In any case, the author suggests that we look at who benefitted from the war, and he concludes that those on the anti-Communist who wanted the Cold War intensified were nothing but thrilled at the war.

On the other hand, the North, the Chinese, and the Russians, says Stone, were strategically and tactically disadvantaged by such an outbreak of hostilities (43). Clearly, Stone is saying that the South and the Americans had the most obvious pro-war agenda and therefore should be the first suspects as to who started the war. Still, this part of the book is more dependent on speculation than the later sections on the sabotage of peace talks. Stone clearly believes that the military and political forces on the American side which wanted the Cold War to heat up were the ones with the strongest pro-war agenda, rather than those on the Communist side. It is up to the reader to analyze this speculation and decide for himself or herself.

Stone's arguments that MacArthur wanted Chinese intervention---or at least a continuation of the war rather than an outbreak of peace---seem stronger than his speculations about who started the war in the first place. Stone examines communiques and other reliable sources to come to the conclusion that MacArthur---representing the United States' Cold War interests and passions---pushed the Chinese into a confrontation which almost guaranteed Chinese intervention:

There were two dangers in the approach of MacArthur's troops to the Manchurian frontiers. One was military, the other political. The military danger was the possibility of a clash on the frontier between troops of the great powers. The political danger---for some people---was that no such clash would occur