It was ignored because the Soviets invaded Korea before the end of WWII. There was no "period between the end of WWII and the formal division" The Soviets landed on August 8. WWII in the pacific ended on August 15, which is the same day Truman proposed the division of Korea (Stalin agreed the next day). I still don't know what you're grousing about here. I mean, look at North Korea, look at South Korea - one had a much better benefactor and its people much better off today because of it.
The division of Korea didn't become "official" until August 1948 when the two nations of Korea became established. What took place during the three years in between was a genuine self-determination process by the Koreans to push foreign occupiers out of their homeland and to decide who were to lead a unified country. The U.S. did everything it could to sabotage the process by installing a puppet government mostly comprising former "elites" from the old Japanese colonial rule and brutally suppressing left leaning representives democratically elected from various local committees. While all Soviet troops withdrew from NK after 1948, tens of thousands of U.S. troops continued to occupy SK. This is incredibly Anglo-Saxon centric and borderline racist. Sad and predictable from liberal intelligentsia. It's akin to telling African Americans how luck and grateful they should feel since white slave traders bought their ancestors centries ago from Africa to the new continent.
It was decided by 1945. You honestly think the US should have just let t he Soviets & Stalin occupy the entire Korean peninsula alone? And you also think they shoudl have just left in 1948? Well history proved that you're wrong because the North Koreans invaded two years later, and the decision that South Korea wasn't safe from communist aggression was vindicated. Incredibly racist? It's also INCREDIBLY TRUE. Look at North Korea. Look at South Korea. You lose. South Korea (along with continental Europe, Japan, and other areas) benefitted highly from US assistance, both military and economic in rebuilding after World War II. It's idiotic not to concede this point, and doing so doesn't render one into a jingoistic chest thumping racist. Stalin was BAD, wnes, even the CCCP eventually admitted this. I feel silly having to even explain that.
I tried to stay away from this thread, but failed to, on the end. Stalin was bad, absolutely. But was that really communist aggression, or rather just the old Russian aggression, the same for the past hundreds years? How much so-called communist aggression were there, except for the Russians? What would be the ratio, if you compare that to Capitalist aggression, or the so-called freedom aggression? Communist or not, Russians had the same motor - take as much land as possible. What does that have anything to do with communist? What a glorious goal - fighting against communist, similar as Hayes advocated that Americans to protect Japan after 1945 against Chinese aggression, right after 30 million Chinese were slaughtered. Russians used to have war with Germans, in China! The winner got to decide what benefit they can get in China, from Chinese! Speaking of communist, Lenin actually proposed to cease all the old humiliating treadies between China and old Russia. Capitalists never did anything, except for sitting together and negotiating who gets the bigger pie. It was never about communist or capitalist, but rather bunch powerful ones sharing controls over weaker ones. Chinese interest was in the position to be shared during those years. Same as 2 Koreas or 2 Vietnams. It's funny how the powerful ones are so obsessed to request the weaker ones to admit what's better for them, to follow which big "brother".
You are arguing a seperate subject. It wasn't a discussion about wheter or not communism was ever good, and capitalism was ever bad. The disussion was about a specific situation regarding the division of Korea, and which had the best benefactors in the late 1940's.
Rather than throw shallow claims I think we need to step back and check up on history. North Korea's economy was actually better than South Korea's economy in 50's, 60's, and probably 70's (but that's not saying much). It wasn't until the rise of the "tiger economies" in asia in the 80's where South Korea started to be grow to what it is today. Now don't quote me on this because I am no expert on this, nor was I even alive during those times, but I'm pretty sure that's case. Now maybe it doesn't matter in how the two Koreas stand in comparisons to each other today, but it lends very little substance just to say which one is "better" and thus "right." I mean you can just claim that for North Korea 40 years ago just as well. And the US didn't really assist Europe and Japan, and to a lesser extent Korea out of the goodness of its heart or anything. It was to basically build up against the "communist" threat. Keep in mind the two countries that suffered the most devastating loses in WWII and happened to be US allies, were Russia and China were left to rebuild themselves. While the Tokyo War Trials were a half joke because while some top war criminals were executed, a lot of them got off for classified information exchange such as biological germ research. You think the rest of Asia would actually suffered this crap convienently forgets this? Russia got a piece of Germany to screw up. No historical expert contests the brutality of Communists regimes, but like it was previously mentioned, you have to look at the context. Don't get so blinded by the "Red Scourge" to ignore the injustices done in the name of anti-communism. South Vietnam was no free country, and it's not surprise how popular Ho Chi Mihn was when he came around. Same with South Korea. Also, a lot of these Communist "freedom fighters" fought against colonial invaders, and you can argue colonialism is the worst form of capitalism. So to the average peasant in these wartorn countries, who you gonna support? The puppet leader put in by a foreign force who lives in a palace? Or the crazy, yet charisamatic commie leader who's from the same streets as you? This same point appeals to Korea today. We see North Korea as backwards and deslolate, and South Korea as vibrant and industrious. Although it seems like very few people here have actually lived in South Korea for a extended period of time to fully understand the nuances and political and cultural intricacies of the country, me admittly also. But one of the big problems for South Korea and Japan is the presence of American forces. They understand they're there to protect them, but every so often something happens where our troops do some really messed up crap and in puts them in a fury. Maybe North Korea feels like they keep it real, or don't sell out. It's incredibly humilating for the pride of a nation to be protected by a foreign force, no matter how needed it is. Add to that a country with a history of being invaded constantly. Imagine if we had French forces protecting our borders from terrorists? Even though the French did save America's ass in the revolutionary war. So there's different points of view out there instead of just "right" and "wrong." Another unrealized long winded post, but this time with paragraphs.
Man, you guys are reading WAY too much into this and chasing windmills. Of course the US was simultaneously pursuing its own interest during the cold war by assisting Europe and Asia after the cold war - in other words, exhibiting rational behavior. Nobody argued, mentioned, or even hinted that pure altruisim was involved. Further I'm not making grand pronouncements on laissez-faire capitalism vs. marxist economics or anything like that (though I think history has made that judgment for me). I'm saying that the US intervention in Korea was necessary at the time and South Koreans are better off today because of it. That's an indisputable point as far as I'm concerned.
I'm going to Korea Gardens tommorow. I think that's the place next to the Yellow Rose, is it better than Korea House? Thoughts?
Excellent post, crimson_rocket. A dose of historical perspective is much needed for the liberal intelligentsia, and the general public, for that matter. The part on Americans' secret collaboration with surrendered Japanese germ warfare experts at the end of WWII to deal with Red Menace is not news, but I am pretty sure it's shocking to the tender loving hearts of the viewers here. FranchiseBlade, the post by real_egal is precisely relevant to the discussion. Just because a war was waged by your favorite Dem Prez doesn't mean you shouldn't examine it critically. As to your question, crimson_rocket touched it indirectly in his rebuttal to Sammy Fisher's hayesian spin. It really depends on whom you ask. To the hundreds of thousands of Koreans who were the victims of US war crimes, the answer is not going to be favorite.
Care to back that up, wnes? By the way, I love how you use the term, liberal intelligentsia. It makes me feel special. Keep D&D Civil.
The tens of millions who are better off, as well as the millions of North Koreans dead of famine, would argue otherwise. Look at South Korea, now look at North Korea. You lose.
There is no spin, wnes. If you try to look at the issue objectively (I know its hard for you) there is little doubt that US action in NK was necessary and beneficial to SK. NK was the aggressor, which you have failed to come to grips with. While the division of Korea was a result of the coming Cold War, had the US kept out of Korea the whole thing would have been under Soviet control which would make even your worst charges against the US pale in comparison. No matter what your beef with the US, there is little doubt that the comparable satellites of the Soviets inevitably faired WORSE than those which were US proxy. The only reason NK was ever vibrant at all was because of Soviet and Chinese aid, similar to other regimes (in Cuba, Nicaragua, Eastern Europe) that appeared to be mildly prosperous until the hinges started to come off the Soviet Union and the aid was reduced. While the US proxy continued its own evolution into a democracy and a economic power, NK continued to choke off - starving and oppressing its own people in drastic proportions. Your assertions that you're revealing some deep dark truth that US involvement in the region was a bad thing...is a joke.
Truman is far from my favorite Democratic President. Sam was not discussing or claiming altruistic virtues of capitalism, nor the pitfalls of communism as a whole. Sam mentioned one specific example, N. Korea vs. S. Korea. S. Korea had the better benefactor, and its people have a better standard of living. N. Korea attacked S. Korea. Fortunately the U.S. and the UN intervened. N. Korea has since declined, while S. Korea has prospered. It isn't all due to the benefactors, arable land, and diplomacy are also a part of that. I do examine it critically. In addition to some little bit of reading and studying I have actually talked with in-laws who were or were children of resistence leaders against the Japanese, who had to hide from N. Koreans, and remember the tanks from N. Korea coming in, and who were forever seperated from friends, and family because they ended up in the North. Critically examining it we find several facts. 1. N. Korea were the aggressors and invaded the South. 2. S. Koreans, due to a number of reasons, are better off than their counterparts in the North.
