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 ...
Hm?
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?
Yes.
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.
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.