Like almost all historians he does let his preconceived notions drive his view of history.
North Korea
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Like almost all historians he does let his preconceived notions drive his view of history.
Saying that is plain dumb just exposes that you have zero understanding of the history. The role of Japan is of immense significance. The role of Japan is important here because of their brutal dominion over Korea from 1910 and during WWII. Rhee's regime drew heavily from Koreans who had collaborated with Japan during the occupation. This naturally did not go down well with the population. Kim Il Sung had spent his life leading a guerrilla movement against Japan, this gave him a sense of legitimacy as a ruler of the Korean people, significantly more than Rhee, who had been handpicked in America and had not set foot in Korea for decades before he was installed as leader. To try and deny the role played by anti-Japanese sentiment in the origins of the Korean War is literally ludicrous. It's quite bizarre that I've seen you comment on the history of North Korea quite a few times, yet you seem oblivious as to what Kim Il Sung had spent his life doing before becoming leader.
We have ourselves a Kim Il-Sung apologist!
The Great Leader also spent 26 years in Manchuria and Russia (indeed fighting Japan) before returning to Korea in 1945. The Soviets even preferred a gent named Cho Man-sik to be chairman of the communist party, but he rejected the Trusteeship arrangement the Soviets supported, so he was passed over for Kim, and naturally (for communist states) disappeared.
LOL. But Japan gave the North Korean Leadership 100% right to invade the south, even though Japan was no longer occupying the south, don't you know anything!
Every place has history and every place has history tied to other nations, it sort of reminds of those who tried to legitimize Saddam's invasion of Iraq by using the logic that both Iraq and Kuwait were once part of the same Empire so that means Iraq had a legitimate claim to Kuwait. End of the day, the Government of North Korea, which had been hand picked and put in place by the Soviets, with their army fully trained and armed for offensive warfare, invaded the South. A South under a despicable shithead, but I think most of us agree that is not really a reason to launch a war (otherwise it means it would be okay to launch a war against the shitheads that have been ruling NK for 70 plus years) but who had been denied an army capable of invading the North by the US. One side was clearly looking to start a war in Korea, and one was not.
Of course let's not even mention the hand picked leader of NK then set up a family dynasty, that has launched decapitation strikes against the South (all after the cease fire that stopped the fighting in Korea), starved it's own people, sunk a SK warship, etc etc etc etc. But yeah, let's pretend that the whole problem is because of the US.
Whoever started the war doesn't change the fact that it was the US that reduced almost every North Korean city to rubble, killing at least several hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the process.
So yeah, "what America did to them" is perfectly correct.
So it would be okay for Germany or Japan to still be pissed off about what the allies did to them during WW2, okay. Sure.
Not saying the bombing was right, just saying it would never have happened had North Korea not been armed, trained and encouraged by their allies into launching an invasion of the South.
This seems to be something a few people can not grasp. Without the invasion we are probably not even at the point we are now. In fact without it, maybe things would have ended more like the reunification of the Germany's (oddly enough brought about largely when the people in the East decided they had enough of being ruled by a Soviet puppet regime).
Last edited:
Japan and Germany? Come on now. You think that is an appropriate comparison?
The country was freed from the Japanese just to be cut in two so that now they could be dominated by two superpowers instead of one.
Both sides wanted to end that situation. Rhee wanted to conquer the North just as much as Kim wanted to conquer the South. And is it really so surprising?
I don't know why one would have expected Korea to just tag along. Unlike, say Germany, Korea didn't do anything to deserve a "punishment".
You say the bombings wouldn't have happened without the invasion. That is true. It doesn't justify what is a horrible war crime but it's true.
However it's also true that the invasion (which I don't say was right either btw) would have never happened had the superpowers not decided that Korea would be distributed among them.
BTW are we not talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki to this day?
The country was freed from the Japanese just to be cut in two so that now they could be dominated by two superpowers instead of one.
Both sides wanted to end that situation. Rhee wanted to conquer the North just as much as Kim wanted to conquer the South. And is it really so surprising?
I don't know why one would have expected Korea to just tag along. Unlike, say Germany, Korea didn't do anything to deserve a "punishment".
You say the bombings wouldn't have happened without the invasion. That is true. It doesn't justify what is a horrible war crime but it's true.
However it's also true that the invasion (which I don't say was right either btw) would have never happened had the superpowers not decided that Korea would be distributed among them.
BTW are we not talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki to this day?
Last edited:
This post is a massive stretch imho. During my trips to Korea there was zero evidence of them being dominated or ruled by the USA.
Interesting contribution. I strikes me that people who aren't prepared to learn about the whole picture are pretty well bound to make some pretty big cock-ups when addressing it.
Just have to hope the US national security people, CIA and so on, are a bit more sophisticated than some of the politicians I suppose. Their record in my time ain't great though, unfortunately.
I wasn't talking about todays situation or even a few decades ago but right after the war. When the country was seperated.
I agree with you that the country is not dominated by the USA today, at least not in a special way (so compared to other countries).
BTW just in case that wasn't clear I didn't mean to say that the US or SU were anywhere near as bad as the Japanese in that regard. Of course they were not.
Last edited:
Did they rule South Korea immediately after the war?
Yeah, they had a Military Government which came into effect right after the war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Military_Government_in_Korea).
They would support NK with logistics and I have no idea why people keep calling china a superpower when at this moment US and Russia still the superpowers, china doesn't have a strong navy less nukes than U.K. when Russia and US have thousands of nukes a better Air Force and Navy.
China is more so a superpower than Russia. Just look at the sizes of its economy.
I don't know what the technical classification of a superpower is, but in my mind there is easily only one currently, the US. The US could operate a war anywhere on the planet on its own, I don't think any other country can.
True... and they could probably invade / overthrow any country in the world... with the exception of China and Russia which I guess makes them to a (lesser) extent superpowers as well?
In that case Germany and Japan are a superpower their economy is bigger than Russia's economy
Erm no. You have to combine military, economic, and technological power to make a superpower.
Russia's military is way bigger than China's, they even bought from Russia a crappy old aircraft carrier, their airplanes used to be copies of the migs- not sure now
Military, Economic, Technology. Not one - all three.
Eh, if you want to get technical (not sure you even can with these terms), the US is a hyperpower. Until just recently at least.
Russia is trying their best to be a superpower, and succeeding in some respects (militarily) the past few years. But they're so reliant on oil prices. China is trying as well, and succeeding in economic terms. They will supplant the US in due course, or at the least be our equal.
Russia is trying their best to be a superpower, and succeeding in some respects (militarily) the past few years. But they're so reliant on oil prices. China is trying as well, and succeeding in economic terms. They will supplant the US in due course, or at the least be our equal.
The terms are generally synonymous. Hyperpower is basically just an invented term that tried to describe a dominant superpower. Its generally archaic now....unless of course you're an Austin Powers villian like Seb Gorka. Both terms are used to describe the same thing - a hegemon.
I just thought it was basically an unrivaled superpower. Like, the British or Mongol empires. As opposed to the Soviet Union which had its equal in the US at the time.
It is, although its a fairly new term that was never really embraced enough in academia to take off and has since petered out. Its pretty rare to hear anyone refer to a state as a hyperpower. Superpower is obviously the common term.
The US are absolutely brilliant, worlds leaders at invading and starting wars but they fail in just about everything they do.
Hardly something to be waving your willy around about.
Hardly something to be waving your willy around about.
The US (government) is brilliant at global hegemony. They are like the Pablo Escobar of the world.
Silver or lead
You just have to decide if that is better or worse than the alternative. It's probably better.
Last edited:
Kim's a top, top Red:
Kim Jong-un is a Manchester United fan who believes North Korean footballers will soon take over Premier League
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/foot...ited-north-korean-footballers-premier-league/
That's additional 25millions fans of Manchester United Phootball Crub in North Korea
Kim Jong-un is a Manchester United fan who believes North Korean footballers will soon take over Premier League
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/foot...ited-north-korean-footballers-premier-league/
That's additional 25millions fans of Manchester United Phootball Crub in North Korea
Defence is good but still working on the attack.
Kim's a top, top Red:
Kim Jong-un is a Manchester United fan who believes North Korean footballers will soon take over Premier League
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/foot...ited-north-korean-footballers-premier-league/
That's additional 25millions fans of Manchester United Phootball Crub in North Korea
What a honour.
Last time I checked it's the USA that causes wars and destruction around the world, not North Korea.
NK start the Korean War by invading South Korea. It lasted for 3 years.
The post you replied to said USA 'causes' wars. Did the US help cause the Korean War? Unequivocally, yes.
Couldn't United just go to North Korea, invite Kim to play in a testimonial for your team, and let him score 10 goals in exchange for all this bullshit ending?
The post I replied to said that NK did not cause wars, so you could also say "did NK cause the Korean War?" and the answer is most definitely yes, with the acquiescence of the USSR too, let's not forget, and the backing of China.
We could always invite him to a match and arrest him when he lands at the airport.
Lol nope. no matter how much you say it does not change the fact the North was armed for offensive warfare and to invade the south. Not the other way around.
You've already made it clear you do not understand the origins of the Korean War other than a very simplistic and condensed version that Western media typically likes to propagate which is 'North bad, North attack first'. If you want to deny historical fact and deny the responsibility of the US in the Korean War, then go ahead, but it's utterly incongruous with the reality of the situation.
So an Indian football club team(Bangalore FC) went to North Korea to play a match in the AFC Cup(Think of it as Asia's Europa Cup). There was an internet blackdown there, but still the club's official twitter account managed to get photos of the football stadium there.