I even wrote two manuscript history books about the invasion of Japan, and about North Korean historiography.

But after years and years of anti-American nonsense from so many Koreans, and meeting so many South Koreans who defend Kimilsungkimjongil, and especially all their insane conspiracy theories (Japan “changed” Corea to Korea…) and silly campaigns (”The Sea of Japan” to “The “Eastern Sea”), I’ve had it with Korea. Silly buggers.

Couldn’t care less.

I wish the US would withdraw from Korea and let the North or China have their way. At least that would keep the Chi-Coms too busy to bother with Taiwan. And i guess it would be a great wake-up call for Japan, and the anti-American dreamers there.

On the right and the left, ideology trumps facts-always will.

Finally, of course the aveage N Korean thinks NK did not start the war. No surprise there.

Woah! Anne Coulter’s infiltration into the Marmot’s Hole continues apace.

1. “Actually, most of the time, they [North Korean experts] aren’t even really experts on North Korea. They are people like Scott Snyder of the Asia Foundation who has no majorly scholarly work, Marcus Nolan who is essentially an economist and an idealogue who thinks North Korea is a stupid place because they haven’t read Adam Smith or Milton Friedman, and Nicholas Eberstadt, an idealogue on the right wing at the American Enterprise Institute, who has been saying for fourteen years that North Korea is going to collaps.”

2. “Serious intellectuals like Immanuel Wallerstein would pay no attention to scholars like [John Lewis] Gaddis because they are such limited people, but they have dominance as consensus historians in the United States. Gaddis has done some good work, but his primary orientation has been an ideological one - to attack revisionists his entire career.”

Cumings is a socialist, a closet marxist, whose conclusion was written before he ever opened a single resource to begin research for “Origins.” He has made it his “academic” purpose to exonorate the failings of socialist regimes and attempt to place the onus for their collapse on the external presures of the capitalist community. I think we have gone too far in responding to the tactics of Joe McCarthy by completely abandoning our distrust of socialists. We could use a dose of McCarthyism today.

The Marmot wrote:

The Marmot didn’t write anything other than the summary. Kim Haeng-bok wrote that.

so our perspective of Noth Korea being so evil is really our perception. They see uncle sam as medling in their affairs and spliting Korea in two for American interests (some how?)

I’m sure the Germans and Japanese had their own perspectives, too.

“South Korean troops under the “bandit traitor” Syngman Rhee had crossed the 38th parallel, and thus the South had started the war.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

so our perspective of Noth Korea being so evil is really our perception. They see uncle sam as medling in their affairs and spliting Korea in two for American interests (some how?)

I think if you look at how the first world war started it is not so easy t opoint fingers. Maybe people think the germans started it but from what I understand Germans were building ships so England felt worried and as troops build up near the border war erupted. i seem to recall somethign about the German leader being on a fishing trip at the time.

anywya I not arguing on any one side jsut pointing out I can see how people could see things differently. For instance wasn’t there an American warship spying on the North or in their waters or something. I think sendin spy planes or ships could trigger a war. everyone blames the other side for starting or crossing some line but the blame might be more correctly spread around.

anyway I really don’t trust North korea but in a way I see how they blame americans for a trade embargo and deny that what they do is wrong. At the same time Americans say how could we react any differently? (freezing bank accounts and waht not)

Represented by Cumings, revisionist theories as to the origins of the Korean War were that the war began because of an arms race between North and South, that Syngman Rhee’s calls to unify the country through an invasion of the North had provoked the North’s invasion of the South, and that the strengthening of U.S. military commitments to South Korea had provoked the North.

This “provoked” theory was after the Russians confirmed that Stalin had given a green light to NK’s Great Leader (then just “Really Good Leader”) to invade?

I mean, before that, Cummings was a strong believer that the South had attacked the North (not just provoked it). As I mentioned here and here, Cumings wrote an opening for I.F. Stone’s Korean War book that laid out how Chiang Kaishek and I think Rhee made out like bandits on soybean futures because they knew something was going to happen very soon (i.e., they knew war was coming in late June because they were planning it).

Cumings backtracked when his central theory was shattered, and now it’s all about showing that even if the industrial North hadn’t attacked, a US-led mostly agricultural South would have done so.

Someone should sue the guy for academic malpractice.

Londros, that’s true to a degree, but historical documents and other evidence also give grounding to certain views. That the North started the war with Soviet backing has nothing to do with ‘where you’re standing’ and everything to do with historical evidence. Sorry, I know you’re not arguing such, but just pointing it out that there are viewpoints and sometimes there are facts that destroy some viewpoints.

It’s a very interesting article. Thanks so much to Robert for the translation.