It’s one of those things where yes, you can recognize that the US supported an inhumane regime in the south that was at least 50% the reason why Korea was pushed to civil war, simply for its own selfish geopolitical purposes… while also recognizing that there’s been a lot of water under the bridge since then. And while the South made good progress on its governance, the North went totally the opposite way.
But when your brain is fueled on “everything the US is against, I must support”, such considerations go out the window.
It’s one of those things where yes, you can recognize that the US supported an inhumane regime in the south that was at least 50% the reason why Korea was pushed to civil war,
Bruh, the South Korean regime before democratization was terrible, but the human rights standards of either Korea had very little to do with why civil war broke out. Both Koreas agreed that there was only one Korea, but the Soviet occupied North had already established itself as a ML regime and was uninterested in the UN supervised elections.
If I recall my history correctly there were several opportunities for the North and South to work something out but to a large degree Syngman Rhee blocked it because he insisted on his own dictatorship rather than devolving any power to various labor-run initiatives around the country. (He was on the US/UN side and still turned out to be a maniac so those UN elections were mostly a symbol) That, and killing a bunch of unionizers of course.
It is true the Soviets had their own outcome they were angling for, but without US support Rhee would probably have been forced out and a compromise could have been reached.
Broadly speaking the Soviets were a lot less interested in securing outright puppet regimes than the US. History shows they were more reactive than proactive, so had the US backed off they might well have left it alone. Then again, this is of course a hypothetical.
Rhee blocked initiatives after he was in power, but the refusal of the Soviets to engage in the UN-endorsed elections before Rhee was established was the core issue of there not being one Korea instead of two. Everything after that was “Southern dictatorship vs. Northern dictatorship”, yeah.
Rhee was a piece of shit that we supported, though, no doubt.
Broadly speaking the Soviets were a lot less interested in securing outright puppet regimes than the US. History shows they were more reactive than proactive, so had the US backed off they might well have left it alone.
So we’re talking a bit past each other then. You have mentioned the cause of a divided Korea, which I largely agree with. (Although the US/UN were perhaps too quick on the trigger to hold elections only in the South, though it likely made no difference to the ultimate outcome) I was talking about the cause of the war. In my mind they are not the same thing, albeit two steps on the same dire path.
It’s one of those things where yes, you can recognize that the US supported an inhumane regime in the south that was at least 50% the reason why Korea was pushed to civil war, simply for its own selfish geopolitical purposes… while also recognizing that there’s been a lot of water under the bridge since then. And while the South made good progress on its governance, the North went totally the opposite way.
But when your brain is fueled on “everything the US is against, I must support”, such considerations go out the window.
Bruh, the South Korean regime before democratization was terrible, but the human rights standards of either Korea had very little to do with why civil war broke out. Both Koreas agreed that there was only one Korea, but the Soviet occupied North had already established itself as a ML regime and was uninterested in the UN supervised elections.
It’s not quite so straightforward.
If I recall my history correctly there were several opportunities for the North and South to work something out but to a large degree Syngman Rhee blocked it because he insisted on his own dictatorship rather than devolving any power to various labor-run initiatives around the country. (He was on the US/UN side and still turned out to be a maniac so those UN elections were mostly a symbol) That, and killing a bunch of unionizers of course.
It is true the Soviets had their own outcome they were angling for, but without US support Rhee would probably have been forced out and a compromise could have been reached.
Broadly speaking the Soviets were a lot less interested in securing outright puppet regimes than the US. History shows they were more reactive than proactive, so had the US backed off they might well have left it alone. Then again, this is of course a hypothetical.
Rhee blocked initiatives after he was in power, but the refusal of the Soviets to engage in the UN-endorsed elections before Rhee was established was the core issue of there not being one Korea instead of two. Everything after that was “Southern dictatorship vs. Northern dictatorship”, yeah.
Rhee was a piece of shit that we supported, though, no doubt.
… I beg your pardon
So we’re talking a bit past each other then. You have mentioned the cause of a divided Korea, which I largely agree with. (Although the US/UN were perhaps too quick on the trigger to hold elections only in the South, though it likely made no difference to the ultimate outcome) I was talking about the cause of the war. In my mind they are not the same thing, albeit two steps on the same dire path.
I’m of the opinion that as soon as there were two Koreas, war was inevitable, barring a total collapse of one regime or the other.