 | |
| Land of the Morning Calm -- until the Americans came |
In the London Review of Books, Bruce Cumings rehearses the history of the Hermit Kingdom, though not as far back as he could have done. Most Americans know the name of Perry who "opened" Japan but not one in 10 million can name the American who "opened" Korea. (R.W. Shufeldt, in 1882, although the U.S, Navy had been bombarding what was then called Corea and killing Coreans since about 1870.)
After 1945, the Americans pursued the same policy in Korea that it did in Germany, China and Indochina: leaguing with fascists in the name of anticommunism. In Korea, it could not use the Japanese fascists so it used their Korean collaborators.
A vital figure in the long Japanese counterinsurgency effort was Kishi Nobusuke, who made a name for himself running munitions factories. Labelled a Class A war criminal during the US occupation, Kishi avoided incarceration and became one of the founding fathers of postwar Japan and its longtime ruling organ, the Liberal Democratic Party; he was prime minister twice between 1957 and 1960. The current Japanese prime minister, Abe Shinzo, is Kishi’s grandson and reveres him above all other Japanese leaders. Trump was having dinner at Mar-a-Lago with Abe on 11 February when a pointed message arrived mid-meal, courtesy of Pyongyang: it had just successfully tested a new, solid-fuel missile, fired from a mobile launcher. Kim Il-sung and Kishi are meeting again through their grandsons. Eight decades have passed, and the baleful, irreconcilable hostility between North Korea and Japan still hangs in the air.Although supporting fascism cost America a great deal in Vietnam, in the long view it could be argued that it turned out OK in Germany, the Philippines, Turkey, Indonesia and South Korea. All eventually adopted at least semi-real democratic governments. In 2017, though, it does not look as rosy as once it did.
Iran, the Philippines, Turkey and -- perhaps -- Indonesia are not models of democracy (despite the elections this weekend in Iran). But Korea is the example, above all, of the proposition that maybe it would have been a better idea to have supported democrats, however messy that appeared at the time.
It is not merely that by supporting fascists the United States became morally responsible for several genocides; according to Cumings, the toll in Korea was of Rwandan proportions.
There is a strange gap in Cumings' narrative. He says
After the Americans left in 1948 the border area around the 38th parallel was under the command of Kim Sok-won, another ex-officer of the Imperial Army, and it was no surprise that after a series of South Korean incursions into the North, full-scale civil war broke out on 25 June 1950.As too few of us know, the United States was making war against communist states in the late '40s: in Ukraine, China, Korea and elsewhere. To do so in Korea, using South Korean surrogates, was especially reckless, since the South Korean government had no military of its own (only a constabulary of about 8 divisions) nor any American backup.
The Soviets and the Chinese had no option for direct retaliation, but the North Koreans did, and they used it.
After the Chinese routed the American-South Korean invaders of the north, and were pushed back in turn, the US Army had to acknowledge it was beaten. It then turned to a campaign of pure slaughter.
17 of every 20 buildings -- most necessarily of no military significance -- in the north were bombed, and unnumbered Chinese and Koreans were shelled along the inactive front lines.
The code name for the policy --it cannot be called a strategy -- was significant and meant to be: OPERATION KILLER.
Under these circumstances, it is unsurprising that the North Koreans consider that any and all American policies are aimed at regime change, or that they might be prepared to go to any extreme to counter them.
Liberals made fun of Trump when he said, who knew health care could be so complicated. They might want to examine their consciences (if they have any in this area) when it comes to policy in the Land of the Morning Calm.
Korea began the unbroken string of American military defeats that shows no sign of ever ending.
ReplyDeleteThe South Koreans sure don't think it was a defeat. Although, due to MacArthur's megalomania, we left far too many Koreans to become slaves of communism. Had the DMZ been on the 39th, instead of the 38th, parallel, the PDRK would have collapsed when most of the rest of communism ended up on the ash heap of history.
The Cold War wasn't a defeat, either. Nor was the Kosovo War. Desert Storm was a clear win, and so was Operation Iraqi Freedom. It's a shame that the Iraqis wasted their chance to have a civil society, though.
And I'll bet the South Vietnamese wished the Democrats in Congress didn't cut them off at the knees.
Although supporting fascism cost America a great deal in Vietnam …
The point, of course, was to help the South Vietnamese defend themselves against completely unprovoked aggression from the North. But since you are clearly a communist sympathizer, any horror is OK, so long as it is for the cause.
As too few of us know, the United States was making war against communist states in the late '40s: in Ukraine, China, Korea and elsewhere.
I'd like to see corroborated details on what you consider "making war against communist states".
The goal of war is to impose your will on the opponent. That is (or was when I was under tutelage) the official doctrine of the United States Army.
ReplyDeleteThe US achieved that in the glorious campaigns in Grenada and Panama, and, maybe, Dominican Republic. Desert Storm can only be called a victory if you assign to it very limited goals.
'The point, of course, was to help the South Vietnamese defend themselves against completely unprovoked aggression'
Well, no, that wasn't the point as we also supported the French against any form of native government. The goal at that point was to prevent a native government that was communist. Nothing required the US to choose to support a minority of colonialist collaborators to do that, although having made that choice, it was difficult to back out when that unrepresentative minority went fascist. Murdering the despot didn't work.
Desert Storm can only be called a victory if you assign to it very limited goals.
ReplyDeleteWhich is to say, it can only be called a victory if it attains the goals established for the war before it began.
It did.
And you forget about the Cold War and Kosovo.
The goal at that point was to prevent a native government that was communist.
A native government imposed by the North with lavish support from PRC and the USSR?
I'd like to see corroborated details on what you consider "making war against communist states".
There was no south-north at that time. I have already decided it is not worth my time to converse with you about international relations of the interwar period, because you know about as much of the matter as the average Fox viewer -- next to nothing. Now you demonstrate equal ignorance about the immediate postwar period.
ReplyDeleteRtO operates on the premise that its readers both care and know something of its topics. If they don't, they might learn something. But it serves no purpose to, eg, exchange comments with someone who doesn't know about the 1954 accords.
There was no south-north at that time.
ReplyDeleteYes there was.:
Korea was ruled by Japan from 1910 until the closing days of World War II. In August 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, as a result of an agreement with the United States, and liberated Korea north of the 38th parallel. U.S. forces subsequently moved into the south. By 1948, as a product of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, Korea was split into two regions, with separate governments. Both governments claimed to be the legitimate government of all of Korea, and neither side accepted the border as permanent.
Harry, you are astonishingly snotty, considering how often -- always -- you are unable to backup your delusional claims, and the amazing amount of time you avoid doing what should be simple.
Unless it's impossible.
The comment was about Indochina and was,of course, accurate, If you cannot keep up, keep out
ReplyDeleteThat totally vague statement, followed next sentence by more of your snottiness in the next sentence about the interwar period, and somehow I'm supposed to glean you aren't talking about Korea?
ReplyDeleteI operate on the premise that you are arguing from sound facts, and the common expectation that you will source your statements. Why? Because how else am I to decide if you are a) plausibly relating facts to argument (pellagra) b) whether these facts actually exist, or are just the product of your unhinging hatred (tea party chanting "let him die".
Citations are really easy to do; as you may have noticed, I do it all the time.
Yet, even on request you prevaricate, whinge, and cover your monitor in spittle.
Well, yes, you were expected to follow the concept of 'native government,' which hardly applies in the northern part of Korea, since 1) it had a native government and 2) the US had no opportunity to advocate/interfere there. That was the case in Vietnam, though, as you'd get if you had command of the materials.
ReplyDeleteOn the other point, it makes no difference when I do present a citation. You just dismiss it, as you did when I supplied a citation for MPs cheering the bombing of British ships (which I did because although it was notorious at the time, it has dropped out of sight in historical treatments and I don't think even well-read Americans know about it.)
Well, yes, you were expected to follow the concept of 'native government,' which hardly applies in the northern part of Korea, since 1) it had a native government and 2) the US had no opportunity to advocate/interfere there.
ReplyDeleteThe government in S. Vietnam was "native", just as much as the North's was. What you have yet to justify is why the North was entitled to invade the South. Similarly with Korea. And apparently it is might fine for the USSR and the PRC to fully support those invasions.
What is it with you self-acknowledged intellectuals and infatuations with tyrants?
Though Hollander does not claim that there is a single explanation for intellectuals’ attraction to dictatorships such as those of Stalin, Mao, and Castro (or Khomeini, in the case of Foucault), let alone to have found it, he nevertheless believes, in my view plausibly, that the longing for quasi-religious belief in an age when actual religion has largely been rejected is a significant part of the explanation. The totalitarian dictators were not the typical politicians of democratic systems who, whatever their rhetoric, seem mainly to tinker at the edges of human existence, are ready or forced to make grubby compromises with their opponents, reveal themselves to be morally and financially corrupt, are more impressive in opposition than in office, have no overarching ideas for the redemption of humanity, and make no claims to be panjandrums of all human knowledge and wisdom. Rather, those dictators were religious leaders who claimed the power to answer all human questions at once and to lead humanity into a land of perpetual milk, honey, and peace. They were omniscient, omnicompetent, loving, and kind, infinitely concerned for the welfare of their people; yet at the same time they were modest, humble, and supposedly embarrassed by the adulation they received. The intellectuals, then, sought in them not men but messiahs.
Communists were murderous totalitarian thugs that destroyed every society they got hold of; yet in your eyes, the US is the villain.
You just dismiss it, as you did when I supplied a citation for MPs cheering the bombing of British ships ...
Of course I dismissed it; it wasn't even close to being relevant to any point under discussion.
That was the case in Vietnam, though, as you'd get if you had command of the materials.
Considering how many times you have gotten things completely wrong — the citations would be beyond number — your snottiness is truly a thing to behold.
Just as is your continual refusal to back up your assertions with anything even remotely like reputable sources.
Please point me to exactly where the "concept of 'native government'" exists in international law; or how whatever it might be justified North Korea's and Vietnam's invasions, and condemned South Korea's and Vietnam's governments from defending their countries.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteWell, after a few years of discussing with you, and reading your discussions, I must side a bit with Harry here.
You often demand more backing for some claims (many times things relatively trivial) than it is reasonable to expect from a discussion at blog level.
And you hardly use the same standards for yourself.
You also consistently present arguments far more contrived and prolix than necessary, which sometimes gives the impression you try to win it more by exhaustion than by factual arguments. Notice I say "it gives the impression", not that is is actually your aim. I think you like to exercize your oratory skills, and that's fine, but at some point it unwittlingly turns into a win-by-exhaustion tactic.
Maybe it is your military training - to "win" is more important than to learn or reflect upon something.
Take it constructively, please.
Skipper, you have a serious problem with time past:time future and cause:effect (protip, cause always comes first)
ReplyDeleteIf I say that the US supported the colonialist regime in Indochina after 1945, of what possible relevance could it be that North Vietnam, which didn't exist then, did something 10 or 20 years later.
I'm done with you on this topic. You don't know enough to participate.
You often demand more backing for some claims (many times things relatively trivial) than it is reasonable to expect from a discussion at blog level.
ReplyDelete(BTW, I am trying to take this constructively.)
And you hardly use the same standards for yourself.
What, that I don't substantiate my assertions? Seriously? Or qualify them when necessary? By all means, provide examples.
I'd happily wager that I substantiate my assertions at least 100 times more often than Harry.
In this post and thread, Harry:
Claims that the US has suffered an unbroken string of military defeats since WWII. Really?
As too few of us know, the United States was making war against communist states in the late '40s: in Ukraine, China, Korea and elsewhere.
The first is risible, the second foolish, the third simply wrong, and the last who the heck knows. Without Harry providing context for that statement, there is simply no way to take it other than on faith.
The post accuses the US of aligning with fascists against communism. At the most superficial level of analysis, that was true. However, given the nature of communism, and if the primary national interest is to provide a bulwark against communism, what is the best approach? What is the best way to defeat, or at least hold off, murderous zealots?
Was South Vietnam's government fascist? In what way can that charge be leveled, without also leveling it at North Vietnam? Do we not get to know what constitutes fascism? Do we not get to know how communism isn't fascistic? Conclusions without arguments are the work of an intellectual toddler. Which is why, when push comes to shove, Harry will not, cannot, substantiate his claims.
This has nothing to do with my military training. When Harry accuses people of being liars, or fascists, or racists, these are serious slurs that damn well better have serious proof behind them. When Harry rubbishes US policies, with complete disregard for what might have triggered them, then there is a very real possibility that he is either engaging in propaganda, or, somehow, remains a communist sympathizer.
You also consistently present arguments far more contrived and prolix than necessary, which sometimes gives the impression you try to win it more by exhaustion than by factual arguments.
You need to provide examples that speak to "contrived".
As for prolix, I'm sorry, I can't help it. I type very, very quickly.
If I say that the US supported the colonialist regime in Indochina after 1945, of what possible relevance could it be that North Vietnam, which didn't exist then, did something 10 or 20 years later.
ReplyDeleteThe relevance should be obvious: in what regard is it OK for the North to invade the South, but it isn't OK for the South to defend itself?
What is the concept of native government?
This will be the last time I converse with you on this subject,as I am tired of your ignorance, carelessness and venom.
ReplyDelete'what is the best approach?'
As I said in the original post, democracy. I have never expressed support or approval for bolshevism, nor for fascism.
'in what regard is it OK for the North to invade the South, but it isn't OK for the South to defend itself?'
This goes beyond ignorance into pure stupidity. There was no north-south in 1945. There were nationalist anticolonialists, colonialists and colonialist collaborators.
The OSS agents on the ground advised dealing with the Viet Minh, since that was the only party that had fought the Japanese and therefore the only party with any credibility with the people. Our government chose to support the French. Beyond foolishness.
No question if the elections had been held, the Viet Minh would have won. We sacrificed 50,000 Americans and millions of yellow people to make sure elections were never held.
How's that working out for you?
As I said in the original post, democracy. I have never expressed support or approval for bolshevism, nor for fascism.
ReplyDeleteThe problem, though, which you continually fail to appreciate, is even a relatively established democracy will have a hard time in the face of a communist insurgency. It doesn't matter whether you support or approve of marxism, the marxists in both Vietnam and Korea certainly supported themselves, as well as violently imposing that loathsome ideology.
So your moral preening about democracy is just as worthless as insisting that we create a separate Kurdistan. As desirable as either might be in principle, in reality they are simply impossible.
This goes beyond ignorance into pure stupidity. There was no north-south in 1945. There were nationalist anticolonialists, colonialists and colonialist collaborators.
True, but irrelevant. In 1960, when there was both a North and South Vietnam, in what regard was it OK for the NVA to invade the South?
No question if the elections had been held, the Viet Minh would have won.
When have fair elections ever been held in the face of a communist insurgency? (Although I get your certitude, when elections are held in a communist country, the Dear Leader always gets 100% of the vote.)
We sacrificed 50,000 Americans and millions of yellow people to make sure elections were never held.
Your hatred is making you stupid again. We fought in Vietnam to resist the expansion of communism — you can look it up. And it is also true that the South Vietnamese did vote, by the millions. With their feet.
You prove my points. Thanks
ReplyDeleteIf by that you mean that you have no response other than spittle when faced with counter arguments, then your points aren't worth proving.
ReplyDeleteNo, I mean anyone reading your comment will see that it confirms my points
ReplyDeleteI seriously doubt it, Harry. I presented you with serious counterarguments, and you respond with spittle -- the obvious conclusion is that your pronunciamentos and airy fairy moral preening can't stand up to inspection.
ReplyDeleteYou can think that but I am so confident that no one else would that I am standing pat.
ReplyDeleteYou are not qualified to discuss this subject.
As evidenced by your answering my counterarguments with the kind of snottiness that wouldn't pass muster on a playground.
ReplyDelete