Skip to comments.Don't blame Stalin.
Posted on 09/06/2009 1:34:49 AM PDT by joey703
U.S. naivete not only wrongly interfered with the natural development of East Asia, but in particular with respect to Korea, the greatest tragedy was that by the U.S. interfering in what was basically a civil war, the peninsula saw all the carnage and destructionthat would've played out anyways had the U.S. not interfered, but the wardid nothing to unify the nation ("Containment"). Moreover, the perverse state that North Korea finds herself to be in is a direct result of the natural order of things being prevented from occurring. Other Sinic nations experienced similar bouts of reconciliation, but with the fruits of unification.
I believe the U.S. during that period in time chose the wrong side. It was as if the U.S. in almost a John Bolton-esque fashion held so rigidly towards ideology that the nation was blind to what was really going on.The Civil Wars in the Sinic nations in East Asia were more a natural development of land reforms and a conclusion to societal fissures that hadbeen building up for quite some time and, while Communism promised to be the "quick way" towards modernization, the U.S. belief in this communist bloc to be a monolithic one was misguided (and costly) to say the least.
(Excerpt) Read more at northxkorea.blogspot.com ...
If you believe this article you are simply crazy as a sh** house mouse. You are saying the we should have left Korea alone and then both north and south could be together under Kim Il dumba** and they could all be eating pine bark and freezing in the dark.
The author of this happy horseshit may be of Korean extraction, but I doubt very much if he knows Korea as well as this non-Han who lived in Korea for well over a decade. His ignorance shines through his writing like a shit-laser.
And where does he come off saying that he is not a “North Korean apologist” when it is abundantly clear that is EXACTLY what he is, even if he does have only the analytical skills of a 12 year old.
Thank you for saving me the time typing that...
The USSR was in charge of American Troops during parts of
the Korean Police Action.
All Military plans were run through the USSR while they
were in charge.
Which led to SEATO and the Vietnam war which the
politicians of both parties were determined not to win.
John Valentine, as a fellow long time Freeper, not only do I forgive you for using and actually fully spelling out the term “sh*t-laser”, I commend you!
“although a similar, parallel argument can be made about the U.S. invading continental europe only after German defeat was all, but assured after the Battle of Stalingrad,”
The Battle of Stalingrad was costly for the Germans, yes, but to say that was the end of Nazi Germany? This guy isn’t a NK Apologist, he’s an apologist for all of Communism.
If the US and Britain had made a separate peace with Germany the way Stalin made a separate peace with Germany via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (prior to the Nazi invasion of Western Europe, which utilized a lot of Soviet-supplied raw materials), I believe the Soviets would have lost. It stands to reason - Nazi-occupied Western Europe combined had more resources and more men than the Soviet Union. And a peace treaty with the West would have meant American and British supplies without limit to the Nazis.
I don’t think so. It was clear that after the Battle of Stalingrad, which way the war was headed. The only difference between the U.S. enterring the war was after how many Russians had died and how much Soviet occupied territory the U.S. would be willing to accept in a post-world. The Soviets made sure their industrial heartland was out of reach of the Nazi’s and even if Stalingrad had been held by the Nazi’s... (I would cite Rise and Fall of the Great Powers here, but I dont have my copy with me)...
Care to expand on where you might disagree? I think it makes sense. Where is his reasoning flawed? Where do you get that?
I think a good comparison is that between the Battle of Stalingrad with that of the Battle of Midway.
That's what I used to think. The overwhelming historical consensus is that Stalingrad marked the point when Nazi defeat was inevitable. This consensus assumes, however, that Britain and the USA were allies in the war effort against Germany, thereby tying down German forces in Western Europe. A separate peace treaty* with Germany would have freed Hitler to move all his forces to the Eastern Front, just as the earlier pact with the Soviet Union allowed Germany to concentrate its forces on its western borders to invade Western Europe. Germany could have won a single front war against one continental-sized power. It couldn't have won a two-front war against three continental-sized powers. Note that without the US in the picture, the Soviets would have lost all Lend Lease aid, which even Khrushchev viewed as critical to the Soviet war effort.
* In fact, a separate peace treaty with Germany accompanied by British and American material sales to the Nazis (in the same way the Soviets supplied the Nazi invasion of Western Europe) would have finished the Soviets off.
I just don't see that as ever having happened. In fact, I think U.S. policy has been and will always be to make sure that there will never be a continental power in Eurasia (for example, the Soviet Union unifying all of Europe).
I think the U.S. feared a Europe unified by Germany (and I believe Hitler had ideas of ridding all Poles/Slavic people and replacing them with Germans all the way to Central Asia) much more than a Soviet Union that unified Europe. Either way, the U.S. would've (and was) against a Soviet Union unifying all of Europe. And, even today, U.S. policy is to make sure that Germany remains nervous of the Soviet Union (which would guarantee that the U.S. remains the pre-eminent power in that part of the world)...
The U.S. was of course Soviet Allies, and of course, U.S. aid was very important to the Soviet beating Nazi Germany. The very same thing could be same of the U.S. with respect to the U.K. The U.S. intervened in the war at the latest possible moment (and by the grace of the Japanese Attack/U.S. embargo against Japan and, of course, Hitler's decision to declare war on the U.S.)...You have to remember that in the U.S., isolationism remained triumphant until the Japanese attack and even with FDR's manipulations of domestic opinion, the U.S. did not enter the war until the very last possible moment. Why would the U.S. sign a separate peace treaty with Germany? It was never in the interest and never will be in the interest of the United States to see a strong, powerful, and united (federal) Europe.
But anyways, let's assume that the U.S. did everything the U.S. really did except land forces at Normandy. What would've happened? Nazi Germany would've been defeated and all of Europe would be under Soviet occupation. It would've been like handing over Europe to the Soviet Union had the U.S. not invaded at Normandy. And, of course, millions and millions of more Russians would've died.
It is nothing but a rehash of every NK propaganda line of the last 50 years. The screed reads like a sixth grade crib job out of the KCNA archives.
If you think this crap makes sense, God have pity on your brain.
With all due respect, no serious person gives a rat's ass whether you think so or not. You are a self-evident idiot.
Wow. Are you like Truman’s grandsson?
First what’s with the language?
Second, when you criticize, you usually come up with a counter opinion
I have a short temper with pro-commie poseurs.
You are so invested in this pro-commie blog that despite the different tags, I think you are in fact the “Han” of the linked blog.
I suggest that you go peddle this collectivist BS over on the Dummie Underground, where you can meet your intellectual equals, not here where you will be instantly detected as a crap purveyor.
As for my counter opinion, I do have one. You opinion seems to be that you (and Han) have something valuable to say.
My certain opinion is that you do not.
And, to illicit such responses does warrant another look at what was written. I think there will be a follow up posting soon to, perhaps, better explain what the point of the post was. Though, I'm fairly certain it has more to do with this idea of the natural order of things than anything else.
Han’s notion of the “natural order of things” is for Americans (and others) to premptively surrender to Communism whenever and whereever possible. Such a position assumes the superior place of Communism in the “natural order of things”. Such a position is not only laughable, it’s supremely stupid given the history of the twentieth century.
I can’t detect ANY originality in Han’s position, or indeed ANYTHING to distinguish his writing from the NK official line as promulgated by the KCNA and parroted by the Hanchongryun in South Korea.
This writing is simply not worthy of serious consideration or discussion, any more than would any of the hundreds of propaganda essays denying that the holocaust ever took place. It’s just crap, and nothing more. It’s not even funny as satire.
Contrary to your fervid championing, there is simply nothing worthy of discussion here.
You sure about that? Communist propaganda
Do you live in the 50s or what? It is almost 2010 my friend. And, communist nations no longer exist, but as one party totalitarian dictatorships that try to emulate the free market system as much possible. The natural order of things, I think it’s bolded right, is when he talks about economics...
Is it the case that first Japan, then South Korea then China then Vietnam’s economic development were all miracles or do they all have something in common? Something about being Confucian states that gives them some advantage over lets say like a Phillipines?
Perhaps you should learn how to read my friend before you start swearing and bringing up how many years you’ve been on this site. What are you talking about, lol? And, why are you at war with an enemy that does not exist?
But at least by dropping the nukes on Japan, Truman saved Japan from the same fate.
Russia may have inevitably won the war, but if Stalingrad fell, Stalin and the Bolsheviks might have been removed from power, and with it Communism.
Just because somebody points out an uncomfortable truth, doesn't make him communist. I mean I think it's a good idea the U.S. enterred the war when we did. i mean that shows how saavy the U.S. really was. And, getting Japan to attack Pearl Harbor... haha wow...
You joker! How on earth did I ever get the idea that when you were talking about Truman, the US involvement on the Korean war etc., you were actually talking about 2010!
Silly me. I was truly CONVINCED that you were talking about the post WWII - Korean War environment, not the environment that vindicated the entire post WWII American foreign policy!
Or, maybe you are a complete idiot.
Yeah, perhaps, I erred by thing that when I write something, then it’d be read the way it was written...
You say those are the words of the KCNA mouthpiece, but you fail to read how heavily I have criticized North Korea, go as far back as 2003 (if you'd like). While I may have been on this site since 98 I did follow this site for about a decade before registering in 2003....
The natural order of things also include those, perhaps those such as yourself, who do not possess the IQ or the level of reasoning to be able to express their opinions in a concise manner without resorting to language that you gives your words as much legitmacy or weight as the words Communist or as the word's Democratic or People's give to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea....
Not only that, but you express an opinion solely based against what somebody else expresses...
But, for all others that may take your words seriously, look beyond the obvious.
The period from 1947 to 1991 is a very short piece of history. And, a clear look at those two articles speak for itself.
Why are you asking ME this? This "natural order of thing" argument is yours, not mine. And frankly, I don't know quite what it means except that in the author's mind it means that Communist insurgencies ought to have been allowed to engage in subversion at their will with no resistance from the West, or specifically from the United States, because that upsets the "natural order of things".
I hope you won't be too offended if I point out that this is gratuitous circular reasoning.
I could just as easily point out that the communist insurgencies were disturbing the "natural order of things" in their native societies when they began to engage in subversion and armed revolution, but I wouldn't. Why? Because the entire line of reasoning is specious.
Can't you see where I'm arguing from? If anything, I wouldn't be a communist, but a traditionally minded American with conservative values that's trying to look at things from a Korean point of view?
What I meant in the two articles by the natural order of things are:
#1. It's not in the natural order to have a divided Korean peninsula or rival Korean states.Korea has pretty much had the same borders with the same homogenous group of people since 664 AD.. even without having to resort to the most ridiculous exercise of revisionist/nationalist history that has become the Balhae debate. So, imagine a country that has had one ethnic group... No minorities whatsoever for 1300 years... Consistently... Where's your sense of other in society? I mean if you look at American History, the identity of what it means to be American has gone from being defined by a particular ethnic group and religious denomination to a set of values and principles (and i'd like to language tradition as well -- "language")... But, in Korea, it has been the same for 1300 years, either you're Korean ("we") or an outsider (even "Chinese" would count here). If you go back far enough into Korean history, you'd actually see that Ming, yes, Ming Chinese emissaries in Korea were not allowed to even travel outside certain roads without Korean "interlopers" in not what is North Korea, but what was Joseon (a unified Korea)... So, as you can see, take these xenophobic tendencies that have lasted for more than a millenia and add that with colonialism and an unconcluded civil war and you are left with the bizarre state that is North Korea today that builds dams to kill other Koreans (And of course, a South Korea in denial).
#2. The natural order of things has also shown that Northeast Societies, or more precisely, Confucian societies have a favorable advantage when trying to obtain sustained economic growth(you can check the CBO's report on The Role Foreign Aid has Played in the Economic Development of South Korea and the Philipines (1997), for the exact link, i believe it's somewhere on my blogfor that)). But anyways, Korea being a Confucian society and the Philipines not. Thus, as in the 1950s it was the prevalent view or the Washington Consensus that export oriented development or that sustained economic development in Northeast Asia was just not going to happen, when first Japan and then the four Asian Tigers (all Confucian societies by the way) showed sustained economic development... then it was argued that these Korea's economic development was a miracle... (since all these tigers minus Korea were small island states)... I argue that it is not... I view that Confucian societies also enjoy (though not nearly to the same extent that American or Anglo-Saxon societies do with their strong legal and political institutions combined with free market enterprise and strong innovation)... that is a natural tendency to get rich... So, in this view, if Korea was destined to be rich at some point or well off, would it not have been better for Korea to have been unified during a civil war regardless of who did the unifying... I believe either route would have led to the same thing eventually... a prosperous Korea with strong democratic institutions (though favoring somewhat socialist principles of wealth distribution that all Confucian societies, such as Japan, have also shown)...
Perhaps, this is clearer... I will re-write it better on the blog shortly...
Author of Breaking Down Borders : Korea
p.s. I'll also be podcasting the course i'm teaching and the first class will have a specific slide hinting at this... that have traditionally favored education East is that the Confucian societies that have value Hence, it's weird to have a peninsula that's divided. This has led to a very bizarre state that is North Korea. Everything about North Korea is weird.. I think there's going to have to be a part III...
Author of Breaking Down Borders : Korea
If you are saying that it would be great if the Korean peninsula were united under a single government - well then, how could I disagree? Ethnic distinctions in South Korean society (like between Cholla Namdo and Gyeonggi) are so minor that from a Western perspective they are virtually non existent. Something like the difference between an Ohioan and a New Englander. Differences between North and South continue to exist, with the North relatively undeveloped and agricultural, completely the reverse of the pre-Korean War situation. Moreover, having lived in Korea for more than a decade, I can say with certainty that it is the sincere, heartfelt wish of EVERY South Korean that this were so. But, not every Korean would agree that the partition was worse than the imposition of Communist rule over the entire nation, in fact I think only a minority of South Koreans would agree with this notion. The notion that the interference of the US led to the division of Korea can’t be taken seriously unless you consider the imposition of Communist rule both natural and unavoidable.
I could (and would) argue with equal sincerity that the division of Korea was caused directly by the Chinese invasion of the peninsula after virtually the entire nation had been liberated from the Communists.
Moreover, if you argue that Confucian societies generally embody values that are compatible with successful, vibrant economies, I also have to agree. I would be a bit reluctant to attribute this solely to Confucianism, but instead to the entirety of the national mindset. But then, why did North Korea fail, and China and Mongolia stagnate until Deng in the case of China and the fall of the Soviet Union in the case of Mongolia? I’d argue strongly that the nature of Communism at its core is “against the natural order of things”. It abhors a free economy and elevates a central control of the means of production. It stifles creativity and enterprise. South Korean prosperity resulted in no small measure from their access to the US marketplace.
I’d argue that North Korea would already be dead and gone if it had not been propped up by all manner of “humanitarian” aid from the West, from Japan, and from South Korea itself. Now, there’s something I do see as against the natural order of things - propping up your enemy.
Also, I think there was a moment, when the Soviet Union fell, and Germany re-united, that South Korea recoiled from the social turmoil and costs that reunification would have brought, and the opportunity that might have existed slipped away. What set of circumstances might now arise wherein reunification might be possible is something that has not been revealed to me. I can scarcely imagine what it could be short of a terrible and all-encompassing collapse within North Korea.
And there would have never been a Korean war had the Allied powers allowed Japan to keep it as their territory.
Also, I think there was a moment, when the Soviet Union fell, and Germany re-united, that South Korea recoiled from the social turmoil and costs that reunification would have brought, and the opportunity that might have existed slipped away. This is what I'm talking about. Everything you argue I take for a fact except for a couple things and come with the conclusion that the crazy costs of unification that are being contemplated is ridiculous since Korea already paid the price of unification once (the Korean War) without seeing its natural conclusion.
Ethnic distinctions in South Korean society (like between Cholla Namdo and Gyeonggi) are so minor that from a Western perspective they are virtually non existent. Ethnic distinctions do not exist in Korea (well up until recently) Well, actually this point doesn't even matter, but ethnic distinctions do exist between the English descendants in New England to the Scots/Irish in the Appalachians...
The imposition of communist rule was both natural and unavoidable. The U.S. didn't liberate all of Korea...(looking at it from a 1950s point of view), since at that point in time the vast majority of the peasants in all of Northeast Asia did indeed favor Communism.. So, your argument about China being at equal fault doesn't apply. Also, the U.S. accounted for half of all wealth at that point in time, which puts things in perspective about what the U.S. really was capable of... also check Han's comment here:. Copied and pasted in full:
And, in a similar light the U.S. was so caught up on the communist aspect of these "revolutions" going on in East Asia that the U.S. couldn't realize that these communist revolutions were really at the initial stage "a people's revolution" in that they really were people trying to build brand new institutions, after those of years past saw their countries become the play thing of foreign powers. Capitalist or Western Institutions lacked credibility to much of the people in this region at that time.
The U.S. had she been more open-minded and confident (as should have accompanied her very sizeable wealth and power relative to the rest of the world) in her approach to this region, could have seen this and had supported a Mao or Kim Il Sung or Ho Chi Minh rather than a Chiang Kai Shek or a Rhee Syng Man (who America hated as much as those in South Korea did by the way)...
The cold war would've been over before it had even started... It really wasn't about Communism in that part of the world, but the U.S. made it like that. Of course, with respect to Mao this goes before 1945... The U.S. would not have feared Communism to be this Monolithic plague. I'd like to point out how U.S. Vietnam veterans must've felt when a sitting U.S. president visited a united communist Vietname
No Mention of SOVIET, or CHI-COM support of the North Koreans however...
How unbiased this article is!!1
C’mon now, everybody repeat after me:
EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, is America’s fault!!!
Oh so, very true... And, that does bring up one of the worst betrayals in the history of betrayals (what South Korea did to the Republic of China (Taiwan)), which lobbied for an indepedent Korea in the 1943 Cairo Conference...
Of course, from a Chinese perspective, it can also be argued, that China would never let the Korean peninsula be controlled by Japan... (Imjin Wars 1592,1597, Sino-Japanese War 1894)
This moron’s knowledge of history is laughable, AT BEST...
STALINGRAD was not the turning point in the East, it was KURSK, in July 1943, 6 months AFTER Stalingrad, followed by the Soviet Summer Offensive after it, that spelled doom for the Germans in the East, they RECOVERED from Stalingrad, but could not recover from the losses suffered at Kursk, and never regained the initiative after that.
were true, which clearly is not.”
Ummmh.... NO, IT WAS NOT, the Germans MAINTAINED THE Strategic OFFENSIVE INITIATIVE for another 6 months after the Stalingrad lines stabilized.
That initiative was lost at Kursk, AND in Sicily.
Kursk began on July 4, the Invasion of Sicily began on July 9. Air and Ground assets, (especially fighters and Tac bombers), that were to support the 2nd and 3rd phases of the Kursk Offensive, Operation Citadel, were diverted to Southern Italy.
40% of the German Air Groups committed to Citadel (3 entire Air Corps) were diverted to Sicily.
Until that point, the Germans had been able to maintain strategic inititaive in the east. After that, it became a losing game.
Guderian acknowledged this point very clearly in his book. The losses of Stalingrad were made good, but after Kursk, they could no longer be made whole.
“you on the other hand i have no hope for.”
The problem for you is that I am a student of history, not just the PROPAGANDA of history. The two often bear little resemblence to each other, ESPECIALLY where it concerns the Soviet Union.
As a for instance, at Kursk, American-built tanks actually OUTNUMBERED the number of T-34’s available to the Russians. But that FACT was conveniently withheld by Soviet Historians, because it would make them look weak. In Soviet propaganda, for FIFTY YEARS, the T-34 and the Russians that made them, would be the People’s Hero’s...
It wasn’t until the Soviet Archives were opened in the 90’s, that the truth began to come out, in fits and starts.
It was obviously avoidable. It was avoided. It's just too bad it wasn't avoided all over the Korean penninsula. I say shame on all Communists and Communists sympathizers who favor a coercive society to one based on natural and free relationships among men, and shame upon them for their agressive and subversive acts all over the world, and continuing to this day, even in our own coountry, to impose their assinine view that men can be forced to conform to a utopian standard.
The world has paid a terrible price for all these flirtations with Communism, and Korea is one of the places most savaged by this alien and absurd political folly.
Bullcrap. They certainly do. Ask any Korean from Cholla Namdo. For you to deny this reality indicates to me that despite a Korean American heritage, you don't know nearly as much about Korea as I do. I'd agree that these ethnic distinctions aren't particularly deep, or particularly racial, even though the history of Cholla runs contrary to Korean mythology. The election of Roh Moo Hyun in 2002 was a huge deal for Cholla.
That's not an ethnic distinction. And, if anything, to argue anything along those lines you'd have to go waaaaaay back. To the times of Samhan and Buyeo.
for future response
How about waaaay back to 1994-2006, the period of my residence in Korea?
Look, I’m not saying that the peoples of Korea are not Korean, and self-identify as such with justifiable pride. But to deny these regional ethnic differences, which are recognized and understood in Korea with ease and without embarrasment, seems strange to me.
And the distinctions remain to modern times. I looked for a reference so that you might understand a bit better where I am coming from and I found this, from Wikipedia: “Observers noted that interregional marriages are rare, and that as of 1990, a new four-lane highway completed in 1984 between Gwangju and Daegu, the capitals of Jeollanam-do and Gyeongsangbuk-do, was unsuccessful in promoting travel between the two areas.”
And this, from the same article: “Regional stereotypes, like regional dialects, have been breaking down under the influence of centralized education, nationwide media, and the several decades of population movement since the Korean War. Stereotypes remain important, however, in the eyes of many South Koreans.” This writer refers to9 ‘stereotypes,” but I am sure that these “sterotypes” have their origin in very real, albeit still Korean, cultural differences. I think that you are hung up on the word ethnicity. Call it “regional differences” instead. I’ll happily abandon “ethnicity”, but I stick to my eye-witness observations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.