Some people have no clue. Regards a quote from a South Korean human rights advocate..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun23.html
Quote:
Well genius, the same thing could have been said about the invasion of South Korea by the North 50 years ago. When you ally with somone you take the good and the bad it's a trade off. How many US citizens have been killed fighting for allied causes? Who will this man blame should the North Koreans take over the South again? Will it fall on themselves or will it be the US's fault then too? I have no doubt that it will be the latter. |
Well, that's true. Korea wasn't our war. If we had kept our nose out of it in the first place we wouldn't have driven the North Koreans to the communists. The Korean conflict started out as an independence drive, then after us superpowers got involved and split everyone up it became one of reunification.
I believe that Korea would be unified and maybe just slightly socialist (like europe) at most if we had all kept our hands out of that pot. |
i think Iraq is probably better off than it was before the war - generally. however i also think a lot of Iraqis are very pissed off with their current living conditions. it was quite civilized before, albeit with a crazy dictator.
people aren't always going to be grateful for US intervention I'm afraid |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'll have to hold off on making any further comments until I refresh myself on the history. I was always bigger into Vietnam history than Korean. I'm afraid I may end up injecting some Nam timeline unintentionally. :)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
the bizarre thing is that Kim Il Jong is supposed to be well into cowboy films - how crazy is that? |
Quote:
|
ah it's "we helped you once, now you have to support every mistake we make" again
|
Quote:
|
that's true
pehaps pacifier is referring to the D-Day anniversary, it was easy to get the impression that some Americans thought that all Europeans have to agree with everything George W Bush does because the Allied army liberated Europe. |
I'll give a few things from history books on the Cold War and other things (including Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger and We Now Know by John Lewis Gaddis)
North Korea's leader Kim Il Sung planned the invasion of South Korea by himself. He went to Stalin for authorization. Stalin, the head honcho of course, said okay but the Soviet Union would NOT intervene should the U.S. intervene. He authorized it only after Kim Il Sung reassured him that the U.S. would not get involved. Kim then went to Mao in China for authorization also. Mao was not fully in support of Kim for he also feared American intervention. He was afraid America would use that as a screen for invading the rest of China and taking it back from the communists as they had failed a year earlier to support the Nationalists. Reluctantly, he also agreed based on the promise that America would not intervene and that Stalin had given approval to Kim. In essence, Kim used Stalin and Mao to authorize an invasion on the premise that the U.S. would not intervene. He had good reason to believe that was true given that the majority of Americans did not even know there was a place called Korea. Furthermore, months earlier, Secretary of State Dean Acheson in a poorly worded speech left out Korea from the defensive perimeter in the Pacific. This led Kim to believe that the U.S. would stay out of its affairs. Unfortunately for him, Truman and others were very passionate about containing communism by now after seeing events unfold in Czechoslovakia and Berlin and felt this was part of a global conspiracy for the spread of communism. They went to the UN and they overwhelmingly voted to support action against N. Korea. --- Now refering to the original post - if they don't care, then who cares anyways? They can believe as they will as we will believe as we will. People have different opinions and ultimately its what the governments and officials do. If their people all vote against the war, what can you do? They're a democracy that we helped built and if thats how it is, then so be it. |
Quote:
And It seems that is a very common point of view in America. A couple of friends in Bosnia and Kosovo have noticed the same attitude. |
Quote:
As for your last bit, my problem was with people who don't have a clue about history or what the term ally means constantly talking out their asses and being given national or international exposure for their ignorant views. I never said anything about him not having the right to believe what he believes. Just as you point out that he has a right to express opinions so do I. If you don't like the topic feel free to avoid it. |
I guess you have to be pragmatic. The axiom "What have you done for me lately" Is apt. It's like pro ball. You renew a players contract based on what they can offer you in the future, not for any big accomplishments they did for you in the past, no matter how underpaid they might have been at the time. Anything else and you reveal your own gullibleness.
To the average South Koreans they don't see much value in renewing our contract. They don't want to have to back us up in bull like Iraq and they have made some progress in normalizing relations with North Korea in recent years. It seems they want to take the lead for themselves now and no longer want to be directed by Big Brother America. I'm all for that. Let them run things themselves. I'm tired of being in everyone elses business. Pull out and save some money. |
Stalin certainly gave North Korea the equipment - there is no doubt given what they were using. Then again, he gave all allies of his weapons.
But I don't see the issue with that or the topic at hand. |
Quote:
As far as him giving all his allies weapons there is a big difference. The build up necessary to equip and train them was considerably more than what was given to his other allies. There was clear intent that they would be used to take over the South and the Chinese were built up similarly in case the US decided to enter the fray. There is no doubt now of intention on any of the sides only serious flaws in consideration of defense/offense in the initial attack and defense plans. |
I don't know about in case the U.S. decided to enter the fray - most new sources have pointed out that Stalin was afraid of confronting the U.S.
Mao, however, was not afraid to confront them if it boosted China's prestige. Hence, he was not afraid to enter the fray when needed. Stalin was still weak from World War II and after the U.S. showed that it wouldn't fall to his pressure in the Berlin blockade crisis, he wasn't willing to get involved militarily. He defenitely sent advisers and equipment but he was largely trying to expand his borders without directly confronting the U.S. military. Oh and it would defenitely be so in that China's intervention is what ultimately saved North Korea from being completely taken - not the Soviet Union. We had nearly reached the Yalu River and had taken all the major cities of N. Korea before the Chinese intervened that winter. N. Korea was in no shape to face the U.S. military and when the U.S. intervened, they were toast. Anyways I'd recommend a few books but I can only think up one that sticks out in my mind right now and that's "We Now Know" by John Lewis Gaddis a professor at Yale. The book uses sources released after the Cold War so it is fairly recent and will provide a better look in than most sources before the end of the Cold War. When I get back home I can provide excerpts. |
Sigh,
More revisionist history. |
Quote:
The United States is off on it's own, Bush rushed off so not everyone can expect support from everyone. The reasons are still somewhat fuzzy. Most people over here aren't shocked we're the only ones over there. Most don't feel all of Europe should automatically jump in because we played a very large part in winning World War II. |
Quote:
more drive-by commentary with no point. What is revisionist? What is not? What are your opinions on the original post? I read these boards because sometimes I learn something. I don't profess to have all the answers, or even any, but I do know I learn more from people posting their opinions (left/right/crazy) than from people that post 'reaction' shots. Particularly ones that aren't even directed. Sorry to take off on a tangent. |
Quote:
As for the importance of South Korea, I'm afraid it hasn't really been the same since the economical collapse of the eastern tigers. |
Quote:
|
This isn't revisionist history FYI. Its the new Post-Revisionist history.
And its taking sources from opened archives after the Cold War. If you want history written 30 years ago, be my guest. I'm using the newest sources. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
All boatin did was snap at him. Whether or not Lebell made a valid point is irrelevant to the lack of decorum with which boatin addressed his grievance. If someone takes a passing shot at what you believe is a complex matter, by all means call them on it- but do so in the manner you all know this board expects. In short, keep it civil or i'm dropping the hammer. -analog. |
Maybe this will help answer some questions. Here is a great summary from the National Security Archive on the lead up the Korean War. It talks about who asked who for support as well as the extent of the Soviet's help based on newly declassified documents.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b3a2.htm |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
As for the dig about South Korea's economic prowess, they show quite a bit of promise and are light years ahead of their Northern brethren in virtually every standard. |
Quote:
This document does mesh well with others that I've seen and I think paints a fairly good picture of the hows and whys that are most likely. |
Quote:
I don't think it was exactly a process of reconstruction that was the only thing limiting freedoms in South Korea, but power of chaebols (corporate congmelorates) that saw it efficient to keep the striking workers and trade unions at bay. Something that can be seen in China nowadays. I don't think there were really that much to reconstruct anyway as Korea was a rather underdeveloped country and surely not fully recovered from the japanese occupation. But I agree, maybe it directly isn't on-topic - but I just wished to point out that Korean war wasn't one of these imported-democracy projects. And if I'm not mistaken, south koreans are pretty fed up with the US troops stationed there because all those rapings and everything... My main point was just that there is only so much things one can justify with the phrase "you owe us, we saved you from the communists/fascists/etc.". Do all countries once saved by the US troops lose their right to sovereignty? ;) Quote:
|
Quote:
The South Korean economy is well on its way to successfully transitioning away from just being a source of cheap labor for the west. And that's a good thing. Their economy is significantly more advanced now than it has been at any time in its history. While they still have a long way to go, they have the tools they need to become a significant player in the world. At the end of 2003 South Korea had the world's 12th largest economy. That's better than Canada, Mexico, Spain, Australia and 219 other countries. I'd say that's pretty damned impressive given their relative lack of development just a few decades ago. |
Quote:
I wasn't really arguing with you about it, I just wished to point it out. I did indeed notice that you said "current freedom" (or something similar). I just had a feeling that people often think that the South has always been democratic country opposed to the nothern dictatorship. I also agree that US troops in South Korea have been essential to prevent North Korea from attacking, even if I am very sceptical towards US motives operating in various theatres, especially during the cold war. So let us just agree that it is good that US troops have been stationed in South Korea. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here's the top 20 according to the CIA world factbook: Quote:
|
apeman: its not kissinger's book, its gaddis - kissinger is a revisionist, gaddis is a post-revisionist
and yeah that document basically states that the war was largely n.korea's idea mao plays a large part as well... again i recommend Gaddis' book.. it covers a lot of htese pretty well |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project