Answer:
See below.
Explanation:
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.
