself a product of forces set in motion earlier, ultimately going back to the irruption of the capitalist market and the modern world system in East Asia.” Cumings concludes that the “Korean War did not end proxy conflict in the Third World, but it did draw a line in Asia beyond which traditional American expansionism could no longer venture.” Cumings is able to make his assessments relying on a variety of sources from primary documents from the United States, China, North Korea, South Korea, and the Soviet Union. As for the secondary literature he reflects on the writings of historians Ambrose, Gaddis, Jervis, and
