North Korea...

[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]

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]

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]

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

Russians in the Korean War

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.

 

[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]

Ireland is part of the UK.

These people might be a bit surprised to learn this.

 

[Malachi151]

These people 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

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

 

[Mike B.]

These people might be a bit surprised to learn this.

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

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.

 

[Mike B.]

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

Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia

 

[Mike B.]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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

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

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?

 

[Nately]

Still wrong!

From Nately's source...

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

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?