At present, the attitude of quite a few people in this country is curiously like that of American isolationists in the past. They feel that the defence of Southern Korea is not a British interest; they doubt whether the Southern Korean regime deserves support; they resent being dragged into what they are inclined to regard as a display of American imperialism, even though it is under the United Nations flag.

These views are all wide of the mark. The essential question is the old question that arose when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia and when Hitler marched on Vienna and on Prague. Shall a local act of aggression be left to take its course, or shall it be regarded as a challenge to that rule of law which, if it is not defended against minor infractions, will quite certainly be broken eventually on a very much larger and more dangerous scale?

That is the basic question in Korea; and the most hopeful aspect of the situation is that it has brought the United Nations into action as a law-defending agency. It is true that America is alone bearing the brunt of the North Korean attack, but the backing of the fifty-three other countries which have answered the Security Council’s call changes the whole complexion of the affair. It can and should lead on to developments which will enable the free countries – those outside the Russian bloc – to build up a concerted, permanent defence organisation which will offer the best available insurance against a third world war.

Key quote

“My own anxieties about the safety, not only of the free world but our own hearths, remind me often of the summer of 1940.”

Winston Churchill on the war in Korea

Talking point

There is public anger and bewilderment in the United States, where it is felt that American troops in Korea should, even if greatly outnumbered, have been able to deal with an “Asiatic militia”.

The answer is that it is not an Asiatic militia but a highly trained army.

Secrets of Invaders’ success, by our military correspondent