A Korea Society Opinion Institute poll commissioned by Uri Party standing committee member Chang Young-dal revealed that — surprise, surprise — Koreans hold the United States most responsible for the division of the Korean Peninsula.
According to a report on attitudes toward the North and opinion concerning diplomatic and security issues, of the countries surrounding the Korean Peninsula, Koreans held the United States must responsible for the national division (53 percent), followed by Japan (15.8 percent), Russia (13.7 percent) and China (8.8 percent)
Koreans also selected the United States as the nation most opposed to the reunification of the Korean Peninsula (35.3 percent), narrowly edging out Japan (35.2 percent). This meant Koreans simultaneously hold the United States most responsible for the national division and believe it the most opposed to national reunification.
Meanwhile, concerning the ongoing six-party talks, 56 percent of Koreans believe that if North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons, the U.S. should withdraw its nuclear umbrella from South Korea; that is to say (according to No Cut News), that the U.S. should abandon its preemptive strike strategy. 58 percent of Koreans, however, believe there’s no possibility of the United States launching a preemptive strike, anyway.
Rep. Chang said the results of the survey confirmed Korean’s high degree of consciousness for peaceful reunification. He stressed that during the coming regular assembly, he planned to prepare legal grounds regulating the intra-Korean relationship, such as a basic law on the development of the intra-Korean relationship.
The good lawmaker also commented on the controversy surrounding the Gen. MacArthur statue — I’m going to leave this in the original Korean, as it’s the only way to really do it justice:
???? ????????? ???????? ???? ????? ???G???? ??? ???????? ????? ????????????? ?????????? “????? ??????? ??????????? ????? ????????( ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???????? ????????????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ?????????????????? ???????? ????????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ??? ??”???????? ???????????.
He also said:
It’s no longer desirable to amplify clashes and tension over the statue issue… Now is the time to focus our ethnic purity (of intention) as energy to bring about intra-Korean reconciliation and cooperation and peaceful reunification.”
The funniest part about all this is check out the photo at the top of this story as it’s posted on Rep. Chang’s homepage. It’s all about background, baby.
In the Daily Surprises’ piece on the survey, there are a couple of additional numbers of interest.
79 percent of Koreans are interested in reunification, and 70.6 percent believe reunification should be achieved by mutual recognition of one another’s system, indication that since the June 15 Joint Declaration, awareness of peaceful reunification has spread. Only 28 percent believed reunification should be achieved by absorbing the North.
The economic burden was cited as the biggest barrier to reunification, while 53 percent agreed to pumping more money into the reunification effort, as opposed to 47.2 percent against.
In the event of a preemptive strike by the United States against North Korea, 43 percent said South Korea should take the U.S. side, while 40.9 percent said South Korea should take the North’s side. Those under the age of 40 tended to favor North Korea, while those over 50 preferred the United States.
As for the possibility of a U.S. preemptive strike against the North, 58 percent said there was no chance, while 39 percent said there was. About USFK, 51.6 percent said U.S. troops should continue to be stationed in South Korea, while 47.3 percent said U.S. troops needed to be withdrawn in stages.
Sphere: Related Content
86 Comments
79 percent of Koreans are interested in reunification
It’s good to know that 21% of the nation has absolutely no interest in its future one way or the other.
????? ??????? ??????????? ????? ????????( ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???????? ????????????? ???????? ?????? ??????
The implication with this of course is that the representative feels the Macarthur statue is in stark contrast to that which is pure and a people that have “come of age.” What that says about those who support the statue remaining should be obvious. It’s like I said earlier. It’s just rhetoric. Well spoken rhetoric, but rhetoric just the same.
So I wonder about Naver, where they got those numbers, the methods involved, the sample numbers, the questions involved in asking the sample poll, etc etc.
I’ve been to the site where they have the McArthur song.
http://www.namusori.pe.kr/bbs/.....ascno=1354
Most of the comments weren’t so nice to the communist sympathizers, to put it mildly. Why does all the anti-American groups get all the publicity?
…Jjang indeed… the bully of a highschool. That’s about his level.
I was going to cut back on my commenting for awhile, but I wanted to say that baduk’s points on the language seem solid, but then I think about the group of people the guy was using them on. It seems like a shit hole to step in either way. On the one hand, he is either spouting ideas about our nation/our race which is very much a part of the Korean mindset whether ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal or in the middle.
Is it unusual to hear a Korean talk about purity of blood and purity of the Korean race/people? The homogenity of the people?
When the Koreans talk like this, it doesn’t sound like Aryan brotherhood and Nazi Germany (or maybe even early 20th Century Japan) to me. But, you do hear it a good bit, no?
But, given what baduk has written and my own horrible Korean, I can buy that the guy wasn’t talking about this common theme in Korea about the greatness of the Korean people and homogenity and blood and such
Reading the headlines in Korea can also make you think Chinese and Japanese women are madly falling all over themselves in love with Korean hunks. We all know what the illusion is. Scratching the surface a little and you get deeper to the truth.
That’s one of the reasons why poll results done here are like someone changing socks everyday - always the results swinging radically from right to left, contradicting and baffling. I don’t believe any poll done by any Koreans with agendas to promote and legitimize anti-Americanism. Give me a poll done by a third party non-Korean professional outsider poll taker with no hidden agendas. Then we can seriously discuss the results.
Baduk, I totally get “your message” and I think most S. Koreans get it too–that’s why polls keep saying they would rather throw cash at the nork regime than have it collapse or be “pre-empted.” As for the nuances of minjok or whatever as Chang used it, even without any of that it’s obvious he sides with the would-be statue topplers. If he indeed used terminology like “deep ethnic purity” or something like that, as the Chosun story had it, he’s a frog in the well, and if he didn’t, he’s a frog in the well anyway.
Only 53 %. Hell, I call that progress.
Notice that Korea itself is not in the list of possibilities. I have never known a Korean that believes that they themselves made their own bed.
I think this survey is political fun and games, and don’t really count this as newsworthy, even for this blog
The US did unify Korea - then China came into the war. It always amazes me China can do anything they want to Korea and the Koreans never say boo.
Aletheia — Nail. Head. Hit.
How can a survey try to apportion blame for the division of the peninsula without offering the North and South as options? Once again, one of those inadvertantly insightful moments in SK…
But of course the US are responsible for the division. Of course the blame is to be shared with China, but hey! Too few Chinese to bash in Seoul, and plenty of Yanks, so…
I was partially educated in Korea, as I attended Korea’s “kukmin hakyo”, later known as the “chodung hakyo” (elementary school). I know about the Korean Teachers Union and their left leaning. Now I don’t know exactly what lies they’re teaching the young Koreans today, but back in those days (1970’s Park Chung Hee era), it was totally different. We were taught that America helped and saved Korea during the 1950 conflict. Gen. McArthur was a folk hero for Koreans. We proudly took black and white pictures in Inchon in front of that statue. There were no guards to protect that monument. It was given that Gen.MacArthur was a hero to Koreans. Americans were superheros who kicked out the evil Kim Il Sung commies who were killing Koreans. America was a land of milk and honey, where cows are put on conveyor belts in factories, then they come out in the same conveyor belts as nicely packaged beef that most Koreans couldn’t afford to eat no more than twice per year. We were taught in America, streets were paved with gold.
I know this is not how it’s viewed in Korean schools today, but I just can’t believe that it has changed that much. Where does the revisionism of history come from? I can only rationalize it as a byproduct of the dictatorship era. Many Koreans who lean towards the left do not trust the Conservatives because of their ties to the past military dictatorship. They rationalize that the US + conservatives = past military right wing dictatorship backed and propped up by Japanese colonial chin-il-pa (collaborators). The left leaning student radicals have a long history of violence. They were protesting for ‘democracy’ even as recently as the years of Roh Tae Woo and Kim Yong Sam. When Kim Dae Jung came to power, they found out that they had nothing to protest against anymore. The USFK became their next convenient target. The radicals took advantage of the populace who deeply mistrusted the corrupt conservatives who were in a bad shape . I think this is the result of their success that we’re seeing today - they are doing a good job painting the US as the bad guys.
I think the only thing that could turn this around is North Korea to collapse suddenly, and everybody will see for themselves what kind of a hell North Korea really is. That would quickly change anyone’s mind, and that it will make everyone realize what kind of too S.Korea has been. The left ‘progressives’ would be discredited and ridiculed and shamed. The world will be left wondering what South Koreans were doing to free North Korea. I hope the overwhelming round of world criticisms will shame S.Korea.
MacArthur has come under some historical revision in American academia too — as usually happens when the next generations chips away at what the generation before them sought to accomplish. In particular, I remember hearing him described as mired in boughts of depression during the Korean War and left his subordinates without enough guidance and leadership and could have handled the war much better. ……I have no particuarly feeling or special interest in the topic myself……
I recently was talking with a Yohnap editor (off the record) and was discussing one posting herein about Gallup Korea. All of us, including the editor, had serious doubts about the veracity and fairness of any poll taken in korea, due to politics and the lack of sound statistical methodology. This is why when I read of a poll on any political site, I’m pretty confident that it is a parade of numbers and nothing more.
P.S. Uridang is going down in flames . . .
It’s not to defend these ridiculous polls with a biased agendas. However, Mr. Kimbob, as someone who just traveled to Beijing, I can tell you, the Chinese women WERE actually asking me to sing everywhere I went… just because of the Korean wave, as they call it. I was surprised myself because I think the Korean pop is rubbish, but I must admit… I was flattered..
Coming back to the actual issue, it’s absolutely terrible that they are trying to tear it down.. classic ad hominem… Thanks to the worthless president. Korea needs an equivalent of John Paul II or Queen Elizabeth. No one is willing to listen to anybody, and everybody thinks their opinion is earthshattering and revelatory.
A popular revolution may be coming.
“Now is the time to focus our racial purity…” I think I heard a guy from the Aryan Brotherhood say that once… Aren’t these polls a sort of marketing device used by, in this instance, Uri Dang to rally the faithful? Commission a survey, and if the results suit your agenda you publicize it. It is interesting though, albeit somewhat understandable, that Koreans want to squirm out of taking responsibility for N. Korea by telling their gov’t to throw cash at the problem and hope it will go away.
“Racial purity” was a wrong translation. #1 ???????? tried to correct the error. Here is my translation which agrees with #1.
???? ????????? ???????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? ????? ????????????? ??????????
He said about the McArthur statue which has become a political issue.
??????? ??????? ??????????? ????? ????????( ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???????? ????????????? ???????? ?????? ??????
I understand people who advocate the removal of the statue and I value their (intellectua) honesty and the mature attitude toward the our history
?? ?????? ????? ?????????????????? ???????? ????????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ??? ???????????? ???????????.
However, this issue should not impede our attempts in the direction of sunshine policy or the unification.
No mention of “racial purity”.
The US is 100% responsible for the division. If we had never came here, then Korea would have been united by August 1950, and these Koreans would all be happy today because they would have never known the difference.
This f***ing Uri party Commie rediscovered that people want Unification and Peace.
Well, who doesn’t. The real question is, unification in what form? It is evident to every thinking person that KJI isn’t going to roll over and play dead. On the contrary, he is DICTATING what South Korea has to do, even to the small details.
The case in point. The Hyundai Corp which organizes KumGang mountain trip recently got a cold shoulder from KJI when it replaced the vice president for embezzlement. KJI is telling the president to reinstate the embezzler; maybe, he works for KJI.
Everybody wants the water and the food to go to New Orleans. But, actually getting them there is totally different story.
The same thing here. Every Korean wants the unification. But KJI is still alive and kicking. How do we get around him? By sending more money to him? He buys weapons with the money.
Commies like Representative Chang have no clues about how to achieve the unification. Yet, he lies to people that sending KJI money will somehow bring peace to the peninsula.
Good luck to you, Chang. Someday, you will have to pay for your lies.
This really goes to show what damage a handful of Commie professors can do. When freshmen enters a college, these left-wing nutcases shocked them into seeing the “true” history of Korea. And, these innocent minds never suspect the true motive of the professors, which is to parade their intellectual “superiority” over students who do not have any idea about the reality.
Then, these students became school teachers and regurgitated the same lies. Students had no data to counter these idiot teachers! Aha, but there is the internet these days. Some students will look up the Russian document which states Kim IlSung asked for Stalin to give him tanks.
I expect some Korean students to turn radically toward the right in near future. Actually, a sizeable students(20%) now oppose unification and the number is growing fast.
Baduk, I get the sense that those who are against reunification are against it on economic grounds, not ideological ones. That can be criticized on moral grounds, but it’s understandable–they don’t want their lifestyle impoverished by having to support their “brothers from another planet.” That’s the one response in these polls that’s consistent.
The US is 100% responsible for the division. If we had never came here, then Korea would have been united by August 1950, and these Koreans would all be happy today because they would have never known the difference.
lol
Also, Baduk, when Chang Young-dal says “that which is pure,” what is he referring to if not the Korean people? Pure like Ivory Soap
baduk said:
??????????( ???????”
“No mention of ??racial purity??. ”
baduk, I can understand where the translation of “racial purity” comes from (and it sounds like what you would hear from a KKK rally).. from the concept of ‘minjok’. Some will interpret that as ‘race’, and Koreans often throw around ‘uri minjok’. I guess that’s not entirely wrong, but I think it would be just as accurate if it’s translated as ‘our people’, meaning Koreans.
I know “uri minjok,” and don’t want to analyse this to death, but in the Chosun article (in English) it says:
Chang Young-dal told a meeting of legislators the people calling for the removal of the statue revealed a ??deep ethnic purity” and warned the party to watch out for “ultra-rightists” latching on to the statue issue to band together and ratchet up tensions.
It seems unlikely the Marmot or whoever translated this would mistake??deep ethnic purity” for a simple “our people” in the wording above….
The word ‘minjok’ is also overused to emphasize unity of North and South Koreans. I find that the leftists in South Korea and the North Koreans use this word much more often these days. Like I said, it’s not entirely wrong to translate it as ‘race’ or ‘Korean race’, ‘or our brothers’, or ‘our people’, or ‘our nation’, they are all correct.
A bit of Korean lesson is necessary:
????? : pure, honest, innocent, altruistic, not manipulative
???????? ???????? ?????????. He is an honest man, not given to take advantage of others by lying or cheating.
????????? pure literature
?????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????. I did it out of innocent(pure, altruistic) motive of helping others.
?????????( ??????? ???????..altruism and the mature attitude toward our history
The Chosun translation was wrong.
a
Foreigner(#18),
I think you still don’t get my message. As long as KJI is alive and breathing, reunification is a pipe dream.
People talk about unification when KJI is still alive. It is as lame as a homeless man planning about what restaurant he will go to. He must have the means first!
We must defeat the NK regime. Totally abolish it. Otherwise, we are just wasting time when we talk about reunification.
Baduk: The part I translated was not the Korean cited above, but something that comes later in the piece:
??? ???????? ?????? “???????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????( ?????? ?????????? ????? ???????????? ??????”???? “??????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ?????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ??”????? ??????????.
I edited the translation above to stress the spiritual/intention rather than “blood” nature of the statement, although, frankly, the statement — and the Korean one mentioned earlier in the post — still carry with it rather interesting connotations.
Meanwhile the pentagon is revising its nuclear strike plan to allow the president to authorize pre-emptive nuclear strikes against nations/groups harboring “WMDs”, I’m sure no one in Korea will bother to read about that though. *slaps forehead*
Marmot,
“????? ???????? ???????”? This Commie doesn’t even speak good Korean. Since this joker spoke a phrase that is raiden with multiple meanings, your guess is as good as mine.
I’d have translated “our guiltless nature or our people’s clean-cut history”. In any case, the phrase is out of the place and does not go well with what comes next, ” reunification effort”.
Again the Commies in general lack good education. They cannot even speak their own language properly. Their heads are re-wired by the Great Leader’s words and they cannot think straight.
Hah ha Baduk–I’d like to have Chang asked directly by a reporter what led to the Korean War…how do you think he would respond?
The following comment got the most approval(415 votes and increasing) from Donga daily newspaper, which is one of the major newspapers in Korea.
“??????????? ????*???*??? ????????????? ???????? ?????? ???????????? ???????? ????????????????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ??????????????
Chang, you son-of-dog, with your wanton mouth, you are praising Kim Jongil and the Commies. We must include your name as one of those we must stab to death.
??????? ????????? ?????????????( ???????? ??????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ????????? ???????????????? ??????? ????????
Your thoughts are aligned with those of the evil prof. KangJungKu. And, the Uri party, which regrets losing the chance for Communist domination of Korea, due to American intervention. People recognize your thoughts.
????????? ??????????? ???????( ???????? ??????? ??????????????
Your party together with HanChongRyen are truly treasonous.
The post said it. “You, son-of-dog????*???*???.” The author was too polite. ??????? would have been more appropriate.
Can’t help myself again…..
The “stabbing to death” part. I don’t know how frequent that kind of language is used in Korean comments, because my language skills are bad.
But, if the tone is not an everyday thing and it is just starting to come out with the MacArthur issue coming to a head, I am worried.
I put out a warning at USFK forums for expats and especially GIs to be more careful than normal after this 9/11 thing came and passed, and I don’t usually say that kid of sappy stuff.
But, the reason I did was this —-
if the anti-US groups successfully get the far right groups to believe they “must” take up arms
USinKorea:
“MacArthur has come under some historical revision in American academia too ?? as usually happens when the next generations chips away at what the generation before them sought to accomplish. In particular, I remember hearing him described as mired in boughts of depression during the Korean War and left his subordinates without enough guidance and leadership and could have handled the war much better…”
The period such academics refer to is probably from December 1950 through March 1951, after the Chinese intervention forced the UN forces to fall back. The right word is probably “chastened” rather than depressed; MacArthur was an extremely organized man who worked long hours and was usually of an optimistic bent. It should be noted that he was in his 70’s at this point though it was noted by all who worked with him just how “youthful” he seemed (he was an abstemious man who kept very regular hours, didn’t take problems to bed with him, and ate only lightly never drank alcohol) .
The ground forces commander in Korea (Walker) was killed in a traffic accident on 23 December 1950 while trying to organize a defense of Seoul and stem the tide of the Chinese (his jeep was run off the road by a Korean national driving a 3/4 ton truck (pickup) — both were trying to pass simultaneously some stopped trucks from opposite directions).
Seoul was lost to the Chinese “Third Phase” offensive on 4 Jan 1951. During the winter, MacArthur was concerned that Korea would have to be evacuated by UN forces; he saw the problem in terms of either of total victory to free all of Korea or else evacuation.
(So, in an ironic way, the left-wing Korean opponents of the MacArthur statue are in fact opposing a statue of an early American advocate of “one Korea”.)
However, Walker’s replacement, Ridgeway, was an outstanding general (IMO he deserves a statue from the Koreans just as much as MacArthur).
Ridgeway was forced to evacuate Seoul but he was able to stabilize the situation at defensive lines south of Seoul, and in fact use concentrated artillery and airpower to weaken the Chinese offensive to the point that the UN Forces were able to counterattack and retake Seoul (15 March 51). He was then able to reestablish the approximate territorial integrity of the ROK prior to the North Korean attack, repelling other Chinese offensives and restoring the line with limited counterattacks of his own. His ability to orchestrate this gave Truman the political option of opening negotiations to establish a peace short of complete victory (ie the liberation of North Korea from Communist control).
Quote:
…MacArthur’s instructions to Ridgway resembled those given to General Walker: hold as far north as possible and hold Seoul as long as possible. The most to be expected of the Eighth Army, MacArthur told Ridgway, was an eventual tactical success that would clear and secure South Korea. A battlefield success of any substance in the meantime would help Washington answer what MacArthur called the “mission vacuum,” meaning the question raised by the Chinese intervention of whether UNC forces could or should stay in Korea.4
MacArthur did reveal a new view of air power. A month earlier he had credited his air forces with a high degree of effectiveness; now he cautioned Ridgway that tactical air power was much exaggerated, that it could not stop the southward flow of enemy forces and supplies. When Ridgway asked near the close of the meeting whether MacArthur would object to a decision to attack, MacArthur replied, “The Eighth Army is yours, Matt. Do what you think best.”
Here was another change. Earlier, MacArthur had played a key and direct role in planning and conducting tactical operations. He would do so no longer. General Ridgway would make all the decisions regarding the employment of the Eighth Army with no requirement to refer them to MacArthur for approval. Ridgway would always inform MacArthur in detail of those decisions, but MacArthur would never question him…
Either way, for the ideal of removing the Gen MacArthur statute, there has been an overwhelming negative public opinion. Communists also have the right to speak their opinions in a democracy. But they don’t have the right to forcefully tear down something that the majority of the people don’t want to tear down. Frankly, I’d like to see them to it and see what kind of Korean public backlash they’ll get when the CNN shows what was done to its American viewers and Korea ends up suffering the American public backlash.
You guys aren’t going back far enough. If it weren’t for the U.S. Koreans would still be unified and have the additional benefit of being native Japanese speakers.
Well then keep going and see how America turned the blind-eye to the Japanese occupation in the first place to protect its interests in the Phillippines. The liberation of Korea wasn’t some noble deed it was a side effect of self-preservation.
????????,
Why stop there? Why don’t you blame America for Chinese rule over Korea? Not defending Korea against Mongol or Japanese invasions and allowing three ancient kingdom to unite through the help of China?
Too many f***ing morans who blame America for everything! Compared to China, Japan and Russia, America was and is THE only positive friend that Korea ever had. No other country has done more for Korea.
It is right for Koreans to feel equal with Americans but these blame games must end. America in 19th century was different from what she is now.
Paul H.,
Maybe Gen. Ridgeway should have done another retreat to Busan, regroup and land on the rear of advancing Chinese army. Wonsan might have been a good amphibious landing port. I have heard this port was considered by McArthur prior to Incheon landing.
Old Koreans like myself agree with Gen. McArthur one hundred percent when he suggested dropping A-bomb on Manchuria. Many believe it could have ended the Communist China and prevented VietNam.
The General knew what he was talking about.
Baduk -
It is right for Koreans to feel equal with Americans but these blame games must end. America in 19th century was different from what she is now.
I absolutely agree. In fact the world is a very different place. Placing blame for events that we weren’t even around to witness seems a little foolish to me. But the blame game continues anyway. Unfortunately part of the “blame game” is also the “credit game” people like to play. I am not blaming America for the occupation of Korea. I am saying that we shouldn’t be so quick to praise them for liberating what they so quickly bartered away in the interest of their own nation a few years prior. Just state it as it is, Japan annexed Korea by bartering with major powers for spheres of influence in the Pacific region and a few years later Korea became liberated when America defeated Japan.
As for your other examples America did not exist, and hence had no involvement, so they really don’t hold the same kind of context as mine.
Baduk is on a roll. I thought he was nuts and now he’s talking so much sense I want to buy him dinner!
Joel,
The problem comes when you characterize the US position during the struggle between Japan and Russia for control of Korea like you do — “so quickly bartered away”.
Explain how the US was in a position to barter with Japan over Korea in the 1905 period?
And a smaller point — 1905 to 1945 is a bit more than a few years —- especially when you want to consider the history of the period the way you do.
In 1905, America was a power but an upstart power. It was not considered as strong as the British, French, or even Russian Empire.
It was certainly not considered The Power of the East and able to tell Japan what to do or force Japan to barter. The United States was given a place of power in settling the Russo-Japanese War in part because it was considered neutral enough given its relative weakness in the area — unlike the British or French who had well established power and interests in Asia and in China in particular.
And most of all, the 1905 batering session you are referring to happened as Japan was well on its way in stunning the world by kicking the ass of the great Russian Empire and solidifying its predominant hold on Korea.
Again, if you want to support the way you are using the colonization, you need to show me how the US was bartering away Korea.
The US of 1945, however, was kind of in a radically different position, no?
But, even there…..
come to think of it….
If the United States had stayed out of the Korean War, or even out of Korea in 1945, and said publically as it did in 1948-49 that Japan was its logical base of operation for containing communism…..
…..would you be saying today it bartered away Korea again to the Russians and/or Russian influence?
The idea being just the exact flip side of what seems to be your position — that the US was just cold calculating its national interests alone and thus should be viewed with a neutral eye.
If the US decided it did not want to fight for Korea, would the argument today be that it bartered away Korea — implying it had an obligation to force the Russians out either through war or whatever?
That is what your Japanese colonial barter comment accomplishes — and it is a fairly common one about Korea and the US and Japan in 1905.
And I agree with baduk— its based largely on a false review of the sitaution back then.
The neutral eye comment could have been explained better — I mean on the one hand you are arguing the praise the US gets from some for fighting for Korea in 1950 (or even 1945) is wrong because the US was just (solely??) acting in its own power interests, but then, you seem to be forcing a value judgement out of a weak set of circumstances the US was in in 1905 when you say the US was “batering” away Korean independance.
???????? is wrong of course on two historical points.
First, the US did not barter with Japan to “allow” it to annex Korea. There was never any such treaty or agreement. Nor did it “turn a blind eye” any more than Switzerland, France, Tunisia, and every other nation in the world did, since this region was completely outside the US’s sphere of influence. Very poor logic.
Second, of course liberating Korea was “some kind of noble deed”. The US and its WWII allies were in fact fighting the forces of totalitarianism and working to make the world safe for democratic societies. Not only did it defeat the totalitarian regimes, but it subsequently turned them into democracies with vibrant capitalist economies. It did this for Korea as well. Self interest? Hardly. The US did not profit from the Korea but rather invested trillions. Slef interest in a global sense? Certainly. It in everybody’s self interests to have capitalist, democratic governments.
The defeat of Russian forces alone was not enough to solidify Japanese claim to Korea. To complete its dominance over Korea, Japan had to seek the diplomatic support of other major powers, be they upstart super powers or not. Through the Anglo-Japanese Naval Alliance, Japan secured Britain’s acceptance of its interests in Korea (in exchange for security guarantees in China and India) and through an agreement reached with the US seceretary of war at the time, William Taft, Japan also received American support for their claim to Korea (in exchange for security guarantees in the Phillipines). So that in 1905 when Japan proposed its protectorate order and the Korean monarchy went to Hague a few years later to protest they gained no significant international support. Japan had already defeated Russia and China (humor me in assuming that China was even a power) and the two of the maybe three major nations with interests in the area had already agreed to look the other way.
If the United States had stayed out of the Korean War, or even out of Korea in 1945??would you be saying today it bartered away Korea again to the Russians and/or Russian influence?
I wouldn??t say this. In fact that was my problem with Wedge??s original statement:
You guys aren??t going back far enough. If it weren??t for the U.S. Koreans would still be unified and have the additional benefit of being native Japanese speakers.
When you start dealing with the hypothetical, anything is possible. Like:
If it hadn??t been for the lack of U.S. (or insert nation of choice here) intervention in Germany??s initial march across Europe, millions of lives could have been spared in prison and death camps.???
The problem with these statements is that we don??t know if they are true and there is really no point in making them. Trying to guilt Koreans into appreciation with a hypothetical statement about what their future may have been like just makes no sense.
Given that I could say:
“If it hadn??t been for silence by the British and American governments Korea??s protest in Hague may have been heard and Korea may have remained an independent country.??
Or I could say:
“If it weren??t for the U.S., Japan would continue to occupy Korea until they broke into civil war shattered into a million pieces and the Korean people rose up and took control of their own destiny.???
It just becomes all too foolish. Taking credit and placing blame refuses to deal with the now.
???????? says:
“Unfortunately part of the ??blame game?? is also the ??credit game?? people like to play.”
Credit? Sorry, but barring an increasingly small minority who are largely labeled as right-wing crazies, I don’t see very many Koreans crediting Americans for *anything* but getting in the way of the intricately planned and logistically infallible reunification “plan” put forth by the ruling party and the Dear Leader up north.
Remember? That’s was what this whole thread was about in the first place - that most Koreans see America as the primary reason that they aren’t one big happy racially and culturally homogeneous family. Everything is 100% ready to go - it’s just those damn Americans that keep thwarting the great scheme.
The statue of MacArthur is at most a relic of a once-felt appreciation. It is not “credit” (niether is me showing up for duty in Yongsan only to behold a welcoming comittee composed of 100’s of angry protestors - only to enter and work with “allies” that have a 67% chance of backstabbing me if war breaks out). Credit? Don’t worry about the US getting or feeling any credit! I see and feel the animosity toward me on a daily basis! Any sort of “credit” America ever got for what is now the ROK is quickly being abolished as history is being rewritten.
On that note, I find it interesting that, as history is being rewritten 50+ years later, people are suddenly “figuring it all out”. This youthful, enlightened generation is uncovering all the lies that their elders were telling them. When you combine a few completely unbiased history teachers with *absolutley* no motive but to seek truth, a facts-only Korean media, and carefully selected google queries, it really was only a matter of time before they figured out The Big Lie. As Ron Burgandy said in Anchoman, “It’s science!”.
I’m sure they don’t exist, but I’d be curious to see a similar poll taken right after the war ended. I wonder how many Koreans felt we were the dividing factor back then?
As far as “bartering away” Korea for the Phillipines - as you conceded, the world was a very different place back then. With no disrepect intended, it was colonize or be colonized back then, and Korea was simply unable to defend itself at that point. In the scheme of things, the Taft-Katsura agreement opened up negotiations that eventually led to the Portsmouth Treaty, which I would argue was in the best *long term* interest of Korea.
Japan got far less than they wanted from the Portsmouth Treaty, although unfortunately they did (temporarily) get Korea. However, if they had gotten all they wanted, they would have been a *much* more formidable opponent, possibly to the extent that it would have turned the tides of the Pacific war front unfavorably for everyone (except, of course, the Japanese). In, short, this would have been bad for Korea, in the long term.
Oh, another little known fact among Koreans was that, in the same “barterings”, not only the US, but Britain also agreed to let Japan have Korea in the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. So why do I see so many 20-somethings here sporting t-shirts with the British flag, but hear the same ones sing songs about the “F’ing USA”?
I can agree somewhat on hypotheticals, but I think you are overplaying your case and avoiding a more correct view of what was going on.
Japan needed the US to check off on its hold of Korea in 1905 like the United States needs France to check off on Iraq today. It might be nice to have France think of Bush the way Roosevelt felt of Japan, but do we really need it? No. No way.
That is the fundamental weakness in your case. By 1905, Japan’s hold in Korea was solid. They were taking care of the primary threat - Russia - and they had little reason to fear the United States. The US might have had some reason for concern on the Philippines, but Japan did not have a good reason to worry about the US. Both worried about each other as a long term problem given their international interests, and that concern proved founded in the late 1930s and in 1941, but it is stretching the historical reality passed the breaking point to argue Japan was in a weak enough position regarding Korea to the United States that it needed to cut a deal with the US to keep Korea.
And a hypothetical might be weak, but it depends on the hypothetical.
The idea Korea would be speaking Japanese is weak, in my opinion, because we have very good reasons to believe the Russians would have removed the Japanese in Korea if the United States had stayed out.
That doesn’t seem like a hopelessly vague or hypothetical “if” to me.
So, I think my hypothetical has some meat to chew over —
In 1945, if the US had stayed out of Korea and watched Russia solidify a hold it had wanted for a long time but had lost hope for when it got its ass kicked by the same Japanese that were surrendering as a defeated nation in 1945, do you think you would be sitting here today saying the US “bartered” away Korea for a second time in favor of having the Soviet Union give it permission to keep the Japanese mainland?
The 1948-50 hypothetical to me also seems rather like it has solid legs to hold it up.
The US did leave Korea in 1948. It did decide South Korea was probably an untenable place to draw a line of defense and opted for the island nation of Japan. And in 1950, a heavily backed by the Soviets armed North Korea did invade the South and would clearly have taken over the whole of Korea IF the US had not intervened. That is not a weak hypothetical to consider at all.
So, if given how you think about 1905, if you were today looking back at 1950 and 1948, and you saw that the US conviently pulled out of South Korea just 2 years before the Soviet backed North invaded and took over the South —
do you think you would be telling us today that the US has a large share of the blame for the Kim Jong Il rule of the entire peninsula because the US bartered away the South to the Russians?
I kind of screwed up a view of how this hypothetical has merit by getting cute with the language at the end, so I’ll try to state it better again…
1945 — The US enters Korea and the Soviets move back north of the 38th parallel.
1948 — The US pulls out of South Korea leaving it with an incredibly weaker military than what the Soviets had built up in North Korea.
The United States military announces that its strategic position in East Asian runs along the line of the Japanese islands and omits Korea altogether.
1950 — North Korea invades the South and almost pushes all democratic or at least all non-communist forces including the US out of the peninsula altother.
So, given these historical facts
That last 1950 should be 1948….
I also
The one thing I know for sure is that without McArthur I would have been born into a Communist totalitarian government and might have been plucking chicken’s feathers and starving to death, thanking the Great Leader for his benevolence all the while.
Thanks to Mac, I am in the United State and highly educated in science and world politics. I am leading an wonderful life serving my Lord, Jesus.
This one man is very important, since right before the outbreak of Korean War nearly all politicians in Washington did not like to fight USSR in Korean peninsula. They prefered rather to give away Korea as one of a satellite nation to Russian Bear.
Mac flew to Korea on the second day of the war and recognized no Soviet forces and ordered bombing on NK, without getting permission from that puny old excuse of a president.
He saved Korea, at least one half.
hmmm looks like it effed up my comment. I wanted to say that I also heart Baduk.
Baduk:
To my knowledge MacArthur never formally proposed to the President of the US that atomic weapons be used against mainland China during his period of command.
Following quote from http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/pd-c-17.htm. (See especially note 13; I have cut and pasted it “in place” from the original source):
Direct air and naval surface attacks on the Chinese mainland were probably the most immediate way of striking a hard blow against the Communists. These were also the actions most likely to precipitate a full-scale war. [13]
[13] Other than broadly hinting that the atomic bomb would be effective in Korea, MacArthur did not recommend officially or, as far as is known, unofficially, that the decision be taken to use the atomic bomb against either the North Koreans or the Chinese, in or out of Korea.
All of the nations allied with the United States against Communist aggression in Korea were strongly opposed to direct attack on China. Since China had no great industrial centers, the most profitable targets would be military and air installations, railroads, and shipping facilities. But experience in World War II had shown that in spite of the best intentions and most accurate bombing, the civil population suffered along with such targets; and any heavy loss of civilian life undoubtedly would be sure to turn many Asiatic nations against the United States. There was little question, moreover, that China, if faced with this bombing, would call upon the USSR to come to its rescue. Most American leaders were therefore not willing to risk bombing China except as a last resort.
In all the discussions of “privileged sanctuary” enjoyed by the Chinese in Manchuria no mention had been made by MacArthur, or by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for that matter, of a similar privileged sanctuary enjoyed by the United Nations Command in Japan. Both naval and air operations against Korea were mounted from Japanese bases, and Japan was the main staging area from which thousands of U.N. troops were sent to fight in Korea. Consequently, if the United States bombed Manchuria to destroy enemy bases, the Chinese might bomb Japan. Whether the Chinese possessed such a capability was certainly a moot point; but it seemed reasonable to assume that with Russian help it would not take them long to acquire such a capability.
President Truman stated that he had never been able to believe that MacArthur, seasoned soldier that he was, did not realize that introducing Chinese Nationalist forces into mainland China would be an act of war. Certainly, a commander who had been in the forefront of world events for thirty-five years must realize that the Chinese people would react to the bombing of their cities in much the same manner as the people of the United States would have done. The President did not believe, either, that MacArthur with his knowledge of the Orient could really think that he could cut off the vast flow of materials from Russia merely by bombing Chinese cities. The next step would have to be the bombing of Vladivostok and the Trans-Siberian railroad. Because he was sure that MacArthur could not possibly have overlooked these considerations President Truman was left with the simple conclusion that MacArthur was ready to risk general war. The President was not.
Note: I left out the last set of quotation marks from my last post.
It should have ended:
“….The President was not.
If the Soviets, instead of Kim IlSung, led the invasion forces, the U.S. would have stayed out of Korea all together.
If there had been a different general, other than Mac, was in charge of the pacific, the U.S. involvement in the war would have been minimal, which is what Pres. Truman wanted.
Gen. MacArthur pulled the entire USA into action to save Korea and stop Russian expansion. Is it for self-interest? Of course. No country in the world will spend needless expense to help other countries. No country is composed of angels.
But, did it help South Korea? Immensely! Up to the max!
And now morans in South Korea(!) wants to demolish Mac’s statue? F***ing idiots. Their mothers should be shot for giving births to f***ing braindead.
Hmm, Marmot, FYI I keep losing varying portions at the end of my comment blocks. I’m also getting some “overprint” when I try to read others comments (ie I get a partial appearance of the “Leave A Reply”, “logged in as”, “quicktags” notations over the top of others’ comments).
Paul H.,
The Korean War is the first “limited war” the US fought. General McArthur questioned the president about the depth of commitment on the US Government. “Are we in it to win or to just stop USSR?” This question is again repeated in VietNam.
It is no secret that Mac and President Truman strongly disagreed in the scope of war the US was willing to wage. Let’s assume a different president. Someone like Teddy Roosevelt. He would have allowed to the general to take control and wage war to win victory.
President Truman was a loser. He was afraid of Mac’s popularity. This penny pincher and worry-wart screwed Korea from uniting as a free and independent country. Gen. McArthur and Gen. Ridgeway(I have not know this general before you mentioned) saved a half of Korea.
Quote from USin Korea:
1948 ?? The US pulls out of South Korea leaving it with an incredibly weaker military than what the Soviets had built up in North Korea.
The United States military announces that its strategic position in East Asian runs along the line of the Japanese islands and omits Korea altogether.
I give up, I can’t seem to get a comment to post without losing some portion of it at the back end. There’s no consistency; sometimes I lose just a few words, other times most of the comment.
This is vexing and perplexing. I suspect the majority of people who answered the poll do not hold the same passionate beliefs that those few in the hardcore left hold.
And we have to be careful to distinguish between saying that a country is technically responsible for division of the country on the one hand, and blaming that country for a missed chance at reunification on the other.
Had the US not hastily drawn the line at the 38th parallel in 1945with Soviet agreement to divide the country into two occupation zoneswhat would have been the alternative? It’s hardly hypothetical to reply that, had the US not intervened, the entire peninsula would have come under Soviet control and, in short time, under the control of KIS. How exactly is this desirable?
Blaming the US for the current division of the peninsula and extrapolating from there a sense that everything would be wonderful if only the country were reunited, compels one to point out that without US intervention in the first place, every citizen of Korea today would be a subject of the Dear Leader.
I don’t have an issue with average, mainstream Koreans who have some vague sense of these issues when being interrupted in the middle of dinner to answer a telephone poll. Citizens in many countries hold views that they don’t really passionately hold or have never fully examined and turned over in their minds. Those on the hardcore left, however, probably have thought these issues through. If so, the only conclusion I can draw is that they want reunification now, and they want it on Northern terms. Basically, they are agitating for unification under a Pyongyang government. A nightmare scenario if ever there was one.
Keep in mind that this hardcore, radical left has probably always been around. Today, they enjoy freedom of speechwhich as someone already pointed out, is their right in a democratic societybut they were probably around in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, tooit’s just that back then, harsh laws restricted their ability to assemble or speak out.
Now, are these views in accordance with what the majority of Koreans truly believe? No. Okay, so there isn’t the same state-fostered anticommunist sentiment among the populace that there once was, but the mere fact that the majority of Koreans seem to not want any kind of unification any time soon (for financial reasons, mainly) shows that the views of the hardcore left are very much in the minority.
I recently saw an episode of KBS’s Open Concert (???? ???????) filmed in Kumgangsan. Normally, I enjoy the show, but normally, politics aren’t dragged into it. On this show (a special, 2-hour episode), the first 40 minutes or so featured Northern performers, and the last 80 minutes Southern performers. A couple of songs featured a few people or the whole ensemble singing songs about how wonderful unification could be, and though I don’t recall the lyrics, I do recall the sentiment being conveyed of this being something passionately desired by all Koreans that someone is stopping from happening. But really, who’s stopping it? The US!? Why would they care? As long as unification is on Southern termswhich a majority of South Koreans would undoubtedly preferwhy would they care? Japan!? Why? For reasons of economic competition? Even a united Korea still has half the population and a significantly smaller GNP than Japan, and anyhow Japan would benefit from increased trade with the new country. No. The person stopping unification from happening is KJI. Pure and simple. He can only remain in control if unification is on northern terms (which the hardcore lefties apparently want). If it’s on southern terms, he’s out of a job (or worse).
Well, this comment has gone on long enough. When I first started reading Baduk a year ago, I didn’t quite get why he was so vociferous in his criticism of certain elements in Korean society, or why he was so loose with the “Commie” label. But it’s crystal clear now. Again, I’m not talking about the majority of Koreans. But those who are actively agitating to reduce the US presence or perceived US influence in the South in order to help bring about unification, is basically agitating for unification on Northern terms, hence is basically supporting the objectives of KJI.
Did you have the same problem Janus? Your comments appear incomplete (You can’t be a proper “Janus” with only half a head you know).
Could it be two commenters trying to post simultaneously? Don’t know.
Marmot I should also note here that since you went to this new format my old computer (an old one, with old AOL 7.0 and Windows 98) has loaded your blog extremely slowly. So I think it’s your “fault”.
Do you think you’ll ever be satisfied to stay with one “format”? I hope so, I recommend one that “works” and less concern with cosmetics.
Paul H. wrote:
“So I think it??s your “fault.’”
Now is not the time to play the blame game!
Seriously, though…I haven’t run into that problem myself yet, but I am heartened to know that I am not the only person in the world who is still running Windows 98!
Baduk said:
“If the Soviets, instead of Kim IlSung, led the invasion forces, the U.S. would have stayed out of Korea all together.”
This is pointless, Baduk. Stalin wasn’t willing to risk a direct confrontation with the US. Besides, Stalin and the Soviets had already pulled out all of their occupation troops from North Korea, just as the US had withdrawn its from the South. The Soviets (and the North Koreans) were confident that North Korea could conquer the South on its own; for reasons of world opinion it was important that there be no direct Soviet involvement in the North Korean attack of June 1950.
Baduk also said:
“If there had been a different general, other than Mac, was in charge of the pacific, the U.S. involvement in the war would have been minimal, which is what Pres. Truman wanted.
Gen. MacArthur pulled the entire USA into action to save Korea and stop Russian expansion.”
Good lord, Baduk, you need to spend more time studying the US model of civilian-military relations. Following the end of the US occupation of the ROK in 1949, MacArthur had no control over US foreign and military policy reference to Korea; this was determined in Washington. While the Truman administration undoubtedly solicited MacArthur’s opinion in these matters, he could influence policy only by making recommendations, not issuing edicts.
MacArthur’s tendency to “push the envelope” in such matters are what later got him relieved. But this was definitely not the case in June-July 1950; MacArthur’s role at that time was merely to report to Truman (through the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and make recommendations.
It was up to Truman to make the decision to intervene and then instruct MacArthur. Which was clearly what happened; consult any standard history of the Korean War to confirm this. In some cases I think the message traffic between them is cited and will clearly indicate this relationship.
Paul H.,
This is a quote from the Army historian you recommended me to read:
General MacArthur had not waited for this JCS directive to order operations in North Korea. On the flight to Korea, according to Colonel Storey, his pilot, MacArthur had issued orders via his plane radio at 0800 (Korean time), 29 July 1950, saying to FEAF headquarters back in Tokyo, “Partridge from Stratemeyer, Take out North Korean airfields immediately. No publicity. MacArthur approves.” This action took place twenty-four hours before the JCS authorized such action in accordance with the Presidential approval. Col. John Chiles, then SGS GHQ, UNC, told the author (September 1955) that he heard MacArthur give this order, dictating it to General Stratemeyer. And one of the newspapermen who was present on the plane, Roy McCartney, recounts the following narrative contained in Norman Bartell, ed., With the Australians in Korea (Canberra: Australian War Memorial, 1954), pages 165-79: “On the way to Korea, MacArthur resumed pacing, while weighing out loud how he could ‘take out’ the airfields from which North Korean Yak fighters were operating. ‘Where’s the President’s directive?’ he asked his intelligence chief, Major General Charles A. Willoughby. ‘How can I bomb north of the 38th Parallel without Washington hanging me?’ Willoughby, it turned out, had left Truman’s directive in Tokyo. A half hour later MacArthur emerged from his private cabin and remarked almost casually, ‘I’ve decided to bomb north of the 38th Parallel. The B-29s will be out tomorrow. The order has gone to Okinawa.’” General Whitney describes this incident in his book on General MacArthur and concludes, “Here was no timid delay while authorization was obtained from Washington; here was the capacity for command decision and the readiness to assume responsibility which had always been MacArthur’s forte.”
General MacArthur was pro-active, using today’s terminology. Others, including some army generals and all politicians, were counting days to pull troops out of Korea, as you are advocating for the present Korean situation.
I still do not know why the US stayed after the war. Why didn’t troops leave like they did in VietNam? SK could have collapsed as VietNam did. I have no doubt of Korea becoming a Communist state if US troops had left, especially seeing Commies crawling out of woodworks like roaches even after fifty years of repression.
I can only point to the Providence.
Baduk: You said (#64):
Paul H.,
This is a quote from the Army historian you recommended me to read:
General MacArthur had not waited for this JCS directive to order operations in North Korea. On the flight to Korea, according to Colonel Storey, his pilot, MacArthur had issued orders via his plane radio at 0800 (Korean time), 29 July 1950, saying to FEAF headquarters back in Tokyo, ??Partridge from Stratemeyer, Take out North Korean airfields immediately. No publicity. MacArthur approves.?? This action took place twenty-four hours before the JCS authorized such action in accordance with the Presidential approval…The first official word of the North Korean attack across the border into South Korea reached Tokyo in an information copy of an emergency telegram dispatched from Seoul at 0925, 25 June…
President Truman had received the news at his home in Independence, Mo. He started back to Washington by plane in the early afternoon of 25 June. At a meeting in Blair House that night, with officials of the State and Defense Departments present, President Truman made a number of decisions. The Joint Chiefs of Staff established a teletype conference with General MacArthur in Tokyo at once and relayed to him President Truman’s decisions. They authorized General MacArthur to do the following: (1) send ammunition and equipment to Korea to prevent loss of the Seoul-Kimpo area with appropriate air and naval cover to assure their safe arrival; (2) provide ships and planes to evacuate American dependents from Korea and to protect the evacuation; and (3) dispatch a survey party to Korea to study the situation and determine how best to assist the Republic of Korea. President Truman also ordered the Seventh Fleet to start from the Philippines and Okinawa for Sasebo, Japan, and report to the Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Far East (NAVFE), for operational control.
In the evening of 26 June President Truman received General MacArthur’s report that ROK forces could not hold Seoul, that the ROK forces were in danger of collapse, that evacuation of American nationals was under way, and that the first North Korean plane had been shot down. After a short meeting with leading advisers the President approved a number of measures.
Further instructions went to MacArthur in another teletype conference that night. They authorized him to use the Far East naval and air forces in support of the Republic of Korea against all targets south of the 38th Parallel. These instructions stated that the purpose of this action was to clear South Korea of North Korean military forces. On 27 June, Far Eastern time, therefore, General MacArthur had authorization to intervene in Korea with air and naval forces…
Thus, events on the international stage by the third day of the invasion had progressed swiftly to the point where the United States had authorized its commander in the Far East to use air and naval forces below the 38th Parallel to help repel the aggression and the United Nations had called upon its member nations to help repel the attack. The North Koreans were now in Seoul…
Never mind, Baduk, my lengthy post got eaten up by the internet again.
Suffice it to say that for MacArthur, using air strikes against tactical targets in North Korea in later June/early July, a little early of an anticipated approval from Washington, was a far different matter than attacking targets in China without such approval, later in the war.
MacArthur had the experience and good judgement to know the difference; I think you are splitting hairs.
Official history says first B-29 air strikes were against Wonsan on 13 July. I couldn’t find a quote but I strongly suspect that by then Truman had given formal approval for such strikes, which means that MacArthur probably didn’t actually disobey this order.
Good points by “daebakinoe”, as well as everyone who responded. I think the real answers lie in the state of U.S. military power in 1905, when the U.S. was bogged down in an insurgency in the Philippines (a la Iraq), and the Army and Navy were still operating on a shoestring and were hardly the military machine of 1945. Regarding Korea, my notes show that the last U.S. combat troops (a Regimental Combat Team from 7th ID) withdrew in June 1949. As to the state of the U.S. military in 1950, while obviously better than 1905, it was a far cry from the victory machine of 1945. Many U.S. infantry divisions existed on paper only, or were basic training units. and training was well below that required to maintain an immediately deployable force. (This would perfected in the wake of the Korean War with the creation of the Strategic Army Corps - or “STRAC”) In 1950, U.S. eyes were focused on Europe, where the Berlin airlift had captured everyone’s interest, and coincidentally where the largest number of Americans stationed overseas were based, as it was considered the forward edge of the battle area (FEBA) of what was not expected to remain a cold war for long. Asia was coming out of its colonial or neo-colonial phase (French Indochina, the Dutch East Indies, the Malayan insurgency, and the problems of India’s partition), and it is easy to understand why the United States would want to stay off the Asian mainland. The fact that they did not can be attributed to a reappraisal of their interests. OK, so the old truism that nations don’t have friends, they have interests applies. That does not detract from the trenemdous benefits that accrued to modern Koreans because of that decision to invest American blood and treasure in keeping the ROK out of the “communist sphere”. Rather it creates a debt of honor. This debt does not require that Koreans slavishly parrot the pro-American line, or prostrate themselves in eternal gratitude. But one would hope that it would be occasionaly remembered, and mentioned, by the government involved, especially when the perfected idiots launch their latest attempt to whip up anti-American hysteria. But then, I can’t remember the last time the U.S. thanked France for Yorktown either.
Zahnarzt, way back in comment 46: Oh, another little known fact among Koreans was that, in the same ??barterings??, not only the US, but Britain also agreed to let Japan have Korea in the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. So why do I see so many 20-somethings here sporting t-shirts with the British flag, but hear the same ones sing songs about the ??F??ing USA???
At the Incheon uproar there was a guy in a huge Union Jack T-shirt pushing at the line of riot police. It’s sometimes funny that some symbols in Korea are charged with meaning, and others are meaningless. And those protestors were certainly ignoramuses.
On 27 June, Far Eastern time, therefore, General MacArthur had “authorization” to intervene in Korea with air and naval forces???
I don’t know if I am splitting hairs again but “authorization” is different from “direction” and Pres. Truman did not care one way or another as long as Americans were evacuated safely.
Basically, Americans kept “look-see” attitude about Korea. McArthur’s flight into Suwon on that day was daring and has shown that he cared about Korea. While most Americans including Truman did not care rats ass about Korea, McArthur cared. This may have something to do with his duty in Phillippines and his close relationship with the native.
I recently saw the movie, “The Great Raid” where Phillippinos fought side by side with American troops to free American prisoners. In much the same way, during the Korean War, Koreans fought side-by-side with USFK against NKs and the Chinese invaders. Korean troops were in VietNam and are in Iraq right now.
While Koreans need new lesson on Korean history from someone like myself, America must learn to value Korean friendship as well. Someday soon, when the US gets to fight NKs or the Chinese, Koreans can play a vital role.
I forgot about the possible war against Russia.
The US is the richest and strongest country in the world and many will rise up to topple America. Why did Osama attack USA? Because the US is the top dog.
Anti-American attitude comes from jealousy. All other countries are jealous of the USA for being so successful and powerful.
I am not running MacArthur down or anything, but one of baduks comments made me think of a comment I heard on the History chanel that was part of the revision of Mac’s image in the US. It said he never spent a night in Korea the whole war. He would land for meetings and such but always left to bed offshore.
Remember MacArthur was a theater commander and still responsible as supreme commander of the Japanese occupation (a peace treaty with Japan was not signed until 1952 if I’m not mistaken).
There was always a US general, responsible for the whole Korean peninsula, under him. MacArthur was always good at delegating responsibility when he had confidence in his subordinates, though he kept a close eye on the progress of operations on the battlefield from a distance.
Baduk said: (#70):
“While Koreans need new lesson on Korean history from someone like myself, America must learn to value Korean friendship as well. Someday soon, when the US gets to fight NKs or the Chinese, Koreans can play a vital role.”
I couldn’t agree more that it’s up to older Koreans to teach the younger ones the value of the US alliance. If they can’t, then it’s inevitable that the value of the alliance will continue to slowly decay.
And it seems to me that this decay is inevitable; the relationship is too unequal, no matter how much rhetoric is applied to try to paper over the growing fissure. A drastic restructuring is needed, to include the end of the US having the joint command. Koreans should take over their own entire military command structure, coincident with a withdrawl of the American ground forces.