Comments on: Who’s wrong again?

By: The Marmot

The Marmot — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 02:17:18 +0000

Orackay - no, I don’t mean to say Carter “approved” of the Kwangju Massacre, but then again, in situations such as this, leaders often have to decide between two ugly choices, and as Zbigniew Brzezinski (a man I respect tremendously, despite having worked under Carter) put it - “In the short term, support??р쓎n the longer term, pressure for political evolution.” And the US raised no objection to Chun’s decision to take the ROK 20th Infantry Division - a unit attached to Combined Forces Command - and use it to restore order in Kwangju. Now, granted, Chun didn’t need American permission to use the 20th Division in Kwangju, and certainly, arguments could be made (correctly, in my opinion) that the 20th Division handled themselves with much more professionalism and were a far better option than the Special Forces (who were completely under Chun’s command). Just because I knew you’d be interested, I should point out that evil Republican Eisenhower refused a similar request from Syngman Rhee to detach troops from Joint Command for use in putting down domestic unrest. But hey, it was 1980, Carter didn’t want to have another situation like Iran to take place, “law and order” was going to be restored one way or the other, and Carter decided that looking the other way was the most prudent thing to do. Personally, this was probably the best decision he could have made given the circumstances, and I don’t mean to beat Peanuts over the head with this. All I was trying to say is that if Cumings wants to take Republicans to task for supporting dictators in the South, he should be reminded that there’s more than enough dirt out there to cover everyone in a comprehensively bipartisan fashion.

PING:
TITLE: Wrong Again? No
BLOG NAME: Barry Talks!
Bruce Cumings is a scholar and historian whom I greatly respect

PING:
TITLE: who’s wrong again, again?
BLOG NAME: jessicaharbour.com
(Note: The Marmot got to this before I did, and was briefer in his remarks.)Ah, Bruce Cumings. Thought the name rang a bell. I know we read him for my Greater China seminar my senior year; I wish I could…

PING:
TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 12-09-2003
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
JAN 9/03 TOPICS INCL: Masterful analysis of reunification, Future of U.S. Forces Korea; South Koreans killed in Iraq; China & Korea fight over ancient history; Josh Marshall on Korean diplomacy; Riots; Bruce Cumings attacks; Hunger strikes; North Korea…

By: Michael Sheehan

Michael Sheehan — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 14:10:11 +0000

The below was extracted from: “Cumings and Weathersby: An Exchange on Korean War Origins”:
The entire article is worth reading, but the closing statement by Ms. Kathryn Weathersby is illuminating:

“Of course it’s true, as Cumings notes, that we must examine the archives from all the major actors in the war before we can fully understand this unusually complex conflict. The Cold War International History Project is facilitating just such a multiarchival investigation, beginning with a close comparison of the Chinese and Russian sources. Nonetheless, certain important questions about the war have been resolved by the Russian archival sources; to pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.”

Source: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/C.....b6-7a8.htm

By: Plunge

Plunge — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:33:46 +0000

Must relate a personal experience. One of my former Korean History Profs related the follow. He knows Bruce quite well and after documents and other items came to light showing the USSRs involvement and China’s involvement in the Korean war and especially in starting the Korean, he asked Bruce about it. Especially with what Bruce has written about that period. Instead of saying he was looking at it, or going to add a section to his “Origins of the Korean War”, he just shrugged his shoulders and said, “Oh well.”

By: slim

slim — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:17:17 +0000

I thought Cummings’ latest was a wholesale piece of unmitigated crap. I often wondered how such scholastic brilliance as Cummings has shown can sit alongside the crass mendaciousness of his politics. Can he really MEAN the things he says, knowing all that he sems to know?

By: oranckay

oranckay — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:39:16 +0000

About comment (quote): “act a little harshly once in a while towards landowners, merchants, Christians, and political oppononts of any stripe,”

I have great respect for the senior H.G. Underwood, but Syngman Rhee had his political opponent executed, and while not talked about much, this fact is pretty much uncontested. A certain Mr. Jo Bong’am (Cho Bongam) lost to Rhee in the 2nd presidential election in 1952 and the 3rd presidential election in 1956. Given the course of events through which Rhee came to be no longer in power, it would be hard to find someone who would tell you those elections were fair. It is extremely likely that Jo should’ve been president, and at the very least, Rhee probably thought so. Jo had been part of the ROK’s constitutional convention, served a few Nat’l Assembly terms, and was elected deputy speaker. After a lifetime in legitimate politics, he was suddenly arrested for violations of the National Assembly Law in 1958 and executed the same year. Rhee was forward thinking, wise, and did the country enormous good, but there’s no way around the fact that he wasn’t a “little harsh,” he was ruthless and brutal when he wanted to be, even if this behavior wasn’t displayed frequently. And of course there’ll always be the part about how he probably shouldn’t have been president after that first term. Nice wife, though.

I haven’t read much Cummings, but from what little I have it seems he started out based in some painful truths and then over the years just gradually started enjoy the pain more than the truth.

Q to Marmot: What does “signed off on” mean? Do you mean Carter approved?

By: The Marmot

The Marmot — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:08:40 +0000

No doubt that Cuming’s work is highly biased, and many of his sources (when he bothers to mention who or what they are) are highly questionable. And needless to say, his treatment of the North Korean regime is way too generous. That being said, he does explode a number of widely held myths concerning South Korea AND asks questions that few scholars bother to ask. Moreover, I’ve come to believe that Cumings is used by a number of Korean leftists like the US is used by the rightists, i.e. they invoke his name (and his work) and lift quotes here and there to justify their ideological convictions, but few have read his work carefully (if they have bothered to read it at all).

By: Michael Sheehan

Michael Sheehan — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:14:15 +0000

One of my heroes is Dr. Horace Underwood (of the Underwood family associated with Yonsei University and Severance Hospital).

I would like to share some of his comments on Mr. Bruce Cumings, as excerpted from “Korea in War, Revolution and Peace: The Recollections of Horace G. Underwood”, edited and annotated by Michael J. Devine (Seoul: Yonsei University Press, 2001):

Chapter V: Liberation and Division/Evaluating the Inter-War Years:

p 122: “Historian Bruce Cumings focuses on the suppression of liberal elements in South Korea, while others have focused on undemocratic aspects of the inter-war years. These criticisms are based on documentary evidence that I believe is often taken out of context and that ignores factors that should qualify the criticism.”

p 130: “Historian Bruce Cumings’ works … paint a highly unpleasant picture of South Korea under Rhee, while playing down or ignoring the atrocities and complete suppression of civil liberties in North Korea. Elegantly written and filled with information from a wide range of American, Korean, and Chinese sources, Cumings’ cleverly crafted chapters present Rhee Syngman as a mere dupe of the American occupation forces and Soviet agent Kim Il-sung as a true Korean patriot who, despite a tendency to act a little harshly once in a while towards landowners, merchants, Christians, and political oppononts of any stripe, enjoyed wide popular support throughout both North and South Korea.”

Chapter VI: The Korean War

p 154: “The brutal nature of the Korean conflict and its harsh consequences for Korea’s population is documented in Jon Halliday and Bruce Cumings’ “Korea: The Unknown War” (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988). This book, aimed at a wide popular audience, must be read with caution, however, as it makes use of several questionable sources. It is highly critical of U.S. actions while ignoring or glossing over numerous North Korean atrocities.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As for me, my personal opinion is that Mr. Cumings’ writings are heavily biased and exhibit a tendency towards intellectual dishonesty.

By: The Marmot

The Marmot — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:23:24 +0000

Oranckay, I’ll agree that Carter pissed off more friendly Third World dictators than any man in our history. The problem is, he didn’t exactly endear himself to their opposition, either. Carter - and I’ll be the first to admit he was not only a visionary, but probably the most decent human being ever to sit in the White House - failed to find the appropriate balance between principles and realpolitik - vacillating pleases no one, as his conduct in Iran and South Korea (and other places) proved all too well. And as I said in my post, even if Reagan did invite Chun to the White House, it was Carter who signed off on Kwangju, and while one can make an argument that given the realities of the situation, he didn’t have much choice (Reagan would have definately done the same), it’s still Carter’s cross to bear.

By: slim

slim — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:15:33 +0000

I had always heard that inviting Chun to the White House was the price the U.S. paid to spare Kim Dae-jung’s life. (If so, nice payback from DJ!) A larger point is that as debased and dishonest as we find the South Korean left, the South Korean right are an unsavory bunch. Both sides (and North Korea) are united in their propensity to shift blame for their fuck-ups to Uncle Sam. Korea is one!