Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Who started the Korean War?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 13 Aug 2010, 11:39
Easy question, right? Answer it, please.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 14 Aug 2010, 15:29
North Korea did when they invaded South Korea On June 25 1950
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 14 Aug 2010, 18:16
Red Brigade wrote:
North Korea did when they invaded South Korea On June 25 1950

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!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 15 Aug 2010, 03:40
I just wanted to give him a simple answer
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 15 Aug 2010, 05:51
Here is a good post about the Korean War, it implicate the U.S. and it's puppet, South Korea:

Brian Wilson wrote:
At the conclusion of World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States occupied previously undivided Korea in order to expel the defeated Japanese who had ruled the entire Peninsula for decades. A temporary demarcation line separating the Russian and U.S. forces was created approximately along the 38th parallel. This line was not intended to create two separate countries. But as the Cold War deepened, both powers insisted that re-unification of North and South be carried out according to their own ideological bias. The U.S. supported an extremely repressive ruler in the South, Syngman Rhee, while the North was led by Kim Il Sung, a fiercely independent man greatly vilified by the West. The two sides increasingly clashed across the parallel for several years. The North Korean government claimed that in 1949 alone, the South Korean army and/or police committed over 2600 armed incursions into the North. Subsequently, documents have suggested that, at a minimum, there were a number of attacks by South Korean forces into the North, and that many, if not all, of the attacks on the South had been reprisals. Syngman Rhee’s public pronouncements throughout 1949 and early 1950 consistently spoke of his desire to order his forces to attack the North. Whatever happened on June 25, 1950 remains unclear, but the fighting on that day is considered by some scholars to have been no more than the escalation of an ongoing civil war provoked by the Cold War.


Link

Ronald Bleier wrote:
Many of us learned from IF Stone's indispensable The Hidden History of the Korean War that it is far from clear that the Korean was started because of an invasion by the North as advertised. Now I come to find that Professor Bruce Cumings has written extensively on the matter suggesting, as Stone indicated, that the matter was far more complicated. In a letter to the NYRB, he cogently summarizes some of the evidence indicating that the war was essentially started by the South Korean military leadership, put in place and supported, as we learned from Stone by the US (MacArthur).

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20840
New York Review of Books
Bruce Cumings writes:
To the Editors:

In his review of David Halberstam's book on the Korean War, The Coldest Winter [NYR, October 25], Richard Bernstein mentions the thesis "advanced in particular by Bruce Cumings" that Syngman Rhee or the South Korean military might have provoked Kim Il Sung's attack in June 1950. In a long chapter entitled "Who Started the Korean War?" I examined just about every thesis on how the war started including this thesis, first advanced not by me but by I.F. Stone in his Hidden History of the Korean War. I used formerly secret archival documents in English and Korean (including a large captured North Korean archive) to conclude this chapter by saying that all the theses were wrong, because civil wars do not start, they come along after years or even decades of internecine conflict—as in Korea.

Because the top US commander in Korea had secretly told his superiors that South Korean military forces started the majority of fighting along the 38th parallel in 1949, with attacks from the South beginning in May and ending in December and with a near war in August, it was incumbent upon me to examine Stone's thesis in any event. The South Korean commander of the parallel in the summer of 1949 was Kim Sok-won, a quisling who had chased after Kim Il Sung and other guerrillas in Manchuria in the 1930s, on behalf of the Japanese Kwantung Army—an army well known for provoking incidents, such as the one resulting in Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931. My main point, though, was that the commanders of the respective Korean armies had chosen different sides in the long anticolonial struggle against Japan, and it should not have been surprising that once they had the means to do so, they would again clash with each other. What is more surprising is the direct American role, during the US occupation of Korea from 1945 to 1948, in putting in power an entire generation of Koreans in the military and the national police who had served Japanese imperialism.

David Halberstam and I spent an afternoon together before his tragic death, talking about this war, and his warmth and generosity did not hide the fact that he was entirely unaware of what might be found in an archive, apart from selected documents that came out after the Soviet Union collapsed. Neither is Richard Bernstein, whose last review lauded a completely shoddy book on North Korea by Jasper Becker, Rogue Regime [NYR, March 1], a book rife with elementary errors and thus a laughingstock among scholars. I don't believe The New York Review would treat many other fields of scholarship as if anyone can come along and offer their judgments without the slightest evidence that they know what they are talking about.

Bruce Cumings
Professor and Chair, History Department
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois


Link

Quote:
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!


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.
Soviet cogitations: 57
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Aug 2010, 14:35
Pioneer
Post 16 Aug 2010, 16:51
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.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3033
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Nov 2004, 20:06
Party Bureaucrat
Post 22 Aug 2010, 11:59
Order227 wrote:
You realize when Obby gets back that this "simple question" is going to breed the Mother of All Kool-Aid Drinking TL-DR posts?

I'd avoid this forum altogether for a week or so if I were you.


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.
I post Here
Image
Soviet cogitations: 57
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Aug 2010, 14:35
Pioneer
Post 28 Aug 2010, 18:50
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.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 28 Aug 2010, 19:53
The Americans, the U.N., and the North and South Korean separatists who eventually caused the de unification of Korea imo
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41
Party Member
Post 29 Aug 2010, 10:46
why didnt the soviet use their veto? perhaps it was because north korea would be seen as maoist friendly? stupid proletarian internationalism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 29 Aug 2010, 11:13
GreenCommunism wrote:
why didnt the soviet use their veto? perhaps it was because north korea would be seen as maoist friendly? stupid proletarian internationalism.
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.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 29 Aug 2010, 12:08
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.
Soviet cogitations: 57
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Aug 2010, 14:35
Pioneer
Post 30 Aug 2010, 05:48
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.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 52
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Oct 2009, 18:26
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 01 Sep 2010, 13:54
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
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.