North Korea...

[Malachi151]

How did North Korean get to its present state today?

Korea was a flourishing country with an excellent culture. It was then invaded by imperial Japan, the people were forced into slavery, and the women were taken as sex slaves, and there was a systematic destruction of their culture by the Japanese destroying their knowledge of their past and disrupting all of their traditions.

Typical imperialism.

During WWII Kim Il Sung and Korean Communists put up the fight against the invading Japanese.

After WWII was over Kim Il Sung and the communist party began to start rebuilding the country.

Kim Il Sung asked for Soviet assistance, and when the Soviets began rolling into Korea Americans freaked out.

At this point Eisenhower advised for the creation of the 38th parallel. This was done by the America alone. There was no discussion with anyone, they just decided to divide the country, they went in and established the boarder, and said that was it.

This was done because Korea contained valuable resources that America deemed important to the America economy and security.

Virtually all Koreans hated the division, virtually all Koreans wanted to reunite the country.

After the division Kim Il Sung requested help from Stalin to help him reunite the country. Stalin at first refused. He finally agreed, and the North Koreans invaded the South in what they thought would be a quick push to reunite their country.

Americans interpreted this as communist expansion and part of the strategy of Moscow to engulf the world in communism. Nothing as farther from the truth. The Soviets wanted little to do with Korea and were afraid to get to involved and ended up giving little support. At that time Stalin wanted to stay out of war and make reparations with the west, but Kim Il Sung's prior was re-unification of his country.

The Americans could see only one thing, Soviet aggression, however that was not reality.

The American invaded and the war lasted 3 years with over 1 million North Korean deaths, and tens of thousand of Americans and South Korean deaths.

In the end nothing at all was gained by either side, but it left the North with a determination to reunite Korea.

Kim Il Sung was loved by his people, and when he died his son Kim Jong Il took power.

Like his father, Kim Jong Il's desire is reunification of Korea.

When Clinton took office the North Koreans were starting a nuclear weapons program. The Clinton administration had no idea how to deal with it, and the solution that they came up with was to pressure North Korean with a threat of military action.

Luckily Jimmy Carter had already gone to North Korea and negotiated a peaceful solution in order to get the North Koreans to stop their weapons program.

The Clinton admin was pleased and glad because it was much better than what they were planning, and they agreed.

Then the plan went to congress to get finalized and the Republicans vetoed the plan. Now the North Koreans had been betrayed after they had already stopped their weapons program, and they felt like fools who had been lied to.

Kim Jong Il made the agreements against the wished of his military, and after the Americans backed out then his military told him that he should have listened to them. All it did was validate their distrust in America.

Then they resumed.

Then we went on a diplomatic mission again, this time with Madeline Albright, and again an agreement was reached and Madeline said that she was surprised by how much she could tell that Kim Jong Il really wanted to reach an agreement and she was certain that the weapons programs were just being used as bargaining chips all along. She said that Kim Jong Il was very intelligent, well mannered, attentive, and respectful of her.

What he wanted was help from the west in deescalating the tensions and moving towards unification with South Korea.

The South Koreans also want reunification, and Roh Moo Hyun was elected president of South Korea on a platform of reunification and cooperation with North Korea.

Then Bush was elected. When he came into office he again broke the agreement that had been made with Kim Jong Il by the Clinton administration, this was the second time in 8 years the US had gone back on its word with the North Koreans.

Bush said simply that he didn't trust him and considered them evil.

Now Kim Jong Il was enraged and vowed to continue the nuclear weapons program because the US had proven to them that they really did not want peace. The main thing is that everyone close to the situation thinks that Kim Jong Il and the North Koreans do not want to use or really even to make nuclear weapons, but they feel that it is their own bargaining chip to get what they want. The country is desperate economically, and wants outside aid and reunification with South Korea.

They certainly have their share of faults, but this is where understanding communism in its real implementation is important.

Communism is a reactionary ideology. This is why North Korean is the last standing Stalinist Communist state. They are still fighting something, they are still feeling pressure.

As is the case with essentially every country that went communist after Russia, it was a response to foreign imperialism. The Japanese have caused all of this. Had they not invaded Korean this situation would not exist.

Then, the creation of the 38th parallel was another mistake. The US should have let the Koreans deal with that themselves, it was not our place to go in and divide their country.

There is existence of a foreign presence again provided the catalyst for aggression. They simply did not want us there, they and did not want the division. This again just brought out the worst of the situation. The militants rose to power in opposition, because the people had something to fight against. If there had been nothing to fight against they would not have been militants.

The Koreans were also pissed off because after WWII Japan got off extremely light, after they had been the most barbaric of anyone in the war and the Koreans felt betrayed by the West, who was now allying with Japan, who, in their mind was still the enemy.

The North Korean invasion was not a communist expansion policy, it was simply the Korean people wanting to have their country back.

The invasion by America only made the North Koreans more sure that they were right, the world really was against them. The Japanese had invaded them, the US betrayed them and then prevented unification, and the Soviets didn't give them the kind of support that they were asking for. They felt alone, so they closed up and were determined to be alone and make it on their own, and one day they would unite the country and do things their way. That’s is the ideology that grew in those conditions.

Then, they finally get some confidence in the West again and start to make progress with Carter and Clinton and Roh Moo Hyun and then they have all of that trust broken again.

Obviously they have internal problems, and obviously they are doing things that are not good. But, playing hard ball like Bush and the Republicans want to do is just plain stupid. They are putting everyone at risk because they want to do things their way. This issues could likely have been resolved a couple of years ago with cooperation, but with hardball it only makes the North Koreans more apt to play hardball.

I think that Kim Jong Il is waiting for the elections and if Bush is not elected and whoever gets elected agrees to work with him I think this can be resolved peacefully. If Bush is reelected I think that war is inevitable.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Kim Il Sung was loved by his people, and when he died his son Kim Jong Il took power.

Like his father, Kim Jong Il's desire is reunification of Korea.


Amazing what kind of love a little constant propoganda, complete issolation from the outside world, and brutal military dictatorship can get you.

Are you trying to say North Korea are really the good guys in all of this? Look at living conditions in North Korea, compare that with South Korea or even Cuba, and try to tell me honestly that they chose the right path to follow.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Malachi151
How did North Korean get to its present state today?

Kim Il Sung asked for Soviet assistance, and when the Soviets began rolling into Korean Americans freaked out.

At this point Eisenhower advised for the creation of the 38th parallel. This was done by the Americna alone. There wa no discussion with anyone, they just deciced to divide the country, they went in and establsished the boarder, and said that was it.

You forgot the part where Sung invaded the south...typical imperialism. Sung was "beloved by his people" the same way Sadam and Stalin were beloved by theirs. Good grief, crack open a book every once and a while. Can you tell us what vital resources South Korea has that the US was so eager to get its imperialistic hands on?

[jj]

You left out the part where results typical of communist governments destroyed the economy, the people, and the culture of North Korea.

Is there a reason you're always so one-sided?

[headscratcher4]

Everything about North Korea is a lie. There may be many faults in the West. The US is not without blame for the division of North Korea. But, at least we are free to ask questions...those who ask questions...even simple ones...in North Korea are dead.

The question I have is that no matter how you define it, what they have in North Korea isn't communism...it is a krypto facist monarchy. Other than to condemn the West, what is there to defend about this system or its leaders.

Your hatred of the mistakes and incompetence of the West have completely blinded you to true evil.

[Skeptic]

Korea was a flourishing country with an excellent culture. It was then invaded by imperial Japan, the people were forced into slavery, and the women were taken as sex slaves, and there was a systematic destruction of their culture by the Japanese destroying their knowledge of thier past and disrupting all of their traditions.

You mean, just like Mao did in China during the "cultural revolution"?

At any rate, after Japan was defeated by the evil imperialistic forces of Britian and the USA (the USSR didn't fight in the pacific until August 45, after the bombing of Hiroshima), one part became CAPITALIST, the other, COMMUNIST. One guess as to which part is now prosperous and which is starving.

[Dancing David]

Uh, Malachi is there a Cliff Notes version of your post?

Which side recieved the better funding after the division?

[hgc]

I decided to pick only the juciest slice of malachi's fairy tale...In the end nothing at all was gained by either side, but it left the North with a determination to reunite Korea.Come now, wouldn't you say that the Koreans in South Korea gained quite a bit by not living the last 50 years in North Korea?

Gee I wonder if they think to themselves, "Too bad we couldn't have lived the last half century under the Great Leader/Dear Leader, and be the most starving, backwards, isolated, cultish, distorted, repressed people on the face of the Earth. Too bad we have to live with one of the strongest, fastest growing economies in Asia, with a standard of living better than most of the world. Boy what a terrible idea to resist the Great Leader and our Soviet benefactors so long ago. We didn't gain a thing."

[headscratcher4]

Korea was a flourishing country with an excellent culture. It was then invaded by imperial Japan, the people were forced into slavery, and the women were taken as sex slaves, and there was a systematic destruction of their culture by the Japanese destroying their knowledge of thier past and disrupting all of their traditions.

Fortunately, under the great leader, it was Koreans who turned the Koreans into slaves and destroyed their culture...because being starved to death, left ignorant, beaten, abused, etc. by the Great Leader is so much better than having Imperial Japan do it...

Please explain to me how the North Koreans have improved on the horrible situation your quote describes..ah, yes, they have their Dignity....oh yes, it is also a worker's state, where you can't strike, can't petition for higher wages, can't choose the work you do, can't organize alternative political viewpoints or parties, can't question the dictats of the Party....yes, from the depth of misery at the hands of the Japanese, they've formed a true worker's paradise!

[headscratcher4]

By the way, based on your historical analysis, it seems quite possible that by just changing a few of the players in the senario and altering dates, you could justify Nazi Germany.....

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Malachi151
How did North Korean get to its present state today?

Korea was a flourishing country with an excellent culture. It was then invaded by imperial Japan

1st major inaaccuracy. Korea was already being run by an imperal power before the Japanese inavded. The Japanese were far worse than the Russians, but Korea was not a functioning independent country at the time they were invaded. You notion of Korea as a “flourishing country” is a flat out lie.

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/romeo/russojapanese1904.htm

Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), military conflict in which a victorious Japan forced Russia to abandon its expansionist policy in the Far East, becoming the first Asian power in modern times to defeat a European power.

The Russo-Japanese War developed out of the rivalry between Russia and Japan for dominance in Korea and Manchuria.


Originally posted by Malachi151

During WWII Kim Il Sung and Korean Communists put up the fight against the invading Japanese.

After WWII was over Kim Il Sung and the communist party began to start rebuilding the country.

Kim Il Sung asked for Soviet assistance, and when the Soviets began rolling into Korea Americans freaked out.



2nd major piece of doo-doo. Omission of many facts here. Kim spent over half the war in the Soviet army. He was a hand picked leader for the North by the Soviets. You also fail to mention that the Soviets prevented the UN from holding elections in North Korea. Kim may have started out as a partisan, but in the end he was a puppet. Typical imperialism.

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/kimilsun.htm


March 15, 1941 - The Soviets detained Kim Il Sung and his band of guerrillas of about 25 men and subjected them to lengthy interrogations. They were forced into the Red Army. Later some of them fought the Germans in Stalingrad and beyond until the end o f WW2. Kim Il Sung and his partisans were pressed into the 88th Special Independent Guerrilla Brigade of the Soviet Army. The main task of this unit was to gather military intelligence in Manchuria. The 88th was located in a wooded area of Vyachkra near khabarovsk (Siberia).

Kim Il Sung commanded the 1st Battalion (about 200 Chinese, Koreans and Russians) of the 88th Brigade. The Brigade had about 60 Korean partisans from Manchuria

* snip *

Sept. 19, 1945 - Kim Il Sung and his second wife Kim Chong Suk returned to Korea from Siberia. Kim and his guerrillas numbering about 40 (and their families) arrived at Wonsan, compliment of the Soviet warship Pukachev. The US intelligence file on Kim Il Sung states - "Faced with the threat of extinction by the Japanese, a few hundred under the leadership of Kim Il Sung, long time Communist, made their way North and into the Soviet Maritime Province. After verifying their political and military backgrounds, the Soviets established these people in a training camp at YASHKI Station, in the general area of KHABAROVSK. Here and later at RARARASH, near the junction of the USSR-Korea and Manchurian frontiers these Koreans were trained in espionage, radio communications, sabotage and general military subjects. From 1941-45, these people were utilized by the Soviets as agents in MANCHURIA. In the spring of 1945, in addition to normal political training, they were briefed on KOREA and Korean politics."

Oct. 14, 1945 - Kim Il Sung (photo: Kim and his Soviet adviser) was given a hero's welcome at the Pyongyang Municipal Stadium.




So just what is your source for you history, Malachi? I recommend that you take a vacation to UN compound on the DMZ and tell me you think you see on the other side.

[Malachi151]

Man, you guys are really sad.

Its simply a matter of trying to understand how and why developments take place.

The north Korean position is clearly reactionary. That's important to understand in learning how to prevent these types of things from happening in the future, and also how to deal with them in the present.

Korea was a fine country until it was invaded by Japan. The conditions in North Korea today are a derect result of that invasion, there is really no doubt about that.

When the Japanese invaded Kim Il Sung was one of the military leadrs that fought the invasion. So to the Koreans he was a war hero, and truely he was a hero to all Koreans, North and South because there was no division in Korea until America put it there. The Koreans did not consider themselves two people, they considerd themselves one. In some cases familes were split and torn apart.

After the war there was certianly propaganda in support of Kim Il Sung, but he was loved before that because people who him as a leader in defending the country. He was a kind of Eisenhower of Korea. Of course he was played up, every leader is in every country. The propagand in favor of Kim Il Sung was more than the type we see in the West but it was consistant with Asian culture actually, nothing really out of the ordanry about it in that respect.

To say that the North Koreans invading South Korean was imperialism is laughable. That's like saying if Russa had divided the US in half that the North invading the South to reunite the country would be imperialism.

The issue is that many Koreans want the country to be reunited, on both sides. America is the one that divided it. What the North is fighting for is unification. That's why the "communists" are still in power, because they have an "opponent".

Communism has not existed anywhere without an opponent. Once you take the opponent away where it no reason to have a Stalinist communist state. The North Koreans only concern is themsleves and the unification go Korea, they are not on any mission to to anything to the rest of the world and never have been.

The only reason that they went communist in the first place was because that was who was helping then in the fight against Japan, that's where their support was coming from. It really had very little to do with any ideology other than being opposed to occupation.

The issu enot whether these people are using right or wrong approaches, they are obviously using wrong approaches to their situation, the question is why?

The anwser is in reaction to invastion, occupation, destruction of their civilization by the Japanese, and betrayal by the West.

Without these factors they would not be doing what they are doing today.

Look at the situaiton in South Korea though, all it did was strengthen the view of the North Koreans that they were right.

Dr. Rhee Syngman ruled South Korea from 1948 until his downfall in 1960. His fanatic anti-communism made him a darling of the United States. In spite of his professed faith in Christianity, he had more Koreans killed than any other tyrants in the Korean history.

He was the man behind the Cheju 4.3 Massacre, the Daejun Massacre, the Suwon Massacre, the blowing up the Hangang Bridge, assassination of Kim Ku and Yo Woon Young and countless other killings of Koreans.

Although Dr. Rhee dominated Korea for over ten years, little information is available on him on the Internet and what little cyber-information available is mostly false or inaccurate. For example, one source claims that Rhee presided over a 'government in exile in Hawaii'. Another source claims Rhee was from the royal family line. Most history books praise him as the 'tiger of Korea', democratically elected founder of Korea, most revered by all Koreans even today, and so on.

Nothing can be further from truth.

http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/rhee.htm

Rhee was forced to resign becuase of protests to his rule. His US backed tyranny made the North Koreans all the more certian that they were corect in opposing the US all along. Again we see the issue of reactionary ideology. The Koreans were reacting to pressure. That is what shaped their ideology and society.

The point here is that the conditions in North Korean, definately bad, have been the result of reactionary measures taken by a scared and isolated society that does nto feel it can trust anyone. That lack of trust is well deserved because they were betrayed by the Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Americans, and the South Koreans.

When you get s%!t on enough times you start to get pissed off.

The point of history is to understand how and why things happen.

Understanding why North Korea is the way it is today is knowing what has happend in North Korean over the past 100 years. In those 100 years it has been invaded, destroyed, enslaved, divided, and betrayed. In that type of situation of course one can expect a country like North Korean to emerge.

Its just like child psychology. When a child is abused by their parents its likely that they will be abusive themselves. That still leaves you with a problem to deal with, but its still also useful to understand how the problem was created in the first place.

This crisis could have been averted, now it may be too late.

[hgc]

Kim Il Sung's resistance fighter credentials sound just like those of Ferdinand Marcos. But we don't even have to worry over the varacity of these accounts, since they're completely irrelevant to what he did to the country (the half he controlled) after taking power.

To that point, you make the claim that if the country hadn't been split in two, he would have led them in a different direction, that the presense of the enemy to the south forced him to turn the country into the totalitarian wonderland it is today. That it is the outside threat that forced him to establish a cult of personality and to make himself leader for life, and to bend the will of an entire nation to his every whim, with no check on his personal power, to hand over the reins of power to his own kin after his death, and so forth.

Let's examine that: on the one hand, we know what Kim did with his leadership position, and on the other hand, we have your opinion of what he would have done if he had the whole Korea under his control instead of just half of it. Sorry, it don't fly.

[headscratcher4]

Kim Il Sung is a hero, because in the north, he proclaimed himself to be one and no one can view or interpert history or his performance with out being murderd.

History, of course, records many murderers and psychopaths as heros, but one wonders if the starving people of North Korea had even the slightest inkling of how the average South Korean lives (and vice/versa) if the Kim dynasty could survive.....

P.S. the worst thing about communists like the Kims and their flunkies isn't the tragic murder of people, culture, initative, etc. -- all horrible in the extreme -- it is the murder of ideas...note the signiture below...typical North Korean propoganda writing...it is meaningless, blather and banal in the extreme.

[Doubt]

Funny how you post a quote that has so few facts. From your own source:

http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/rhee.htm


On April 8, 1919, the Korean Provisional Government (KPG) was established in the French Concession of Shanghai. Rhee Syngman (in absentia) was elected president, Yi Tong Whi defense minister (later, premier) and Kim Kyu Sik foreign minister. The KPG had its own parliament, press, and a military school in Shanghai. The original founders of KPG represented a broad spectrum of the Korean political ideologies united in the common cause of Korean independence.

On Sept. 23, 1919, Gen. Yi Tong Whi took over the premiership of the Korean Provisional Government in Shanghai. Gen. Yi filled high positions in the KGP with his fellow members of the Korean People's Socialist Party. Yi's effort to regroup KPG into a united front failed, however. The exiles split into two primary groups: Yi's group who favored military actions with Soviet backing and Rhee Syngman's group which favored diplomatic channels working closely with America.

On Dec. 8, 1920, Rhee Syngman arrived in Shanghai. Rhee was elected president of the KPG in 1919, in absentia, but this was the first time Rhee set foot in the KPG office.

On Jan. 26, 1921, Shanghai, the Korean Provisional Government split openly. When Rhee's faction learned about Lenin's gold rubles, an open hostility toward Gen. Yi erupted. Rhee Syngman accused Kim Rip of embezzling funds to finance his sex habits. Kim Rip was assassinated and Gen. Yi parted company with the KPG.

Unfortunately for the KGP, Rhee was more interested in fermenting dissension in the ranks than in forming a united front against Japan. Rhee was finally expelled by Kim Ku from the KPG in 1925 for embezzelements (in 1960, he was expelled again, being accused of taking $20 million from his Seoul government among other misdeed). Kim Ku became the president.

Rhee returned to Hawaii in disgrace. From 1925 to 1945, Rhee attempted to pass himself off as the sole representative of Korea even though the Korean Provisional Government disowned him in 1925. The US State Dept. officials wrote him off as an old man out of touch and representing no one but himself in Korea.

In America, Rhee's financial problems worsened and he turned to the Soviets for help. On his train tip to Moscow, Rhee met a young Austrian woman, Francisca Donner. Rhee was refused entry to the Soviet Union. Bitterly disappointed, he returned to Hawaii but kept in touch with Miss. Donner.


So here we have evidence of Soviets trying to export communism into Korea from before 1920. Also the US was involved. Rhee also tried to get help from the Soviets but was rebuffed.

History is not just looking at the facts you like. Lets try to see if you can avoid confirmation bias for a while Malachi. Where would you rather live. North Korea or South Korea? Why is the North a failed state?

[hgc]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
...

History, of course, records many murderers and psychopaths as heros, but one wonders if the starving people of North Korea had even the slightest inkling of how the average South Korean lives (and vice/versa) if the Kim dynasty could survive.....

...I heard the story once that when N. Korean delegation visited Seoul, and images of the city were broadcast in the north, they were told that the city didn't really look like that, that the S. Koreans had built up a gigantic stage set of a city and shipped in millions of people -- all for propoganda purposes.

How to make Hell-on-Earth look like a "workers' paradise?" Restrict all information about the outside world. I have a feeling that N. Koreans know anyway that something is askew.

[Malachi151]

1st major inaaccuracy. Korea was already being run by an imperal power before the Japanese inavded. The Japanese were far worse than the Russians, but Korea was not a functioning independent country at the time they were invaded. You notion of Korea as a “flourishing country” is a flat out lie.

Well, not according to the history I have seen, both on TV and in the books. Under the Czarist Russians they still had all of their culture in tact. They were not slaves, they did not have to adopt foreign names, they were allowed to speack their own language, as was the case under Japan. The culture was still very strong.

Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), military conflict in which a victorious Japan forced Russia to abandon its expansionist policy in the Far East, becoming the first Asian power in modern times to defeat a European power.

The Russo-Japanese War developed out of the rivalry between Russia and Japan for dominance in Korea and Manchuria.

Yes and? This only reinforces the point that Korea has been destroyed by imperialism. And just to make is clear to you, this is Czarist Russia that is being discussed here, which is who the Communsits overthrew because they opposed imperalism and disapproved of thier government. Of course once Stalin came to power some of that changed, but its a compltely differnet country in 1904 and after 1917. None of that matters fo the Koreans though, they were the victems no matter who or what the situation.

Kim spent over half the war in the Soviet army. He was a hand picked leader for the North by the Soviets. You also fail to mention that the Soviets prevented the UN from holding elections in North Korea. Kim may have started out as a partisan, but in the end he was a puppet. Typical imperialism

So what that Kim was apart of the Soviet army? That's how he was trianed. Just because he was a part of the amry does not mean he was a puppet. In fact we now know that he was not a puppet of the Soviets, but that is what was assumed at the time.

We now know that it was he that requested to invade South Korea to unite it and that Stalin opposed. We now know that he broke with the USSR on many issues and outlined a strategy of independance and nationalism and did not want to rely on any country because he felt betrayed by the Soviets during the Korean War.

Not a single Soviet fought in the Korean War. Stalin didn't want the war because he felt it would hurt his relations with the West, which he knew would not be good. He was correct in a very profound and world chaning way. Stalin tried to explain to him how it would be bad for the Communist movement to do this, but Kim did not care about that, his concern was unification.

So just what is your source for you history, Malachi? I recommend that you take a vacation to UN compound on the DMZ and tell me you think you see on the other side.

Well, that last bit just confirmed what I had been saying. He was loved by his people because of his opposition to the Japanese invasion. How are you going to take issue with that?" At that time he was officailly a US ally and his actions were part of the allied effort to win the war. So yes, actually he helped us win WWII. Not a decisive role, but he was fighting on the allied side in that war. Then, shortly after, we turned on him and our other allies and we allied with Japan and Germany and immediately started to invade China and inflitrate Russia.

The immediate invasion of China in 1945 made the Koreans all the more defensive. Then when the US divided the country and allied with Japan and let the Japanese war criminals off the hook, the Koreans were outraged. What do you expect?

[jj]

Malachi, you haven't addressed a very simple point, North Korea is in the same situation as every country that's tried communism, it's bankrupt, the people are starving, and the government has devolved into a totalitarian state.

I submit that those are the direct real-life outcomes of communist philosopy.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Doubt
Funny how you post a quote that has so few facts. From your own source:

http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/rhee.htm

So here we have evidence of Soviets trying to export communism into Korea from before 1920. Also the US was involved. Rhee also tried to get help from the Soviets but was rebuffed.

History is not just looking at the facts you like. Lets try to see if you can avoid confirmation bias for a while Malachi. Where would you rather live. North Korea or South Korea? Why is the North a failed state?

I'm not exactly sure where you get that from out of that text, but yes, I'm sure that they were, the communist movement was global. There were over a million of communists in the United States in 1919 as well.

This is no defense of North Korea, and I have no idea why people are trying to make it out to be one. The issue why have they reacted in the way that they have. What forces have shaped their civilization? The country has have a very hard time, it has sufferened many invasions and occupations.

Do you really think that if America were invaded and about 10% of the of women were tunred into sex slaves for the invaders, everyone was forced to speak a different language, everyone had to adopt foreign names, all history was rewirtten, about 20% of the able bodies men were forced into slavery, and tens of millions of people were killed and tortured and this went on for about 20 years, then after that and a giant world war the country that had helped to fight off our allies allied with our opponents against us as soon as the war was over, and then divided our contry in half, and the only ally we had left then backed out on us and didn't support us either. Don't you think that the country just *might* get a little extreme and militant?

Obviously their current culture is abad one and a problematic one, the issue I am saying is that its a product of the abuse that they have taken.

As for South Korean, their history has not been so great either. They have really only done well just recently especially since the Olympics.

http://asiarecipe.com/korhistory.html

20th Century
1910 - 45: During its occupation, Japan built up Korea's infrastructure, especially the street and railroad systems. However, the Japanese ruled with an iron fist and attempted to root out all elements of Korean culture from society. People were forced to adopt Japanese names, convert to the Shinto (native Japanese) religion, and were forbidden to use Korean language in schools and business. The Independence Movement on March 1, 1919, was brutally repressed, resulting in the killing of thousands, the maiming and imprisoning of tens of thousands, and destroying of hundreds of churches, temples, schools, and private homes. During World War II, Japan siphoned off more and more of Korea's resources, including its people, to feed its Imperial war machine. Many of the forced laborers were never repatriated to Korea.

1945 - 60: The Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945, cause the peninsula to came under divided rule: the USSR occupied Korea north of the 38th parallel, while the U.S. occupied the southern section. Under UN auspices, a democratic government established the Republic of Korea (South Korea) in 1948 with its capital in Seoul. The Communists established the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) with its capital in P'yongyang. On June 25, 1950, the North Korean Army invaded the South, starting the Korean War. UN forces helped the South while Communist Chinese volunteers sided with the North, resulting in a three year war which left millions dead on both sides. (The Korean War section gives greater detail about this period, including a day-by-day calendar with historical events, diary entries from people who were there, and period photographs.) Student protests against the corrupt [South Korean] government caused Syngman Rhee to step down as president in 1960.

1961 - 79: On May 16, 1961, General Park, Chung Hee organized a military coup and toppled the civilian [South Korean] government. He then established martial law and later had himself elected president. Though his leadership was oppressive, President Park instigated many economic and social changes which helped elevate Korea into and industrializing nation. Major infrastructure enhancements, including the Seoul-Pusan expressway and the Seoul subway system, began under his regime. The Korean CIA chief assassinated President Park on October 26, 1979.

1980 - 87: In the power vacuum left by President Park's death, General Chun, Doo Hwan staged a military coup and seized power on May 17, 1980. After re-establishing martial law, he had himself elected President and banned several hundred former politicians from campaigning. A military crackdown against student protests in the southern city of Kwangju resulted in hundreds of deaths and injuries. Although his rule was more lenient than General Park's, and he adopted many reforms, the Korean people became tired of military rule. Violent student demonstrations in 1987 forced President Chun to implement more social reforms and hold presidential elections in 1988.

1988 - 92: General Noh, Tae-woo, Chun's chosen political successor, won the presidential election. The opposition party failed to field a single candidate, splitting the opposition vote and giving Noh a comfortable win. During his term, President Noh's government established diplomatic relations with many non-capitalist countries, including the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, both long-term allies of communist North Korea. The successful hosting of the 1988 Olympic Games brought Korea to the center stage of world recognition.

1992 - 1996: The election of President Kim, Young-sam ushered in a new era of civilian rule. Since taking office he worked hard to reform the widely criticized regulatory system through his "New Economy" and "Globalization" programs. The implementation of the real-name financial transaction act put an end to the easy hiding of hot money. Another 2,000 rules and regulations were abolished or amended during Presdient Kim's term. Despite the many contibutions he made, Kim, Young-sam will probably be remembered most for the dismal economic situation the country was in when he left office.

1997 - present: The election of President Kim, Dae-jung marked the first time an opposition leader has been elected as president in Korea. After failing in four other attempts to win the popular vote, his party joined with the party of Kim, Jong-pil, and riding the population's growing resentment towards the ruling party, gained the narrow majority needed to gain the presidency. His term immediately got off to the rocky start when the former ruling party boycotted the National Assembly session which was to have confirmed President Kim's choice of cabinet and prime minister candidates.

Now, really South Korean didn't start doing well until the late 80s politically, and didn't do well economically until just recently. South Korea's post WWII history is as bloody or bloodier than North Korea's. Right now yes, most certianly South Korea is much better off, but that has not always been the case. Dissent by the South Koreans has been what has led to progress, and unforunately there is very little dissent in North Korea due to the propaganda.

My point, the country has have a very hard time, and their curent state is a reaction to those hard times.

[Jude]

I'm still waiting for Malachi151's thread that explains how it was, in fact, American imperialism that killed Jesus Christ.

[Skeptic]

Malachi, you haven't addressed a very simple point, North Korea is in the same situation as every country that's tried communism, it's bankrupt, the people are starving, and the government has devolved into a totalitarian state.

Don't expect him to. The way of life in in every single "marxist worker's paradice", without exception, is the ultimate proof of the stupidity and horror of communism. This well-known fact is, of course, the real reason that every single remaining communist (all 183 of them) lives in the "decadent imperlialistic west" (usually on some college campus. )

[hgc]

Originally posted by Malachi151


I'm not exactly sure where you get that from out of that text, but yes, I'm sure that they were, the communist movement was global. There were over a million of communists in the United States in 1919 as well.

This si no defense of North Korea, and I have no idea why people are trying to make it out to be one. The issue why have they reacted in the way that they have. What forces have shaped their civilization? The country has have a very hard time, it has sufferened many invasions and occupations.

Do you really think that if America were invaded and about 10% of the of women were tunred into sex slaves for the invaders, everyone was forced to speak a different language, everyone had to adopt foreign names, all history was rewirtten, about 20% of the able bodies men were forced into slavery, and tens of millions of people were killed and tortured and this went on for about 20 years, then after that and a giant world war the country that had helped to fight off our opponents allied with our opponents against us as soon as the war was over, and then divided our contry in half, and the only ally we had left then backed out on us and didn't support us either. Don't you think that the country just *might* get a little extreme and militant?

Obviously their current culture is abad one and a problematic one, the issue I am saying is that its a product of the abuse that they have taken.

As for South Korean, their history has not been so great either. They have really only done well just recently especially since the Olympics.

http://asiarecipe.com/korhistory.html



Now, really South Korean didn't start doing well until the late 80s politically, and didn't do well economically until just recently. South Korea's post WWII history is as bloody or bloodier than North Korea's. Right now yes, most certianly South Korea is much better off, but that has not always been the case. Dissent by the South Koreans has been what has led to progress, and unforunately there is very little dissent in North Korea due to the propaganda.

My point, the country has have a very hard time, and their curent state is a reaction to those hard times. Here's the problem with your theory. N and S Korea suffered the same under Japan, but somehow they are very different today. Sure S Korea had political problems until quite recently, with coups and somewhat despotic rulers. But their prosperity didn't just pop up recently, it's the result of 50 years of building an industrial society that actually welcomes and thrives on trade and all other kinds of contact with the outside world. So, at what point do you stop blaming the Japanese, and start to examine what half a century of rule by this one man and his son has done to N Korea? Are you trying to claim that if you go back 20 years, N and S Korea look the same?

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Malachi, you haven't addressed a very simple point, North Korea is in the same situation as every country that's tried communism, it's bankrupt, the people are starving, and the government has devolved into a totalitarian state.

Don't expect him to. The way of life in in every single "marxist worker's paradice", without exception, is the ultimate proof of the stupidity and horror of communism. This well-known fact is, of course, the real reason that every single remaining communist (all 183 of them) lives in the "decadent imperlialistic west" (usually on some college campus. )

Maybe it's time for a "The single obvious question for Malachi" thread? :p

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by jj
Malachi, you haven't addressed a very simple point, North Korea is in the same situation as every country that's tried communism, it's bankrupt, the people are starving, and the government has devolved into a totalitarian state.

I submit that those are the direct real-life outcomes of communist philosopy.

Why would you even think that this is a defense of communism? How many times do I have to say that I think communism could never work? Plus the issues in North Korea really have nothing to do with communism in an economic sense, they have everything to do with totalitarianism in the poltical sense.

Anyway, my points on communism have always been that the adoption of communism by a country is always done as a REACTION TO aggression.

The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in a country is likeways a REACTION TO aggression.

I certinaly do not agree with either Stalist/Communist or Islamic Fundamentlaist ideology or any type of political system that is not open and democratic and which is abusive of its people, but I can certianly realize that these types of governments typically form as a reaction to outside pressure.

Korea has been shaped by its reaction to the Japanese invasion and American occupation and intervention. The people have supported these dictators out of fear caused by those occurances and out of the collapse of their civilization becuase of occupation.

The same can be said of China, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicoragua, Honduras, and Nigeria.

In all of those places the counties had been significantly damaged by foreign invaders. As a reaction to this the people supported hard line nationalists who's aim was to throw out the foreigners. Communism was just an ideology that supported that mindset and catered to the real turth of these situations, which was that these counties were occupied for the purpose of monitary gain by the occupying power. That was true. Communism reinformced that and provided an ideological way out of that trap. The USSR supported countries in their efforts to become independant and the people supported the help of the USSR because they wanted to become independant.

Unfortunately the ideology was problematic, and the leaders that these people supported were often extremists. The reason that extremists were supported was because the conditions that these people faced were extreme in the first place.

It is definately a losing scenario, but it is one that is brought about because of oppression in the first place.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Why would you even think that this is a defense of communism?

Straw man?

Malachi, your condemnation seems to imply that somehow the west is responsible for the problems in NK, but it ignores the actiions of the former USSR, the PRC, and the NK government itself.

The fact that the USSR helped NK shoot itself in the foot is not the fault of US agression, Malachi.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Unfortunately the ideology was problematic, and the leaders that these people supported were often extremists. The reason that extremists were supported was because the conditions that these people faced were extreme in the first place.


And those problems came about in large due to the behavior of WW2 era Japan, the USSR, and the PRC's actions at the time.

Blaming the west for that is absurd.

[Cinorjer]

I lived in South Korea for a couple of years (military service) and came to love the country and people. It's a beautiful country and you'd never know it was trashed in a war only 50 or so years ago.

Korea has a rich and ancient history, that unfortunately includes repeated invasions and occupations by China and Japan over the last thousand years or so. It's almost like the two Asian superpowers took turns plundering the country. The Koreans have little love of Japan because of this.

The little country, both north and south, has little in the way of natural resources and barely enough land capable of growing crops to feed their own people in good years. The trouble in the north is, you can feed a huge army or you can feed your own people with what they have, but not both. Without an industrial base and international trade, that's just the way it is. By choosing to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, they're stuck in the dark ages where famine takes care of the food versus population equation.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Now, really South Korean didn't start doing well until the late 80s politically, and didn't do well economically until just recently. South Korea's post WWII history is as bloody or bloodier than North Korea's. Right now yes, most certianly South Korea is much better off, but that has not always been the case. Dissent by the South Koreans has been what has led to progress, and unforunately there is very little dissent in North Korea due to the propaganda.

My point, the country has have a very hard time, and their curent state is a reaction to those hard times.

Where the hell are you getting this crap?

Not to be rude...but this is absurd.

South Korea's economy started to improve in the 1960s under President Park. Yes it continued to do well into today. (including the 80s, except for one down year 1979-1980.)

The division that you blame on America is interesting, in that Soviet troops started pouring across the Yalu shortly after World War II and would probably have occupied the entire country.

BTW,
North Korea was the natural resource rich part of the country. South Korea was the traditional poorer agricultural area. It took communism to turn it into a starving sh-thole.

Also, is it fear that causes the North Koreans to dig tunnels under the DMZ? Tunnels that have NO defensive purpose. 4 tunnels have been found since the late 1970s. There may be as many as 20 more.

Yes of course you take Kim Il Sung at his word, right? He was only interested in re-unifying the country. The whole cult of personality was of course because the people really loved him. That is what people that are loved do... You know have people shot for not having pictures of him in their house...

Only a unbalanced idealouge would look at Korea over the past 50 years and come to your bizzare conclusions.
(Or you are purposely being absurd to be provacitvie? You know trolling?)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by hgc
I heard the story once that when N. Korean delegation visited Seoul, and images of the city were broadcast in the north, they were told that the city didn't really look like that, that the S. Koreans had built up a gigantic stage set of a city and shipped in millions of people -- all for propoganda purposes.

Actually, the N. Koreans do this themselves. The pic below is from the July 2003 National Geographic. It shows a S. Korean farmer in the DMZ (w/ an armed guard) and a N. Korean "city" in the background. The "city" is actually a facade, a desperate attempt to feign N. Korean prosperity. It's called "Propaganda Village".
http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/Facade.jpg

Malachi:
You know, General MacArthur wanted to reunite the two Koreas also, and would have done so if not for the 1 million Chinese cannon fodder sent out to prevent that. So shouldn't you really be blaming China for the current mess? :D

[Malachi151]

Yes, Park did industrialize Korea, but he was also a military ruler who took countrol from thr democratic government through a coup and ruled with an iron fist and there was significant corruption under him.

A general who launched a military coup to end a brief period of democracy in South Korea, Park long admired the Japanese and served in the Japanese forces which occupied Manchuria in the 1930s.

He quickly instituted a similar pattern of development in South Korea, which was a backward agrarian economy in 1960, having failed to develop in the 1950s under Syngman Rhee.

Park nationalised all the Korean banks and reinforced the system of chaebol - a few specially selected large companies encouraged to tailor their growth and production targets to meet South Korean government objectives and dependent on those state-owned banks for the credit they needed to operate and grow.

Park instituted a severe autocracy and crushed any sign of unrest. But he also led from the front in his drive to industrialise South Korea, leading an austere lifestyle and discouraging conspicuous consumption by the business community. One of the first acts he passed was the 1961 Law for Dealing with Illicit Wealth Accumulation, under which he arrested a number of the country's leading businessmen. But what happened then was very revealing: Park exempted all of the businessmen from prison and confiscation of their property if they agreed to invest their wealth in the new industry sectors laid out by the government. Compulsory investment!

Having taken power as a general, Park Chung Hee covnerted himself into a civilian president in general elections held in 1963. He played the civilian politics ame throughout the 1960s but reverted to type when he felt the pressure: in 1972, Park Chung Hee declared martial law. From this point until 1979, Park ruled by presidential decree and criticism of him and his government was expressly illegal.

In international terms, Park Chung Hee was a pro-American stalwart at a time when policy planners stomped the corridors of the Pentagon foaming at the mouth about Vietnam and the domino theory in south-east Asia. Park sent over 300,000 South Korean soldiers to fight alongside the Americans in Vietnam (where they were paid by the U.S. government, by the way, in possibly the largest mercenary operation in modern times). At home, he created the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (the KCIA) which loomed large over Korean public life in the 1960s and the 1970s. From 3,000 staff at its creation in 1961, the KCIA grew to an incredible 370,000 just three years later.

Ironically, Park was shot dead by the head of the KCIA in October 1979 Kim Chae-Kyu amid a wave of strikes and student protests.

His death sparked a period of uncertainty and chaos - and eventually to the end of the military regime and the current civilian republic in 1988.

As you can imagine, feeling towards Park Chung Hee is mixed. He gave South Korea prosperity but at tremendous cost, and arguably the cosy structure of a few favoured huge corporations who effectively carry out government policy by proxy that he put in place is now what is under challange from the debts system.

http://www.oneworld.org/outthere/seasia/skorea/chaebol/park.htm

South Korea's nuclear program:

On becoming aware of it, the U.S. government pressured South Korea to give up its nuclear weapons programme and threatened to halt civilian nuclear assistance if it did not. In early 1975 President Park withdrew from the French-Korean reprocessing deal and pledged to abandon the programme completely and permanently in exchange for the cancellation by the U.S. of further troop withdrawals from the Korean Peninsula. In a recent analysis, Mr. Kim Hakjoon argues that President Park initiated the South’s nuclear weapons programme as a bargaining chip against the U.S. withdrawal of its nuclear umbrella – the “defend us or else” nuclear blackmail, as well as U.S. criticism of his domestic dictatorial regime. Under pressure from the U.S., South Korea completed the ratification of its accession to the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) on April 23, 1975, thus solidifying the promise to halt its nuclear weapons programme. In the late 1970s reports surfaced that the South continued to pursue this programme clandestinely. An opposition lawmaker Kang Chang Sung stated that in 1978 President Park told him that the country’s nuclear weapons programme was approximately 95% complete. After President Park was assassinated in October 1979 and the new government of Chun Doo Hwan came to power, Kang was told to dismiss all researchers working on the nuclear bomb and end the nuclear weapons programme.

http://projects.sipri.se/nuclear/cnsc3kos.htm

Gee, sound familiar? You see, North Korea is just doing the same thing, or at least trying to. This is a strategy that the north has seen work in the past and they were going to try it as well, like I said, using the nuclear program as a barganing chip. However, Bush has essentially said no, and now the North Koreans don't know what to do. The intent all along has been to bargan, but if there is no barganing beng done then they don't know what to do, and the situaiton just get's worse.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Anyway, my points on communism have always been that the adoption of communism by a country is always done as a REACTION TO aggression.

The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in a country is likeways a REACTION TO aggression.


Oh, well then that makes it OK.

Sorry, but I don't buy that. Plenty of countries have been victims of aggression and even imperialist occupation without resorting to reactionary violent ideologies. And I don't accept the premise that such ideologies are always reactionary responses to aggression either. Pinning the blame for Islamic fundamentalism or communism on foreign agression provides no real insight into its causes. It ignores the pivotal role individual leaders usually provide in such movements. And it provides no insight into why some countries choose paths of moderation instead, despite their hardships. In effect, it's just a "he started it" kind of argument that excuses the wrongs of violent radicals.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
I lived in South Korea for a couple of years (military service) and came to love the country and people. It's a beautiful country and you'd never know it was trashed in a war only 50 or so years ago.

Korea has a rich and ancient history, that unfortunately includes repeated invasions and occupations by China and Japan over the last thousand years or so. It's almost like the two Asian superpowers took turns plundering the country. The Koreans have little love of Japan because of this.

The little country, both north and south, has little in the way of natural resources and barely enough land capable of growing crops to feed their own people in good years. The trouble in the north is, you can feed a huge army or you can feed your own people with what they have, but not both. Without an industrial base and international trade, that's just the way it is. By choosing to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, they're stuck in the dark ages where famine takes care of the food versus population equation.

Well exactly, thier economic situatio is the same as Cuba's its in horrible shape because they are a small territory that cannot provide for themselves without trade, nd yet they have cut off from trade. In their case because of their own actions, in Cuba's case against their will.

The country became isolationaist because of the fact that they had been invaded to many times. I mean its an understandable reaction. Unfortunately its not a productive reaction, but its no different than a person who is abused and then decides to lock themselves in their room and not come out.

Ultimately that does not provide a helpful solution, but it is an understandable reaction.

[Malachi151]

And I don't accept the premise that such ideologies are always reactionary responses to aggression either.

Name a single case where it is not.


Pinning the blame for Islamic fundamentalism or communism on foreign agression provides no real insight into its causes.

On teh contrary is provides excellent insite into its causes. The cause is foreign aggression! :p

It ignores the pivotal role individual leaders usually provide in such movements.

On the contrary. It does not ignore anything. Society is put under pressure and stress and they feel threatened. Because of this they support extremist nationalist leaders to expel the foreign threat. What is so hard to understand about this?

Think about it. What is America was invaded and occupied by China for 50 years, don't you think that an extremist oppostional movement would build among the people until thery overthrew the occupying force? Who do you think people would rally behind, some nice guy with rational ideas, or a militant guy that gives rally speaches and raises his fist and says "fight, fight, fight!". And then after its all over, who is left in power? The same leader in most cases in these countries. The same militant dude.

I guarentee you that if somehow China invaded and occupied America that this poppulation would become highly Christian Fundamentlaist, highly racist and anti-Asian, and highly militant. That's exactly what any country does when it gets oppressed by a foreign country.

The reason you don't see this type of behavior in the dominate countries in the world is beucase they ahve been the ones doing to invasions and doing the occupation. The countries that are now militant and "problematic" are the ones who have been victems of this behavior over the past 100 years.

Dude, map it out this is so obvious.

Every country that is doing well has been an imperialist counrty in the past 100 years, save Australia and Canada, and every country that is having major problems have been invaded and/or occupied by one fo the cdominate countries in the past 80 years. Without fail.

Why is that pattern so hard to people to understand?

And it provides no insight into why some countries choose paths of moderation instead, despite their hardships.

First of all, name a country that was occupied by an imperial force which then chose a path of moderation and expelled that occupying force? Can you name one? Virtually every messed up country in the world today is one that was occupied by an imperialist power within the past 100 years that IS my point.

Some of them have recovered and done better than others by essentially reengaging with the West and allowing a continued level of cooperation. The ones that don't want to interact with the West end up being punished to the point that they stay in constant hardship. The message is that you have to cooperate in terms of trade with the Western powers, or they will ruin you.

If you don't play by America's or Japan's or Australia's or Europe's rules, then you don't play at all. Essnetially you have to open your country up and let these powers have access to your resources or else you will be punished.

In effect, it's just a "he started it" kind of argument that excuses the wrongs of violent radicals.

No its not. Look around. Iran, Islamic Fundamentalist. They took control in a coup becuase of the oppressive and brutal regime of the Shah of Iran who was supported by the CIA for American interests. That's your cause right there.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

First of all, name a country that was occupied by an imperial force which then chose a path of moderation and expelled that occupying force? Can you name one? Virtually every messed up country in the world today is one that was occupied by an imperialist power within the past 100 years that IS my point.

Some of them have recovered and done better than others by essentially reengaging with the West and allowing a continued level of cooperation. The ones that don't want to interact with the West end up being punished to the point that they stay in constant hardship. The message is that you have to cooperate in terms of trade with the Western powers, or they will ruin you.

If you don't play by America's or Japan's or Australia's or Europe's rules, then you don't play at all. Essnetially you have to open your country up and let these powers have access to your resources or else you will be punished.

In effect, it's just a "he started it" kind of argument that excuses the wrongs of violent radicals.

No its not. Look around. Iran, Islamic Fundamentalist. They took control in a coup becuase of the oppressive and brutal regime of the Shah of Iran who was supported by the CIA for American interests. That's your cause right there.

But you only trace the history back until you find your favorite bogeyman - the US, Western European power, etc. That's when history ends for you. What you fail to acknoweledge is that there were acts of agression that drove these conquests also. Theoretically, you could trace all the world's problems back to the day the first hominid threw a tree branch at a rival to keep him away from his favorite fruit tree, so what?

Hey, the US only got involved in the Middle East after the Barbary Pirates (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/barbary.htm) attacked American shipping, so by your logic you shouldn't blame the US, after all we're just reacting to Arab aggression. Now, be a good Malachi and post about the vicious Arab aggression that started it all. :D

[headscratcher4]

South Korea's post WWII history is as bloody or bloodier than North Korea's.

Completely absurd...the S. Korean military dictatorship was brutal and repressive. For example, it shot thousands of students in the streets. It murdered and tortured. However, UN estimates that 2 to 3 million have died in the north from starvation alone in the last 10 years...are you honestly suggesting that South Korea murdered 2 to 3 million people in the last 40 years, little lone the last 5? Where is your proof for that assertion?

Here's the thing -- horrible as the Nazi regime was (and historically, there are few that could compare to its ugliness, its racism, its brutality etc.), even Nazism and its causing WWII has not resulted in as many deaths as putative Communists -- the history of the last century is littered with the bones of working men, women and children who died at the hands of the leadership of their various workers paradises.

Stalin, Mao, Kim, Pol Pot, and on and on, are up to their necks in blood. They, in theory, were humanist, yet all they could provide the world was more efficient forms of state sponsored murder in the form of planned famines, purges, etc.

Given for a moment that everything you say about North Korea is true...that it is all the Fault of the US, that Stalin was a bit player and had no ambitions in Asia, etc. Given all of that, do you really think that if North Koreans had any idea what was happening in the world, even through the eyes of Chinese propganda, that they wouldn't en-mass seek to flee the country?

Any rational person, even in North Korea, free to explore the information on their own (rather than having history created for them by a party organ and force fed them 24/7) would, even understanding your points, reject North Korea and the system it has produced as being far more evil than any of the things that have confronted it.

[PogoPedant]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Every country that is doing well has been an imperialist counrty in the past 100 years, save Australia and Canada, and every country that is having major problems have been invaded and/or occupied by one fo the cdominate countries in the past 80 years. Without fail.

Maybe not fail, but a poor C-. Norway (yay!) was a swedish colony from 1814 to 1914 (having been a danish colony from about 13-something to 1814), so that's 89 years of freedom... you're cutting it close there Malachi.

Are you only counting large countries when talking about successful countries? Otherwise you missed out on Norway and New Zealand to name two, and New Zealand was a colony for the longest time. It's still is part of the Commonwealth...

Anyways, I shouldn't be too critical, I've grown up in a pseudo-socialist country, and we're doing great. Thank you oil and fish.

[Aoidoi]

First of all, name a country that was occupied by an imperial force which then chose a path of moderation and expelled that occupying force? Can you name one? Japan, Hong Kong, Germany, Poland, most of the eastern block...

I find myself mildly amazed that someone would try to justify the actions of North Korea. It's almost universally glossed over by anyone trying to defend communism or socialism. The easiest way to do this is to simply argue it's neither, that it's a ruthless dictatorship. But this argument that it's somehow the US's fault stretches the limits of credulity.

[Mike B.]

I am really curious to hear Malachi's views on how North Korea's actions are defensive.

For example, the fact that they have built numerous tunnels underneath the DMZ or the use of suicide submarine missions to infiltrate people into the ROK only to be killed.

[Malachi151]

Here is perhaps a better example of how I see it in terms of "blame".

Take for example Prohibition in the US.

During Prohibition crime went up and many violent crime gangs formed anda whole host of illegal activity sprang up.

Now, people often "blame" the US government for making alcohol illegal for creating the conditions for crime, however the US government wasn't the ones pulling the trigger or doing the crimes.

That's how I see the issue of these communist and fundamentlaist states. No, the developed nations didn't force these people to do what they did, but they created the environment in which that type of thing was likely to happen.

The blame for the spread fo communism falls as much on the imperialists as the rise of mafias in the 1920s was the fault of the Prohibition Act.

The Prohibition Act didn't go out and make people form crime organizations, but it created a situation where people were had motive to do it. Same in the case with communism and fundamentalism.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by PogoPedant

Maybe not fail, but a poor C-. Norway (yay!) was a swedish colony from 1814 to 1914 (having been a danish colony from about 13-something to 1814), so that's 89 years of freedom... you're cutting it close there Malachi.

Are you only counting large countries when talking about successful countries? Otherwise you missed out on Norway and New Zealand to name two, and New Zealand was a colony for the longest time. It's still is part of the Commonwealth...

Anyways, I shouldn't be too critical, I've grown up in a pseudo-socialist country, and we're doing great. Thank you oil and fish.

Notice that your examples are still of counties that were colonies or occupied by other countries of a similar/same culture.

Yes New Zealand, but they were really just European settlers that broke off, not a case of invasion of occupation by a foreign civilization, New Zealand was like America or Canada or Australia, break aways from empire, which is different from occupation by a foerign invader, such as are the cases that I'm talking about.

Norway is a similar thing, its was nothing like say the British settelment of South Africa, or the French occupation of Vietnam.

[Malachi151]

Japan, Hong Kong, Germany, Poland, most of the eastern block...

Japan? YOu mean after WWII? That was a mutual aggrement, not an occupation against the will of the people.

Hong Kong? Not a country.

Germany? You mean after WWII? I guess if you consider East Germany, but really Germnay already had one of the most highly developed civilizations in the world at that time , and they since had the immediate help of their fellow Gemrans after the wall came down.

The Eastern block has had/ ishaving problems, Bosina, Serbia, Croatia ring a bell?

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Japan? YOu mean after WWII? That was a mutual aggrement, not an occupation against the will of the people.Um... mutual agreement? Does the term "Unconditional surrender" ring a bell? (though technically there was a condition, Hirohito got to remain a figurehead). This was a case where the US nearly annihilated an enemy and then helped them rebuild afterwards. And then left. The US peacefully reliquished it's claim over a defeated enemy.

Hong Kong? Not a country.An example of a colonial power peacefully relinquishing it's hold on a colony.

Germany? You mean after WWII? I guess if you consider East Germany, but really Germnay already had one of the most highly developed civilizations in the world at that time , and they since had the immediate help of their fellow Gemrans after the wall came down. Every city in Germany had been leveled by allied bombing. Both East and West were occupied countries whose ideology was radically opposed. An example of a country divided by the cold war peacefully reuniting.

The Eastern block has had/ ishaving problems, Bosina, Serbia, Croatia ring a bell? Poland, the Czech republic, Romania, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Not all former occupied nations descend into anarchy and absolute dictatorship.

So what, exactly, is unique about Korea that excuses the atrocities committed by the North?

[Malachi151]

Um... mutual agreement? Does the term "Unconditional surrender" ring a bell? (though technically there was a condition, Hirohito got to remain a figurehead). This was a case where the US nearly annihilated an enemy and then helped them rebuild afterwards. And then left. The US peacefully reliquished it's claim over a defeated enemy.

Yes and after the surrender from their offensice war they agreed and worked together to design and rebuild the country. Thats nothing at all like for example the French occupation of Vietnam against he will of the Vietnamese people, oppressing them, forcing them to convert religions, and selling massive amount sof herion to the poplation.

The rebuilding of Japan was not an imperial situation, which should be more than obvoius.

An example of a colonial power peacefully relinquishing it's hold on a colony.

Its a city not a country, obviously occupying a city does not have the type of impact on a soiety that occupying an entire country does.

Every city in Germany had been leveled by allied bombing. Both East and West were occupied countries whose ideology was radically opposed. An example of a country divided by the cold war peacefully reuniting.

Ugg.. this is really getting rediculous. Certianly it is, but it has nothing to do with countries being occupied by imperialist powers and oppressed, except for East Germany. And Germany is altogether different than the third world countries. Germany was, and is, one of the most advanced nations in the world. It was an imperialist power itself. And, in terms of Europe, East Germany does in fact still have problems.

Poland, the Czech republic, Romania, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Not all former occupied nations descend into anarchy and absolute dictatorship.

So what, exactly, is unique about Korea that excuses the atrocities committed by the North?

Well all of those countries have had major problems since the pull out of the USSR, and they are still having problems.

What excuses the attrocities commited by the South? Both North and South have commited attrocities. Nothing excuses either of them. Its not a matter of excuse its a matter of understanding why these things happen.

If someone is raised by an abusive father and beaten daily, then they go out when they are 25 yeas old and murder someone, the fact that he was beaten daily by his father is not an excuse for his actions, but its certianly an important part of understanding how the person developed into someone who would kill people.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Every country that is doing well has been an imperialist counrty in the past 100 years, save Australia and Canada, and every country that is having major problems have been invaded and/or occupied by one fo the cdominate countries in the past 80 years. Without fail.


Nope. That theory does fail. Ireland is doing great, for example. They've NEVER been an imperial dominator, and in fact got rather shafted by one for quite a bit of their recent history. Yes, it produced some radicals. But the country as a whole did not follow those radicals. Why do you think that is? There's others too, like Switzerland, but I think I made my point.

India is also doing fairly well. It was also colonized by a foreign power, and the populous rallied around a charismatic leader who fought for its independence. Oh, but Ghandi was a pacifist. So he doesn't fit your tidy model.

There's a country that hasn't been invaded by a dominant power in over a century but it's been having major problems. Heard of Liberia? It's been in the news lately.

Yes, many of the major powers have been colonial, and no surprise that recently major powers are still doing well, and many colonies have had major problems since. But your simplistic theories do not capture the complexity of the world, and they do not account for the experiences of many countires.


First of all, name a country that was occupied by an imperial force which then chose a path of moderation and expelled that occupying force? Can you name one?

Yes, I can. India. And there have been plenty of others who staged armed revolts but did not embrace violent extremist ideologies. The US is one. Ireland was another. Many south american countries also qualify. So do a number of southeast asian countries.


The ones that don't want to interact with the West end up being punished to the point that they stay in constant hardship.


Is it really punishment if it's self-inflicted? We're keeping North Korea afloat, they have nothing to offer the world except weapons, they can't even survive on their own because of their inability to run their own affairs. Their misery is not the result of our punishment - Cuba has sanctions as well, and we're not pumping in food and oil to keep it afloat, but it manages. North Korea has nobody but its own government to blame for its current misery.

(Edited for formatting)

[Nately]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Not a single Soviet fought in the Korean War.

Not a single one? You mean except for the Soviet pilots who fought throughout the war, right? The ones that are freely admitted to today?

I just picked two links, but if you type "Soviet Pilots Korean War" into a search engine, you can find more.


Little Fanfare for Soviet Korean War Veterans (http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/korean_war_soviet_pilots_reuters.htm)

Russians in the Korean War (http://abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNewsTonight/wnt000623_CL_koreanwar_soviet_feature.html)

Stalin's lack of assistance in Korea can be explained very simply. It meant conflict with the US. The US had plenty of atomic bombs and a viable method of delivery. The USSR had at most a few, and no viable method of delivery. Thus, serious involvement could not be risked. Take the nukes out of the equation and North Korea gets a few Soviet divisions in my opinion.

Of course, this error does not reflect on the quality of the rest of your historical analysis.:rolleyes:

[Doubt]

Fun with contradictions:

Malachi’s first post in this thread:


The Americans could see only one thing, Soviet aggression, however that was not reality.

The American invaded and the war lasted 3 years with over 1 million North Korean deaths, and tens of thousand of Americans and South Korean deaths.


Then we have this gem:

So what that Kim was apart of the Soviet army? That's how he was trianed. Just because he was a part of the amry does not mean he was a puppet. In fact we now know that he was not a puppet of the Soviets, but that is what was assumed at the time.


Followed immediately by the contradiction:

We now know that it was he that requested to invade South Korea to unite it and that Stalin opposed.


So in the first post, the US invaded the North but in the third quote, the North invaded the South.

In the second quote, we have the denial that Kim was a puppet. But also in the third quote Malachi admits that Kim had to ask for permission to invade the South. Never mind that the North Korean army was paid for, trained, funded and created by the Soviets. Never mind the Kim was an officer in the Red army. Never mind that he was selected by Stalin and not the Korean people. Never mind that the Soviets would not let the UN into North Korea to hold elections. I wonder what Malachi’s standard is for a political puppet?

This sort of garbage leads to one obvious question: Does Malachi have any clue about his subject? I would submit that the answer is no. Or he is lying. He certainly does not know much about history.

From Malachi’s first post:

At this point Eisenhower advised for the creation of the 38th parallel. This was done by the America alone. There was no discussion with anyone, they just decided to divide the country, they went in and established the boarder, and said that was it.


See this page for the reality:

http://www.navalinstitute.org/navalhistory/articles03/nhmiller04.htm?login=yes


The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, just four days after the completion of the Potsdam Conference. On 8 August, the Soviets declared war on Japan, as agreed at Potsdam. The rapid collapse of the Japanese war effort and the surrender with no specific reference to the future of Korea left the door open for the Soviets to take over the entire peninsula. As if in desperation, the U.S. State Department came up with a plan to divide it in half. The Soviets would control the territory north of the 38th parallel, and the United States would occupy the remainder of the peninsula to the south. To the surprise of many, the Soviets agreed to the division, which remains to this day.




Apparently, the Malachi believes that facts should not get in the way of his historical viewpoint.

If you are interested in the early contact between Korea and the US, please try the following link:

http://www.history.navy.mil/books/field/ch1a.htm

First contact did not go so well:


A generation before, Edmund Roberts had suggested that a Japanese treaty might lead to trade with Korea. In the 1840's a resolution had been introduced in Congress urging the establishment of commercial relations with both countries. But these proposals were nugatory, and in Korea, as so often elsewhere, the ultimately effective impulse to governmental action came not from home, but from the oversea activities of merchant marine and Navy. In 1866 the American merchantman General Sherman was destroyed, and its crew massacred, in the Taedong River below Pyongyang. The report of this tragedy brought the dispatch of a ship of the Asiatic Squadron, the U.S.S., Wachusett, Commander Robert W. Shufeldt, to investigate the affair, and to communicate with the King of Korea.


Korean isolationism did not start with Western imperialism. Korean isolationism was the norm before Western countries arrived in Korea.

[Malachi151]

That theory does fail. Ireland is doing great, for example

Ireland is part of the UK.

There's others too, like Switzerland.

Switzerland is a doing well yes, I should have said major powers though. Switzerland is not a major power. Every major power that is doing well is either an old imperial power or a break away from an old imperail power, such as Ausrtalia or Canada.

The UK, USA, France, Germany, Japan, and the Dutch nations were all major imperail powers in the 20th century.

Iraq, Iran, Syria, China, all of Africa, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicoragua, Honduras and Panama were occupied by imperialist powers in the 20th century.

India is also doing fairly well.

Actually India is still having a very difficult time. They are certinaly making progress, but it has been a hard struggle for them these past 50 years. Yes they are finally showing signs of success, however that does not take away from the fact that they had a very difficult time due to their occupation by the British.

Obviously a lot depends on how strong the culture was prior to being invaded by an imperialist power and the level of occupation. If its a small country and they were heavily occupied then its going to have a larger impact than a large country that was only moderately occupied. You can't act like every situation is the same, however, having been a occupied country does obviously have a long lasting negative impact. Virtually every country that has been occupied for a significant amount of time by an imperialist force has had serious problems for many many years because of that occupation

I don't see why this is so hard to understand for you people.

[Malachi151]

Not a single one? You mean except for the Soviet pilots who fought throughout the war, right? The ones that are freely admitted to today?

I should have said not a single Soviet died in the Korean War. Out over over 3 million casualties no Soviets died, because they hardly participated at all.

[Mendor]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Ireland is part of the UK.
These people (http://www.irlgov.ie/) might be a bit surprised to learn this.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Mendor
These people (http://www.irlgov.ie/) might be a bit surprised to learn this.

Okay, so Northern Ireland is the only part that's still part of the UK. Of course Ireland and Norhter Ireland has been rocked by terrorist activity since the 1940s as well :rolleyes:

I guess you can just dismiss the IRA and all that activity is trivial, and nothing to do with British occupation :rolleyes:

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mendor
These people (http://www.irlgov.ie/) might be a bit surprised to learn this.

Yeah I was surprised that Ireland was still part of the UK...:rolleyes:

Who knows maybe you in Scotland won't be a part of the UK as well soon?

BTW,
According to Malachi, you as a Brit deserve death, destruction, etc. because of an imperalist past.
:eek:

[Mike B.]

Off the top of my head, former colonies that are doing relatively well:

Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Malachi151


What excuses the attrocities commited by the South? Both North and South have commited attrocities. Nothing excuses either of them. Its not a matter of excuse its a matter of understanding why these things happen.

If someone is raised by an abusive father and beaten daily, then they go out when they are 25 yeas old and murder someone, the fact that he was beaten daily by his father is not an excuse for his actions, but its certianly an important part of understanding how the person developed into someone who would kill people.

Malachi,
This could be used to justify every right wing dictator's attempts to put down dissent. The people I assume you abhor.

You know the ROK had to act like it did in the 60s and 70s, they faced over a million men who were poised to invade them, etc.

[Mendor]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Okay, so Northern Ireland is the only part that's still part of the UK. Of course Ireland and Norhter Ireland has been rocked by terrorist activity since the 1940s as well :rolleyes:

I guess you can just dismiss the IRA and all that activity is trivial, and nothing to do with British occupation :rolleyes: I'm taking no position one way or the other on what you are saying, just pointing out that the statement "Ireland is part of the UK" is incorrect.
Originally posted by Mike B.
Who knows maybe you in Scotland won't be a part of the UK as well soon?Maybe. If we do become independent, something I would like to see, we need to be mature and realise that not every problem is the fault of the big bad people down south.

[WildCat]

It's funny watching Malachi redefine the parameters every time someone points out the falsities of his claims. Not unlike the Remote Viewing crowd. A slippery one, he is. Let the squirming resume...

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Malachi151


I should have said not a single Soviet died in the Korean War. Out over over 3 million casualties no Soviets died, because they hardly participated at all.

Still wrong!

From Nately's source:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/korean_war_soviet_pilots_reuters.htm


Kramarenko said the Soviet forces were proud of their record in taking on the U.S. aviators.
"We were rather successful because our MiG-15s were better armed than the American planes," he said.
"We shot down 1,300 U.S. planes. I brought down 13, was shot down myself and bailed out over North Korea. We lost 335 planes and 135 pilots.


Why in the world do you think anyone here is going to accept your analysis of world history when you are so often wrong on the facts?

[headscratcher4]

The attrocities that the US backed military dictatorship in South Korea are horrible and terrible. The US has much to be blamed for -- both for hypocracy and in-humanity.

However, they are in no way comparable to the systematic oppression and murder of an entire people that has occured in North Korea.

You try to suggest that there are two wrongs here, and they are somehow equal. Yes, there are two wrongs...but the field of dead, tortured, imprissoned and opressed created in North Korea over the last 40 years makes the body count in the South seem almost trivial.

You claim to be a Communist, one would have hoped that you would feel for the workers, and it is the workers who die, suffer and are repressed. And, since death matters little to you (as you would equate the occasional overt and terrible oppression in the South with the constant and systematic oppression in the north) one would at least hope that you would be offended by the constant lies told to the population of the North -- even in the worst times in the South, people had alternative sources of information to know what their government was doing.

In the end, Imperalism, colonialsim, corporate oppression, etc. can not justify the wanton deaths of millions...indeed, the very fact of the famine in the last 10 years and the complete unwillingness of the North to engage the global community in any way that could reasonably have stemmed the death rate, demonstrates the complete amorality of the state.

Justify it as you will...the vast majority of the deaths in North Korea, all of the oppression and most of the failures of infrastructure, the state and culture lie not in the hands of history or its current adversaries but soley at the caprice of their royal Highnesses Kim & Son.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Okay, so Northern Ireland is the only part that's still part of the UK. Of course Ireland and Norhter Ireland has been rocked by terrorist activity since the 1940s as well :rolleyes:

I guess you can just dismiss the IRA and all that activity is trivial, and nothing to do with British occupation :rolleyes:

Ireland has not been rocked by terrorist activity. Northern Ireland has. But here's a little curve ball for you: the IRA was not the primary culprit. The UDA terrorist group killed more people than the IRA, and they supported the British occupation. The situation there was much more complex than you suggest.

[subgenius]

I'm sure that headscratcher4 has already seen this one from N.Korea News:

Anti-U.S. Rally in S. Korea
Pyongyang, August 20 (KCNA) -- A person to person belt forming rally opposing the U.S. threat of war to the Korean peninsula and demanding a stop to the suppression of the South Korean Federation of University Student Councils (Hanchongryon) was reportedly held in front of the U.S. 8th Army base in Ryongsan, Seoul, on August 16. The rally was a part of the August 15 reunification function.
Participating there were members of the Reunification Solidarity, the National People's Solidarity, the All-people Measure Committee for the Death of Schoolgirls and citizens and students, at least 5,000 in all.
http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm


Committee for the Death of Schoolgirls?:eek: :roll:

[Nately]

Originally posted by Doubt


Still wrong!

From Nately's source...


Dang it, Doubt! I saw his reply was all excited to respond, and you beat me to it. :D

Originally posted by Malachi151
You can't act like every situation is the same, however, having been a occupied country does obviously have a long lasting negative impact. Virtually every country that has been occupied for a significant amount of time by an imperialist force has had serious problems for many many years because of that occupation.

It's not exactly a real illuminating point. You get invaded, things are bad. Big surprise. There's plenty of issues here as well. For one, what defines an "imperialist force"? Can you be occupied by a non-imperialist force? If not, what's the point of the imperialist term? I know it's a favorite word of the communists, but what meaning does it really have when they throw it at each other as much as anyone else? (See the Sino-Soviet split for some amusing verbal battles. They had nastier things to say about each other than they ever did about the US.)

Another question. How long is "a long lasting negative impact?" Because practically every country has been occupied and been an occupier throughout history. Heck, North Vietnam came out of the Third Indochina War with one of the most powerful armies in the region and started throwing their weight around, to include invading Cambodia and installing a puppet regime. I guess they learned from the French, cause they had the exact same ideas. I'd call that a quick recovery, except that their ridiculously stupid social and economic policies doomed the country to years of suffering. Their overwhelming desire to equalize wealth destroyed the economy and drove out hundred of thousands of refugees, including most of the people who were crucial to a modern economy.

As for Korea... South Korea was obviously invaded just as much through history as North Korea was. Yet North Korea turned into an oppressive hermit state that has gotten worse every year, while the South has not.

Both sides of Korea suffered severely during the war, but South certainly got the brunt of the ground war. Since then, they have faced the constant threat of that devastation being repeated. As much as the North Koreans like to pretend that 30,000 American troops are going to storm the DMZ, they are not the ones with a reason to fear invasion and haven't been. If anything, you would think South Korea would be the state that would have to rely more on desperate measures and oppression to survive. But North Korea trumps them easily in that department.

There's also the whole "America invaded" thing and your poor grasp of history. North Korea invaded, and was beaten back by an American-led force that fought under the banner of the UN and included troops from many countries, from the Philippines to Turkey to Britain. Not surprisingly, no one was keen to give the North Koreans a second chance.

And one final thing about North Korea being mad that Japan got off light after WWII. Light? They got firebombed and nuked. There country was a wreck. Being far more benevolent than say...the Soviets...the US recognized that the average people of Japan weren't to blame and helped them rebuild the country. Would it have been somehow better to oppress them for a few decades just to get even and make the Koreans happy? Wouldn't that have been kinda imperialist?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Ireland is part of the UK.



:dl:

[subgenius]

I'm sure they're keeping the NK athletes sequestered so as to not see the relative opulence of SK but as the old song goes,
"How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree?"
The protest banners should have pictures of life in SK. To taunt them with what they probably know/fear already will only make them defensive. Kill 'em with kindness.


North Korea threatened to pull out of the World University Games on Sunday after a brawl between North Korean reporters and human rights activists protesting the communist country's leader.
http://espn.go.com/oly/news/2003/0824/1602021.html?partnersite=espn

[headscratcher4]

Malachi's arguments about all of this, and his claimed support for communism was put in sharp relief for me today while reading a book review in the NYTimes. The reviewer was recounting a debate sometime in mid 50's, I think it was after the Kruschev De-Stalinization speech, where Earl Browder (Sp?) -- an un-reconstructed American Communist who had been expelled from the Party on orders from Moscow but who still ardently defended not only Communism but the Party and the Soviet model -- was debating Max Schenctman (sp?) a former Communist who had dropped away as the truth about Stalinism (and indeed the global Communist movement) became unavoidably obvious. Anyway, Schenctman responded to some tirade from Browder with the line (I paraphrase): "there, but for the grace of geogrophy, sits a dead man..." To which Browder could find little in the way of reply.

For our dear friend M: there but for the grace of time and geography, writes a dead man...for clearly where he to be living in any state striving to build a "communist" Utopia, he would either be one of the purged or the purging ... and as all Communist states have shown, the purgers -- who submit to the inherently un-democratic ways of a party that inevitably raises the will of one man or one very small group above the will of the entire people -- will someday become the purged.