Study NK's history and who has been their top ally
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.
I wasn't talking about strategy or about thought experiments. Christ, people are so defensive sometimes.
See my previous post.. and don't take my word on it..
I'm not being defensive, I just don't see the value of broadening a distinctly narrow topic with clear parameters into a word salad about altruism and humanitarian aid. This is a very narrow subject about Kim's regime, impending war, and how the nations involved can either avert it or deal with it in a way where the least people possible are affected.
If you think it was an off-topic point then I don't think you understood @sun_tzu's point, which was about principles. That fact you didn't seem to understand that was what made me comment. Altruism and humanitarian aid were extensions of those principles to explain his point from a broader perspective. I was following on from that conversation. The narrow discussion you wanted to have wasn't one I was involving myself in, as I said at the time.
Evidently you don't care much for a simple discussion on principles, and the misunderstanding I perceived was just disinterest, so no point in continuing.
China has a long history along with USSR of being NK's top ally. Influence may ebb and flow but there is no denying China's alliance with them for the past 70 years
I do if its vaguely relevant to the topic at hand, but not so much when its used as a farcical device to obfuscate from the central topic.
feck yeah.
Just heard on the radio that the prime minister of China has acted as a go between asking Trump to back down. Offering a freeze on NK's armament in return for a cease to the joint operations on its border by the US and SK.
Anyone think Trump is intelligent enough to give diplomacy a go?
Anyone think Trump is intelligent enough to give diplomacy a go?
Obama's already turned that offer down, and I'm pretty sure one or two of his predecessors did so too. It's easy to understand North Korea's sensitivity to the US/SK operations when you consider what America did to them during the Korean War.
Exactly. And have provoked them ever since
America did to them? You mean in the war they started and were busy destroying everything in the South that got in their way. Sort of like if Germany got upset at what the allies did to them in WW2.
They have no right to be sensitive over the operations since 1) it is the South who has the right to be aggrieved by the actions of the North. And the UN soldiers (mostly US) who only were there because of the North's aggression. 2). They conduct their own exercises. It's called training. Get over it.
North Korea is not the victim in the Korean War and have zero right to pretend otherwise.
His comment made me read up a little as I'd not heard anything like it before. I had no idea over 1000 Brits died in the Korean war. Also it was certainly looking grim in Sept 1950!
There is literally no way you can justify the extent of the bombings that America did to North Korea during the Korean War, during which South Korea and America were by far the worst offender of civilian casualties.
America supported and assisted the brutal regime of Syngman Rhee whose army and police had predominantly collaborated with Japan during their occupation in WWII, and if you know about the history of Japan's dominion over Korea, then you'd understand why this was such a sensitive point. Thus, it's worth remembering that the precursor to the North's invasion was a rebellion in the South, and there was a lot of Communist sympathy throughout Korea. It's easy to just paint the North right now as the bad guys because of their horrific regime, but the history is a lot more complex, and America have certainly never been the good guys.
If I recall correctly, one US General estimated that we might've wiped out nearly a quarter of North Korea during the Korean campaign.
I think it was from The Fog of War documentary. A must see, by the way.
I think it was from The Fog of War documentary. A must see, by the way.
Except, it was nothing like Germany. It was a country that had been formerly under the occupation of Japan. After WW2, it was a country that was arbitrarily divided in half. The Korean war was a civil war. Civil wars should mostly, usually, be left to sort themselves out. The reason why the US and by extension its allies didn't, is because the US decided it had to contain communism because it was the new boogeyman used to justify run away military spending and fear politics.
Since then, yes, SK has become a democratic nation, and NK has descended even further into a hell hole, but originally, SK was no more democratic than NK was. They just weren't commies.
China have banned talk about the Korean issue on social media. Netizens are banned from mocking "little fatty the third" as they like to call him or complaining about how China didn't deal with him earlier. There seems to be a consensus now that the higher ups in China are now becoming collectively fed up with N. Korea's provocations. They have even been conducting their own anti missile tests and exercises to prepare for 'surprise attacks', which just goes to show they are not entirely ruling out a N. Korean attack on China too.
That would seem suicidal. If anything, I would think Kim would attempt to rely on China to prevent a U.S. attack.
Yeah, I mean it is incredibly unlikely but it just goes to show that no one really knows what they'll do, including the Chinese.
I'd imagine that would be more for stray rockets than an attack on it itself. Or in case it goes right off in the region, I really can't see the Chinese and Russians being happy with a nuclear war going off on it's borders.
If anyone has 50 minutes to spare and is interested in learning about the true history of US and North Korea relations, then this podcast with Bruce Cumings, a very good historian who specialises in the field and the history of Korea, is well worth a listen. It's both fascinating and infuriating in equal measure. It's also available on the Podcast app on your iPhone if that's more convenient.
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/a-public-affair/e/51234409
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/a-public-affair/e/51234409
The history of the Korean War is not complex. One side clearly started it, was clearly the aggressor (with huge aid from the USSR and China). Your last sentence clearly shows a bias that makes you ignore the basic facts.
Rhee was a piece of shit but if you use him as justification for the Korean War then you certainly then must want some one to take out the 70+ year old NK regime for all the shit they have done to their own people. But I suspect that since they are not aligned with the US nothing they do bothers you.
Nope, sorry, but you evidently do not appreciate the actual origins of the Korean War. In fact, it was a similar naive and arrogant understanding by American policymakers towards the history of Korea that has snowballed into the nuclear stand-off we have today. One side clearly started it? The Korean War was made inevitable once America unilaterally and arbitrarily divided Korea. Once America installed Rhee's regime and saturated it with Japanese collaborators, it was only a case of who would fire the first shot, and when. Who did fire the first shot? Well, you'd say when the North invaded, but a reasonable person could point to the fact that Rhee's regime and the US military murdered 200,000 civilians from 1945-1948 for being 'communists' - these 'communists' were largely peasants who just wanted more rights, yet fell victim to senseless counterinsurgency campaigns. Rhee was gagging for war, precisely because he knew America would back him, and was aiming to provoke the North, who for their part were more than willing to oblige.
Yes, I'd love someone to install a humanitarian regime in North Korea today for what they have done to their own people. And using the same rationale, I'd love someone to install a humanitarian regime in Washington for all the shit they have done to their own people, and those of other nations.
OK after reading more this is all strategic positioning from NK, strengthening their own position. They have an economy in the shitter, they want removal of sanctions and subsidies/pay outs.
The logical solution is to offer the removal of sanctions and investment in exchange for removal of nuclear weapons, with regular inspections. The investment should hinge on them transitioning to a free market economy. Ofcourse they then lose their bargaining chip but perhaps they'd acccept it with a large enough of an investement.
The problem is that this is against Trump's policy and you'd need to get Japan, South Korea and China on board.
Another solution could be an Asian Economic & Political Union.
Ofcourse free market economics, the free movement of people and information weakens Kim Jong Uns position so in turn he may reject any notion of this.
The logical solution is to offer the removal of sanctions and investment in exchange for removal of nuclear weapons, with regular inspections. The investment should hinge on them transitioning to a free market economy. Ofcourse they then lose their bargaining chip but perhaps they'd acccept it with a large enough of an investement.
The problem is that this is against Trump's policy and you'd need to get Japan, South Korea and China on board.
Another solution could be an Asian Economic & Political Union.
Ofcourse free market economics, the free movement of people and information weakens Kim Jong Uns position so in turn he may reject any notion of this.
But these Chinese military exercises were based around defending against American naval missiles, were they not? In which case it means that China isn't readying for a possible NK attack but for a possible US attack.
I usually read about stuff more than taking sides but if this is your outlook on the situation then you are simply wrong. There is no way of saying who "clearly started" it in this case. To be honest, it shows a bit of your bias (and we all are).
These things are more complex. Probably the reason why I never take sides and just read!
Wow. Definitely worth 50m of anyones time. Seriously, listen to this people.
Thanks for that guys, I'm downloading it the now so I'll give it a listen.
I love it when people do 20th century history analysis while just disregarding the USSR and the whole Cold War.
EDIT: Closer to the end he laments that the US left hasn't the same affinity for the Kims as they had for Ho Chi Minh, Mao or Fidel
. How did those work out? And why doesn't Stalin get a mention... huh?
Last edited:
The Korean War began on June 25, 1950 when over 70,000 troops from NORTH KOREA attacked the South. It is a pretty clear indication of who started the war.
The closest US combat unit of any size was in Japan and it was under strength and not well equipped for combat.
It's a problem when talking about the historic context of things like the situation in Korea and the Korean War, for some reason some people just do not like to acknowledge the role the USSR played in situations like this, and also China.
Ah yes, let's just disregard the massacre of 200,000 civilians that preceded the North's attack, the links between Rhee's regime and Japan, widespread anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea, and America's arbitrary division of Korea. None of these were factors in the war, evidently, all we need to know is who crossed an artificial border first, and which side America was on.
*cough* Soviet Union *cough*.
It was two Americans who decided the division based on a map and with no understanding or thought for the people of Korea, and without any consultation with Moscow. The USSR then acquiesced to that decision, which was arbitrarily formulated in Washington, as I said.
Looking at reviews of the authors work, his opinion seems to be quite controversial. The phrase "revisionist" pops up in all of them (apparently fulled by a unhealthy dose of anti-americanism). So one should probably not believe everything he writes without checking other sources as well.
I love it when people do 20th century history analysis while just disregarding the USSR and the whole Cold War.
EDIT: Closer to the end he laments that the US left hasn't the same affinity for the Kims as they had for Ho Chi Minh, Mao or Fidel
Feck me. Funny thing the death toll assigned to Mao by some historians exceeds that of even Hitler, though I am not entirely certain those historians are 1) Accurate 2) Fair in how they assigned responsibility. But even if the figure is overstated, you would still end up with him being responsible for tens of millions of death. The real question is why would anyone have affinity for Mao?
Japan had no troops left in South Korea at that time, so not sure why you keep wanting to drag them into it? Afterall the US was instrumental in the defeat of that Japanese occupation. To try and use the hatred of the Japanese are an excuse for the North attacking the South, well that is just plain dumb.
Yes Rhee was quite despicable, and many had died in the civil unrest in the South, preceeding the war, interestingly the US had refused to arm the army of the south with the weapons it requested to launch it's own invasion of the North. Meanwhile, north of the border the USSR and China were doing just the opposite.
The fact remains it was the North that launched an invasion of the South. No matter how much you want to pretend no such thing happened.
The division of Korea was agreed to in 1945 at the Tehran conference, the line got drawn as you say by two US officers, who had short notice to do so and were not given time to study Korea. Why? Because despite the agreement to split Korea into occupation zones (which were not initially defined) the Soviets were rapidly moving south in Korea, threatening to occupy the entire country rather than just a part of it. In a quirk of history, the line they chose was very close to a line that Russia and Japan had once discussed splitting the Korean Peninsula along.
So you are reaching a bit trying to blame the entire division on two Americans. You can blame them for the dividing point, but not the agreement to split the Korean Peninsula. That was decided at higher levels WITH the full support of the USSR.