Author: expatter

Korean Partition: How did it happen .......... ? [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2010-11-30 00:04:36 |Display all floors
But there would be no civil war in Korea in 1945 because the United States and the Soviet Union prevented it. Ostensibly to accept the surrender of Japanese forces, the Soviets occupied Korea north of the 38th parallel in August, while the Americans would establish control south of that line the next month.[23] The revisionists condemn President Truman for arranging Korea's division into zones of military occupation.

For example, Cumings advances the revisionist argument that dispatching US troops to South Korea was "an unprecedented act of ambition" and "the first postwar act of containment." US occupation officials followed thereafter a counterrevolutionary course, backing the political aspirations of reactionary conservative Korean politicians in the south, especially Syngman Rhee, and striving "through unilateral actions to build a bulwark against communism."[24] But traditional scholars have applauded the United States for acting to prevent the Soviet Union from occupying all of Korea and creating there a satellite modeled after Poland.

Endorsing the traditional view, Charles Dobbs blames Soviet aggressive and expansionist ambition for making it necessary to partition Korea. Moscow, he writes, "had done little to deserve" a voice in the postwar reconstruction of Korea because the Soviets "had made no significant contribution to the defeat of Japan."[25]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2010-11-30 00:06:27 |Display all floors
Soviet-American partition of Korea after World War II meant that barring resort to war, reunification was possible only after an international diplomatic or domestic political agreement had paved the way for a negotiated settlement. Responsibility for the deadlock transforming the 38th parallel into a fortified boundary and thereby creating the circumstances necessary for the outbreak of the Korean War became a matter of concern.

Recent studies accept without much discussion the revisionist argument that blames the United States for perpetuating Korea's division. If the Truman Administration had not manufactured a South Korea, these studies suggest, the popular preference for revolutionary political and economic change would have resulted in the establishment of a leftist government to rule a reunified Korea.[26] Recently, challenges to this interpretation signal the emergence in Korean War studies of a "revisionism from the right" that seeks to rehabilitate the traditional view.

Newly available communist archival materials do not justify, however, a complete resurrection of traditional explanations for the postwar impasse preventing Korea's reunification. Rather, Weathersby's findings in particular argue for an abandonment of the revisionist versus traditionalist bipolarity that for over two decades has trapped Korean War studies in an analytical straightjacket.[27]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2010-11-30 10:21:42 |Display all floors

Mods is there any reason why the next paragraph gets forgotton ........ ?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2010-11-30 10:26:16 |Display all floors
Originally posted by seneca at 2010-11-30 10:18
The trouble seems tyo be that the U.S. of A.  n e e d e d   the SU as an ally against their common Japanese enemy, but once Nazi Germany and fascist Japan had been trounced, the alliance between th ...
..........................................................................


Well, as this article points out, it became the paranoia which was to continue and lead on to Vietnam ........

But this article is revealing in which side was the most paranoid and how desperate parties were to cling to territory through ideals rather than pragmatics .....

And most importantly how the Korean people were ignored for other people's beliefs and goals ...........

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2010-11-30 10:28:24 |Display all floors
Uncertain Partners: Stalin, M.ao, and the Korean War heads the list of important recent works on the Korean War for scholars striving to revive traditional judgments about the conflict. Its authors make extensive use of new documents, memoirs, and personal interviews to reveal that Kim Il-sung manipulated both Stalin and M.ao Ze.dong to gain their consent for his plan to invade South Korea.

But Uncertain Partners, on balance, revives and sustains traditional views about the origins of the Korean conflict. For example, the authors accept, without elaboration, the judgment that North Korea was "wholly dependent" on Moscow and was "justly called a Soviet satellite."[28] Erik van Ree provides abundant evidence and detailed analysis to support this traditional viewpoint in his 1989 study which points to the "presence of the Soviet army, the network of Soviet advisors, the stifling economic grip, the presence of an impressive propaganda machine, and the all-pervading adulation of Joseph Stalin" as proof that North Korea was a satellite.

Van Ree assigns "most of the blame" to the Soviets "for the continuation of Korea's division in the two years after the Second World War."[29]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2010-11-30 10:29:01 |Display all floors

Filter ..............

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2010-11-30 10:29:39 |Display all floors
Van Ree challenges another fundamental tenet of left revisionism when he claims that Soviet occupation officials ignored the Korean People's Republic and rejected its legitimacy. Moscow instead transported to Korea from Siberia "loyal" Soviet Koreans and placed them in charge of "people's committees." He endorses Dae-sook Suh's description of early developments north of the 38th parallel, identifying the Soviet military as "the real authority" in North Korea. The Soviet Civil Administration delayed reforms and constructed a "classic `monolithic' model" closely resembling communist regimes in Eastern Europe.[30]

Socialism in One Zone depends heavily on research materials that suffer from ideological and political subjectivity, notably Soviet public papers, official memoirs, and secondary histories. Using these sources, Van Ree mounts a new defense of traditional assertions scholars advanced in assessing the Korean War decades earlier, but which revisionists managed to discredit without providing documentary proof. For example, he defines Soviet postwar goals in Korea as first the historic desire to acquire warm-water ports and second the creation of a buffer zone against an expected revival of Japanese aggression.

During World War II, an "aloof" Stalin was "not enthusiastic" about a Korean trusteeship because he expected geographic proximity would assure Soviet control over the entire peninsula. He would not accept "a position as simply one trustee among four." Washington, Van Ree concludes, consistently advocated steps toward ending Korea's division, but Moscow always blocked progress because it preferred to maintain an "exclusive Soviet grip" on socialism in one zone.[31]

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.