Comments on: ‘More Pro-American than Americans’

By: foreign exchange student in australia

foreign exchange student in australia — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:13:16 +0000

foreign exchange student in australia

You are invited to check out some relevant information in the field of forex education

By: txs hld m cmptr gm

txs hld m cmptr gm — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:21:40 +0000

txs hld m cmptr gm

In your free time, check out the sites about txs hld m hnd dds

By: super lotto

super lotto — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:20:51 +0000

super lotto

Take your time to check out the pages on poker machine

By: bst csn bns nln

bst csn bns nln — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:11:04 +0000

bst csn bns nln

You may find it interesting to check some helpful info on bt nln nln csn bttng bttng-csns.cm

By: safe and fast diet pill

safe and fast diet pill — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:11:08 +0000

safe and fast diet pill

Take your time to take a look at some information about formula one diet pills

By: pcfc pkr rfll bns cd

pcfc pkr rfll bns cd — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 05:30:15 +0000

pcfc pkr rfll bns cd

Take your time to visit the sites in the field of pcfc pkr dwnld

By: nora sumi park

nora sumi park — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:27:39 +0000

koreans need to learn that when they point a finger at someone, they’re pointing three fingers back at themselves.

and their thumb at god.

By: baduk

baduk — Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:10:37 +0000

Koreans like to blame USSR and even the U.S.(for pulling out without preparing Korean defense). But the war was started by Kim IlSung and not by Russians; they have documents to prove this.

In addition, Syngman Rhee did not do his job right. He believed his general’s lie and did not do a good job as the commander-in-chief of Korean military, just like Rho is totally failing that aspect of his job.

Koreans, and I am one, must not blame others. We are responsible for the war. Kim IlSung saw a chance when he learned that many people in SK are drunk with Communism. He might even believed he was truly liberating SKs from the upper class burgeoise that had been formed under the Japanese rule.

In 1950, South Koreans were divided into two factions. The same situation is here again. This separation within SK and also the strong desire for Korean unification may produce the same result- a war!

Thank you, Paul H. for introducing a great site and lirelou for additional information.

By: lirelou

lirelou — Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:49:45 +0000

Syngman Rhee as “puppet”. My definition of a puppet is someone who jumps when you pull the strings. That was hardly the relationship between Rhee and the Americans. In all the accounts I have read, Rhee had the Americans tearing their hair out on many occasions. They fully recognized his non-democratic tendencies (a trait shared by many Koreans of his generation), as well as his talent for listening to their “advice”, smiling in agreement, and then turning around and doing exactly what he had intended to do in the first place. I don’t have the time to go back and review the many issues in which Rhee showed himself to be contrary to, or independent of, the position of his American “advisors”, but none of them paint Rhee as an easy man to deal with. And none would have termed him a “puppet”. Of course, neither was Kim Il-sung, but the propaganda of both sides painted the other as “puppets”. This is not a minor point. The 1950-53 phase of the war was an essentially Korean tragedy, despite our (U.S.) cold-War viewpoint. From a Korean perspective, its greatest tragedy is that despite the fact that the heaviest losses of the war were Korean, both sides lost control of the war’s outcome. The entry of the United Nations and the People’s Republic of China guaranteed that the Armistice would be settled on terms convenient to the major players, and not necessarily to the liking of either Korea. That does not confirm their puppet status, but rather that they were both junior partners in July 1953. Terming either a “puppet” is essentially an attempt to absolve them, and essentially all Koreans, from any responsibility for the war or its outcome. THe term “Korean War” describes more than its location.

By: Paul H.

Paul H. — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 13:23:57 +0000

To supplement Lirelou’s info, some of you might want to review US Army official history of Korean War.

It’s on line, here’s the URL for the first volume.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/PD.HTM

Published 1992. Click on individual chapter titles to read them one by one. Footnotes are provided.

First few chapters cover background info on Korean history, Japanese colonial period, US occupation history, approx 1 year period after US withdrew its occupation ground forces until NorK attacked (25 June 1950).

I consider it a “neutral” account in that it was written by US Army official historians, with no “axe to grind” as regards Korean politics or current US-ROK alliance status.

Good overview of the period, before going on to more detailed accounts. Has some interesting details on technical military matters (ie best estimates of exact number of NorK T34 tanks in June 1950). Also on ROK political problems of the time (which to my inexpert eye seemed to eerily echo some of what I read on this blog about current events in ROK).