Easy question, right? Answer it, please.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Party Member
North Korea did when they invaded South Korea On June 25 1950
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution! RIP Muamar Qadafi RIP Hugo Chavez Red Brigade wrote: oh, look a slightly larger post than mine that hasnt been deleted because it simply provided a date that could have been googled by someone who didnt already know!
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Party Member
I just wanted to give him a simple answer
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution! RIP Muamar Qadafi RIP Hugo Chavez
Here is a good post about the Korean War, it implicate the U.S. and it's puppet, South Korea:
Brian Wilson wrote: Link Ronald Bleier wrote: Link Quote: The post you made was far less informative that Red Brigade's, not to mention that it brought Cafe Mire memes to here. This should not be an annex of Cafe Mir because you disagree with North Korea's government.
Perhaps the question should be, wether or not the war was favourable to DPRK, or not. Wether it was provoked or not, wether or not the USSR gave permission or not, wether it was legititmate or not, are other issues of serious interest, but the most serious question is wether or not DPRK has gained anything, or not.
Before I will try to answer the question, I would first like to argue that: - The DPRK government had more legitimacy as the S.Korean govt., since it did not rely on former officers from the Japenese occupation regime. - In the south the communist had already massive supports, but this was brutally oppressed by the S. Korean government. In the first months of the war, the DPRK military was inhailed as liberators, not as oppressors. - The allied forces did not consult the Korean people in their own cause, and a large majority of the Korean people wanted independence and sovereignity. The Koreans never elected to be split in two. - The Rhee govt. was agressive, which was proven because the US/UN troops did not stop at th 38-th parallel, but Rhee insisted that the DPRK govt. would be defeated entirely. Hence, the whole operation most likably was a provocation. But then, at the end of the game, it must be clear that: - The DPRK and the Chinese army have had consiserable more casualties as the US/UN forces. Likely up to 3 times as much. - The S. Korean govt. now gained full support of the UN, while the DPRK is placed under permanent embargo. This issue remains up to today, and causes serious harm for the DPRK. - The DPRK suffered also territorial loss, as for instance the western martime territorial border has been set further north as before the war, which was done outside of the armistice, and is not acklowledged by DPRK. - The material damage done to DPRK was far greater as the material damage done in S. Korea. So, the question then is, in light of our current understanding, was this a strategic error from the DPRK? Wouldn't a political struggle, by alliing with the political forces in the South with favoured the DPRK, have been more succesfull? One aspect that should not be forgotten is that, although historic evidence suggest that DPRK was backed up politically by the USSR, the diplomacy of the USSR seriously failed, since they boycotted the UN security council on this issue, instead of issuing a veto. In that case, the UN could have never invaded Korea. It is unclear why this diplomatic failure happened, and which side (DPRK or USSR) is to blame for it. Order227 wrote: This post is against the forum rules. I have deleted the original. Please read the forum newbie guide in addition to the DPRK forum rules, and refrain from making such posts in the future.
Here is an interesting question:
Could it be that the provocations of the South, leading to the North liberation, was pre-planned by the US, and was in other words a trap or set up. Similar to the strategy used to provoke a military campaign by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, as was later admitted by Breziensky to be a pre-planned strategy in order to defeat the Soviet-Union? As we all know the split-up and warfare in Korea was a tragedy, and it was especially so for the DPRK, which lost the most people and had the most war damage.
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo
The Americans, the U.N., and the North and South Korean separatists who eventually caused the de unification of Korea imo
![]()
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41 Party Member
why didnt the soviet use their veto? perhaps it was because north korea would be seen as maoist friendly? stupid proletarian internationalism.
GreenCommunism wrote:I thought they walked out of the UN meeting in some kind of theatrical gesture. The vote was taken without them. It was too late by then.
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo
The Soviets walked out to protest the PRC not being given a seat, instead having the defeated Nationalists in Taiwan take it. It was a huge mistake and one they came to regret.
Whatever was the cause of this diplomatic failure, I think it was very bad for the DPRK, as this has lead to almost 60 years of complete isolation and trade embargo's, and after the fall of the Soviet Union almost brought the fall of the DPRK government due to the severe economic crisis in the 90-ies.
The DPRK was up to the 60-ies, 70-ies the stronger nation (in terms of economy), but after that the south has closed the gap, and has grown now significantly stronger as the south. Currently the south donates tons of food to the north each year. This used to be the other way around, decades ago.. All-in-all I think the DPRK (in combination with the SU diplomatic mistake) strategy of overcoming the political division of the country with military force (even when justified, the DPRK military overthrow of the ROK dictatorship was not an occupation but a liberation for most Koreans) was still a strategic mistake. But then, this is from this perspective in time easier to see perhaps then it was at that time. They could have better supported the pro-DPRK groups in the South dictatorship, and overtaking the country with political means instead of military means, as this would not have lead to warfare, and would not lead to a US invasion and retaliation. DPRK and China lost 3 times more people as the ROK and US/UN troops, and the DPRK was more damaged as the south. By the way: does anyone have material/sources on how the ROK provoked the warfare with the DPRK and how this might have been a setup by the US government (comparable somewhat to what the Soviets experienced in Afghanistan) to enable a large scale invasion of the country and taking over the DPRK by military force? It is clear also that this US/ROK setup failed too, because they miscalculated the Chinese military support for the DPRK.
Bruce Cumings' new book "Korean War" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/books/22book.html is a great place to start to figure this out. I have been through a number of sessions in the DPRK where the initial attack along the 38th parallel in the west is recounted but it is more complex than that and I think Cumings captures the problems with a "Communist invasion" of the south. Given the regime in the south and a divided Korea, the issues are more complex than "who started the Korean war?"
|
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||