• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

JesseEwiak

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
3,781
So how many million Chinese should we kill this year? Next year? Since we're ok with millions of civilian casualties in Asia because democracy, shouldn't we be ok with bombing Shanghai to dust if someone somewhere is convinced it'll bring democracy to southern China 30 years from now?

Hell, wouldn't this exact logic justify the Iraq War?

I mean, since China isn't directly invading or bombing other countries to take them over, not really. Even though somebody who thought we should put sanctions on China for how they're treating their minority populations would be totally fine with me.

OTOH, if only we had signed some form of multi-lateral trade agreement with other foreign countries as a counter balance to China, so that those folks could be allies against a rising China as opposed to basically on their own. But of course, that would be impossible.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
I feel like the case has to be made that, in order to justify the extermination of 1.5 million civilians, one would need to credibly believe that no extermination and no intervention would result in the net extermination of 2 million or 3 million civilians. A lesser of two evils argument might be considered valid here.

I'm not very familiar with the Korean War, was this the case?
Korean war was basically brought about because after WW2, the U.S. and USSR agreed to split korean in two, a capitalist southern half and socialist (USSR socialist ruled by the Kims) north that each side would be allied with and both the governments thought they were the legitimate government of the entirety of Korea. North Korea were the aggressors after 2 years(they started invading South Korea) and were supported by the USSR and China in their aggression. The U.N. authorized millitary force to be used in South Korea. The North Koreans were winning against the U.S. forces sent in before the U.N. resolution and the allied forces took the Korean peninsula within a month. By this point there weren't THAT many casualties, the North Koreans and their allies weren't ready to deal with what they faced. Then China decided to cross the border with its army and it became a long, drawn out bloodbath for all sides as China pushed the allied forces back with help from the USSR.

But to help:
Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing):
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
China - (600,000 military)

The VAST VAST majority of civilian deaths in the Korean war were South Koreans and the Kims have massive concentration camps.
 

minsk

Member
Jan 28, 2019
73
And I stand by this. The fewer number of individual countries the better. In an ideal world the US and Canada would complete their fusion, the EU would federalize into a single nation-state, and the US, EU, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe Japan and South Korea would form a permanent supranational customs, economic, and military union as the foundational block of a single United Earth government.


The United States (at least in theory) operates on the foundational ideals of individual liberty, freedom of speech, expression, and religion, and representative government, something the People's Republic of China expressively does not do, in fact does the opposite. The United States has a lot to do to fully live up to those ideals, but finding value in them is far better than the alternative. As well, the transition of the world to multipolar isn't a guaranteed outcome, it is still unclear whether or not China's growth and power is simply a facade and sustainable as well if they will ever gain the ability to develop a preponderance of power simply based on their geographical restrictions and failure to incite significant immigration. The postulation that American hegemony isn't a net positive ignores that the rest of the "free" world does not have significant power projection abilities and thus cannot do the one thing absolutely essential to maintaining macro peace, keeping the seas open and free.

Okay, so you don't believe a unipolar world is good just because it's more stable. I'm glad we've established that, because originally your argument was US hegemony was good because it was more stable.

It's unclear to me why the rest of the liberal world couldn't develop its own independent base of power. In fact, I would say that it's vital for it to do so, as we cannot guarantee we won't elect someone like Trump again, or that the Republicans won't destroy democracy in their attempt to cling to their minority rule. And there's another problem with US hegemony—you can't ensure that the US will never be run by a malicious demagogue. US hegemonists seek to represent the choice in world systems as between US hegemony and hegemony of evil powers (now most popularly China, never mind the fact that China doesn't even dominate its geographic region, let alone is it in a position to dominate the world), but this is a completely false choice. We should build a world where all powers are constrained and solutions are reach through multi-lateral diplomacy.
 

Sankara

Alt Account
Banned
May 19, 2019
1,311
Paris
I mean, since China isn't directly invading or bombing other countries to take them over, not really. Even though somebody who thought we should put sanctions on China for how they're treating their minority populations would be totally fine with me.

OTOH, if only we had signed some form of multi-lateral trade agreement with other foreign countries as a counter balance to China, so that those folks could be allies against a rising China as opposed to basically on their own. But of course, that would be impossible.

I can't believe you still haven't understood that your logic is excusing wiping out 20% of a country's population based on some alternative-history scenario construction you have no empirical basis for.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
what the fuck is wrong with you

no, the korean war had nothing to do with the chinese. at least to begin with. the reasons that the korean war started began with the end of ww2 and the handover of korea from imperial japan, a handover that koreans were actively excluded from. the americans who upon arriving, outlawed and dispersed the existing provisional government in the south in favour of installing a government in exile both highly nationalist in nature and owing basically everything to their position to the americans. splitting the country apart in the first place is what started the korean war - the korean independence movement had developed an enormously strong sense of national self as a consequence of spending so long under colonial rule. both sides wanted desperately, and militarily, to reunify. border skirmishes were extremely common almost as soon as the borders were put to paper. the korean war was inevitable as soon as two indifferent parties split the country in two.

there were chinese forces during the war, but the chinese attack only began when macarthur in all his racism and hubris ignored the direct warning he was given over crossing the yalu river. he did. the chinese invaded. i don't need someone to hem and haw over what they would've done if macarthur didn't, but he did, and was so belligerent about it he had to actively be removed from his post.

the south korean government was personally responsible for killing thousands, if not tens of thousands of koreans, the country itself was enormously poor and the government despised. rhee was forcefully removed from power. the south was not a democracy. the americans actively intervened in the country to prop up that government until it was politically untenable.
Nothing is wrong with me. You're deliberately framing this in a way that makes the Chinese/USSR/NK side look like passive participants. The country was split because the US had already invaded during WWII, and then in the very last days of the conflict, the USSR invaded the North. And when WWII ended, it got split as neither side was wiling to back down and out. Claiming that the war was "inevitable" runs completely counter to the "NK had to ask for assistance" stuff being mentioned. They had to go ask permission, and that permission was going to come with puppet strings attached.

Beyond the conflicts over communism/capitalism, there's a different problem underneath: Autonomy. Korea had been conquered by Japan and occupied for the past 35 years. They were in no position to be able to hold off a new incoming conqueror on their own. Which China very much would have been, simply replacing the old empire with the new one. With Korea then permanently losing the opportunity to be its own independent country, regardless of whether it was officially annexed or not. Which is why the UN would later back intervention.
Kirblar and North Korea discussion? Getting some massive Déjà Vu.

I've no interest in seeing you get banned again for excusing genocide again, Kirblar. Honestly.
I'm making pains to avoid the trollbait here conflating the conduct with the reasons the war occurred.
Korean war was basically brought about because after WW2, the U.S. and USSR agreed to split korean in two, a capitalist southern half and socialist (USSR socialist ruled by the Kims) north that each side would be allied with and both the governments thought they were the legitimate government of the entirety of Korea. North Korea were the aggressors after 2 years(they started invading South Korea) and were supported by the USSR and China in their aggression. The U.N. authorized millitary force to be used in South Korea. The North Koreans were winning against the U.S. forces sent in before the U.N. resolution and the allied forces took the Korean peninsula within a month. By this point there weren't THAT many casualties, the North Koreans and their allies weren't ready to deal with what they faced. Then China decided to cross the border with its army and it became a long, drawn out bloodbath for all sides as China pushed the allied forces back with help from the USSR.

But to help:
Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing):
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
China - (600,000 military)

The VAST VAST majority of civilian deaths in the Korean war were South Koreans and the Kims have massive concentration camps.
Thank you for this.
 

JesseEwiak

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
3,781
Okay, so you don't believe a unipolar world is good just because it's more stable. I'm glad we've established that, because originally your argument was US hegemony was good because it was more stable.

It's unclear to me why the rest of the liberal world couldn't develop its own independent base of power. In fact, I would say that it's vital for it to do so, as we cannot guarantee we won't elect someone like Trump again, or that the Republicans won't destroy democracy in their attempt to cling to their minority rule. And there's another problem with US hegemony—you can't ensure that the US will never be run by a malicious demagogue. US hegemonists seek to represent the choice in world systems as between US hegemony and hegemony of evil powers (now most popularly China, never mind the fact that China doesn't even dominate its geographic region, let alone is it in a position to dominate the world), but this is a completely false choice. We should build a world where all powers are constrained and solutions are reach through multi-lateral diplomacy.

At the moment, the reason we can't have a liberal alternative to US power (which as an American, I'd be OK with) is the possible liberal alternatives don't want to do it - Europe isn't funding it's military, India's going hard right, and the rest of liberal nations simply don't have that much power.

I'd love a world where liberal multi-lateral diplomacy was looking to be a thing, but at the moment, our world isn't it.

I can't believe you still haven't understood that your logic is excusing wiping out 20% of a country's population based on some alternative-history scenario construction you have no empirical basis for.

As Steel pointed out above, the US didn't kill 20% of the country and it's not an AH scenario to look at how North Korea acted, and to assume it'll continue to be horrible as it controls even more of the Korean peninsula.
 
Jun 20, 2019
2,638
DEAN RUSK: In retrospect, one thing about Korea that I would now take a different view on: I think that we imposed too serious a limitation upon our own pilots about hot pursuit across the frontier there and that we should have let them follow some of these planes that were being a nuisance in Korea and knock them off on the ground. But as far as bombing targets in Manchuria systematically, that was not very attractive because between the 38th parallel and the frontier up there we were bombing every brick that was standing on top of another, everything that moved. We had complete air superiority. We were just bombing the heck out of North Korea, and they still were able to maintain 500,000 men at the front, because they'd bring up their supplies at night in bad weather and things of that sort. There were times when they would seem to pause while they were building up their supplies. But just to extend that area back into Manchuria, a much larger area would have had very little effect, in my judgment, on the war itself. So, we did not, in effect, open up general war against China.

We were carpet bombing North Korea.
 

ThousandEyes

Banned
Sep 3, 2019
1,388
The act of war necessarily presumes the deployment of weapons of war. If each class of weaponry is a tool to be used in warfare, and war is a tool in the foreign policy toolkit, why does it make sense to be pro/anti a tool of war, but not be pro/anti a tool of foreign policy?

Would an anti-war stance be valid to you if it's written as "I'm against the threat or waging of war in crafting foreign policy"?
I mean i'm not much of Thomist by any means, but Aquinas lays a pretty decent criteria for "Just War" theory

  • First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)
  • Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power (just cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e. lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even the civilian populace).
  • Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.[22] (right intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention).[23]
Of course some of these are ambiguous and can be challenged, but i think its pretty good framework for the basics of having a just war
 
Jun 20, 2019
2,638
The attack on the Sui-ho Dam was the collective name for a series of mass air attacks during the Korean War on thirteen hydroelectric generating facilities by United Nations Command air forces on June 23–24 and June 26–27, 1952. Primarily targeting the hydroelectric complex associated with the Sui-ho Dam in North Korea, the attacks were intended to apply political pressure at the stalled truce negotiations at Panmunjeom.[1]

The US Air Force destroyed a clearly civilian target, a hydroelectric dam, just to improve negotiating positions during the stalemate in 1952. There was no present danger to American or allied lives, we just wiped out the northern power generation to make the north suffer.
 

Sankara

Alt Account
Banned
May 19, 2019
1,311
Paris
We need to realize that war, and dreams thereof, is one of the last legitimate and sanitized spheres where white liberals, some on this very site, can upkeep their suppressed dreams of white supremacy without having to look in the mirror and sense some irk of discomfort and tenseness. These liberal white dreamers reside parallel but perpetually connected to those white supremacists doers who reimagine immigrants of color to be a permanent foreign threat to the empire on its own soil. For the white liberal it is the same but the permanent foreign threats to the empire reside abroad. These foreign threats, while inferior to our white civilization, are future settlers that threaten our God-given right to settler colonialism and our glorious history of genocide. War, or as they call it "the spread of democracy by intervention", is also among the very few seductive offerings to the black/native populations of how they too can for once reap the (economic and political) benefits of being complicit, engaging in racialized dispossession, and upkeeping the structures of white supremacy. For the system of white supremacy to be preserved, the US must always be at war, the empire always under siege. And that is why the white liberal will never let go of his fevered belief in the righteousness of US wars.

Thank you for this wonderful post. It explains a lot of the horrible posts I am reading.
 

ThousandEyes

Banned
Sep 3, 2019
1,388
I don't know what is worse

the American imperialist defense force or the Soviet Union/North Korea/China defense force in this thread (Sankara, Lord of Ostia, Minsk etc. etc.)
 

ThousandEyes

Banned
Sep 3, 2019
1,388
I am getting a lot of tankie vibes in this thread...the defense of the Soviet Union and North Korea should not be allowed in this very thread and it is
 

Sankara

Alt Account
Banned
May 19, 2019
1,311
Paris
Korean war was basically brought about because after WW2, the U.S. and USSR agreed to split korean in two, a capitalist southern half and socialist (USSR socialist ruled by the Kims) north that each side would be allied with and both the governments thought they were the legitimate government of the entirety of Korea. North Korea were the aggressors after 2 years(they started invading South Korea) and were supported by the USSR and China in their aggression. The U.N. authorized millitary force to be used in South Korea. The North Koreans were winning against the U.S. forces sent in before the U.N. resolution and the allied forces took the Korean peninsula within a month. By this point there weren't THAT many casualties, the North Koreans and their allies weren't ready to deal with what they faced. Then China decided to cross the border with its army and it became a long, drawn out bloodbath for all sides as China pushed the allied forces back with help from the USSR.

But to help:
Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing):
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
China - (600,000 military)

The VAST VAST majority of civilian deaths in the Korean war were South Koreans and the Kims have massive concentration camps.

If I was you, I'd also be critical of using Encyclopedia Britannica and CNN for statistics on US war crimes. The official ones, according to the Korean War Memorial Foundation, are:

United States Military: 36,914
(33,651 killed in action, 3,262 non-combat deaths)
South Korean Military: 113,248
Other U.N. Military: 2,768
North Korean Military: 316,579
Chinese Military: 460,000
Total Military Deaths: 929,509
South Korean Civilian: 547,000
North Korean Civilian: 1,185,000
Total Civilian Deaths: 1,732,000
TOTAL DEATHS: 2,661,509


I'd recommend reading the work by Martin Hart-Landsberg's Korea: Division, Reunification, and U.S. Foreign Policy, Bruce Cumings. The Korean War: A History and Hugh Deane, The Korean War, 1945-1953. They explain it much, much better.

As Steel pointed out above, the US didn't kill 20% of the country and it's not an AH scenario to look at how North Korea acted, and to assume it'll continue to be horrible as it controls even more of the Korean peninsula.

Steel's numbers are incorrect and it doesn't change the fact that you are literally regurgating US imperialist propaganda by thinking that the US have a god-given mandate to decide where to invade, who to bomb, how many to mass-murder, all based on some narrative that especially corporate media aligned with government interest is feeding you again and again. If you consider yourself as someone who's compassionate, as someone who has empathy for people, and as someone who does not want to see the murder of other people, please stop and realize that your country has literally commited mass murder domestically (native Americans) and internationally (Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and tons of others). The whole "we are bringing democracy to the people" is an old colonial lie that European colonizers told themselves as well when they invaded, occupied, and mass murdered and enslaved all the non-white people. You are repeating that lie when you think that the mass murder of millions of North Koreans was because of bringing democracy. Please, I beg of you, stop defending and excusing the war crimes and mass murders the US has commited!
 
Last edited:

minsk

Member
Jan 28, 2019
73
Okay, so you don't believe a unipolar world is good just because it's more stable. I'm glad we've established that, because originally your argument was US hegemony was good because it was more stable.

It's unclear to me why the rest of the liberal world couldn't develop its own independent base of power. In fact, I would say that it's vital for it to do so, as we cannot guarantee we won't elect someone like Trump again, or that the Republicans won't destroy democracy in their attempt to cling to their minority rule. And there's another problem with US hegemony—you can't ensure that the US will never be run by a malicious demagogue. US hegemonists seek to represent the choice in world systems as between US hegemony and hegemony of evil powers (now most popularly China, never mind the fact that China doesn't even dominate its geographic region, let alone is it in a position to dominate the world), but this is a completely false choice. We should build a world where all powers are constrained and solutions are reach through multi-lateral diplomacy.
At the moment, the reason we can't have a liberal alternative to US power (which as an American, I'd be OK with) is the possible liberal alternatives don't want to do it - Europe isn't funding it's military, India's going hard right, and the rest of liberal nations simply don't have that much power.

I'd love a world where liberal multi-lateral diplomacy was looking to be a thing, but at the moment, our world isn't it.



As Steel pointed out above, the US didn't kill 20% of the country and it's not an AH scenario to look at how North Korea acted, and to assume it'll continue to be horrible as it controls even more of the Korean peninsula.

The solution isn't to throw up our hands and say "therefore US hegemony is the only option." It isn't an option at all due to a rising India and China, and carries its own risks and problems in its own right. (Lack of constraints on US use of force—aka killing of foreigners—, significant diversion of US blood and treasure when the US's own internal situation is precarious and its infrastructure and welfare are in dire need of funding and solutions, the risk of Trumpism becoming the dominant mode of politics, increasing long run risk of great power conflict, I'm just repeating myself at this point.) We need to convince Europe to get its act together and stop free riding on US security (and act as a check on the US if need be), work out with China how to avoid economically or god forbid physically disastrous conflict and solve other global problems like climate change while still constraining their own exercise of power when they act in malignant ways, rework our international institutions to better reflect the actual international balance of power (the fact that India is not on the security council is ridiculous) and so on. All of these will likely entail some degree of the US agreeing to constraints on itself, and therefore are not compatible with the hegemonic attitude.
 

ThousandEyes

Banned
Sep 3, 2019
1,388
What is often interesting about tankies in general though, is that they are usually westerners, in their early 20s, that rock soviet iconography and che shirts. They truly don't know the horror of those regimes that they oh so praise
 

minsk

Member
Jan 28, 2019
73
Well done on finding a way to both sides this thread.

I'm surprised to learn that pointing out readily verifiable fact is the same as defending the Soviets/China/North Korea. But I suppose I did start my contribution to this thread by talking about how liberal hegemonists conflate legitimate criticism with defense of evil.
 

floridaguy954

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,631
Because the 'Democrats' and 'liberals' that are pro-war are actually conservatives in reality.

Liberals like myself who are actually on the left side of the political spectrum are anti-war and I'm not alone.
 

ThousandEyes

Banned
Sep 3, 2019
1,388
I'm surprised to learn that pointing out readily verifiable fact is the same as defending the Soviets/China/North Korea. But I suppose I did start my contribution to this thread by talking about how liberal hegemonists conflate legitimate criticism with defense of evil.
let me ask you this

do you think a chinese hegemonic world would be better than an American one?
 

Sankara

Alt Account
Banned
May 19, 2019
1,311
Paris
I am getting a lot of tankie vibes in this thread...the defense of the Soviet Union and North Korea should not be allowed in this very thread and it is

ah yes, being against dropping 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, and killing off 20% of a country's population is most definitely a defense of the Soviet Union and North Korea. McCarthy would've been proud of you!
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,172
Guys I think imperialism is bad but criticizing imperialism is the real imperialism.
 
Oct 26, 2017
10,499
UK
I am getting a lot of tankie vibes in this thread...the defense of the Soviet Union and North Korea should not be allowed in this very thread and it is

Good God. Do you get all of your political knowledge from Destiny by any chance?

yes of course

how does one criticize the glorious North Korea, a beacon of hope, humanity, liberty etc.

Nobody's done this? One side is defending genocide whilst oversimplifying history to paint the US as heroes who made hard decisions, the other side at worse is suggesting that maybe regions wouldn't be such a mess if the US didn't fuck them? Nobody's discrediting any of the horrific shit the governments that arose did.
 

minsk

Member
Jan 28, 2019
73
let me ask you this

do you think a chinese hegemonic world would be better than an American one?

No, and I also don't think that world is a remote possibility right now (again, false choices between US hegemony and Chinese hegemony—as I have stated very clearly, I support a multilateral global order with constraints on all powers). China's biggest ally is, like, Pakistan, and it can't even get North Korea to behave in the way it wants. I have never expressed support for Chinese hegemony, and anyone who thinks I have should read more carefully.
 

ThousandEyes

Banned
Sep 3, 2019
1,388
Like Russia is developing hypersonic missiles that can hit a target in hours across the world. They will be the first Navy in the world to have these missiles in their submarines

the U.S has to match that, this is the nature of military technology, we can't fall behind in that
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
If I was you, I'd also be critical of using Encyclopedia Britannica and CNN for statistics on US war crimes. The official ones, according to the Korean War Memorial Foundation, are:

United States Military: 36,914
(33,651 killed in action, 3,262 non-combat deaths)
South Korean Military: 113,248
Other U.N. Military: 2,768
North Korean Military: 316,579
Chinese Military: 460,000
Total Military Deaths: 929,509
South Korean Civilian: 547,000
North Korean Civilian: 1,185,000
Total Civilian Deaths: 1,732,000
TOTAL DEATHS: 2,661,509


I'd recommend reading the work by Martin Hart-Landsberg's Korea: Division, Reunification, and U.S. Foreign Policy, Bruce Cumings. The Korean War: A History and Hugh Deane, The Korean War, 1945-1953. They explain it much, much better.



Steel's numbers are made-up and it doesn't change the fact that you are literally regurgating US imperialist propaganda by thinking that the US have a god-given mandate to decide where to invade, who to bomb, how many to mass-murder, all based on some narrative that especially corporate media aligned with government interest is feeding you again and again. If you consider yourself as someone who's compassionate, as someone who has empathy for people, and as someone who does not want to see the murder of other people, please stop and realize that your country has literally commited mass murder domestically (native Americans) and internationally (Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and tons of others). The whole "we are bringing democracy to the people" is an old colonial lie that European colonizers told themselves as well when they invaded, occupied, and mass murdered and enslaved all the non-white people. You are repeating that lie when you think that the mass murder of millions of North Koreans was because of bringing democracy. Please, I beg of you, stop defending and excusing the war crimes and mass murders the US has commited!
You're literally calling the Encyclopedia Britannica fake news. While citing a figure that is literally made by, as YOUR OWN ARTICLE PUTS IT:
These include the Republic of Korea Defense Ministry, the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia Americana, the Dictionary of 20th Century World History, Wikipedia, and other sources.

You're literally calling a frankenstein source that cites what you're calling fake news and WIKPEDIA the end all be all for the civilian death toll.

Not to mention that the U.S. was not the aggressor in that war by any stretch.
 

Deleted member 11413

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
22,961
I don't know what is worse

the American imperialist defense force or the Soviet Union/North Korea/China defense force in this thread (Sankara, Lord of Ostia, Minsk etc. etc.)
Wtf is this shit. It's fucking laughable to see you calling me a "China defense force". Go through my post history and you'll find hundreds of posts where I'm railing against China's genocidal apartheid regime. Fuck off.
 
Jun 20, 2019
2,638
What is often interesting about tankies in general though, is that they are usually westerners, in their early 20s, that rock soviet iconography and che shirts. They truly don't know the horror of those regimes that they oh so praise
Is there any particular reason we should talk about Che shirts rather than American military atrocities?
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,172
What is often interesting about tankies in general though, is that they are usually westerners, in their early 20s, that rock soviet iconography and che shirts. They truly don't know the horror of those regimes that they oh so praise

Why are you talking about made up tankie boogeymen in a thread about America's history with war? It's hard to take your posts in good faith.
 
Jun 20, 2019
2,638
You're literally calling the Encyclopedia Britannica fake news. While citing a figure that is literally made by, as YOUR OWN ARTICLE PUTS IT:


You're literally calling a frankenstein source that cites what you're calling fake news and WIKPEDIA the end all be all for the civilian death toll.

Not to mention that the U.S. was not the aggressor in that war by any stretch.
I do not believe the Encyclopedia Britannica is considered the final word on fatalities in the Korean War. In fact, a cursory review of the academic literature reveals estimates from as low as 1 million total to nearly 5 million total. In fact, it's outright bizarre to claim that one source as the end of the conversation. Note, if you will, that I have been using a middle-of-the-road number of 1 million northern civilian casualties rather than the upper estimates used in some places of up to 3 million, in an attempt to be fair and limit bias in the discussion.

You are either speaking from little knowledge of subject or are consciously trying to bias with incomplete information.
 

Nocturne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,727
Nothing is wrong with me. You're deliberately framing this in a way that makes the Chinese/USSR/NK side look like passive participants. The country was split because the US had already invaded during WWII, and then in the very last days of the conflict, the USSR invaded the North. And when WWII ended, it got split as neither side was wiling to back down and out. Claiming that the war was "inevitable" runs completely counter to the "NK had to ask for assistance" stuff being mentioned. They had to go ask permission, and that permission was going to come with puppet strings attached.

Beyond the conflicts over communism/capitalism, there's a different problem underneath: Autonomy. Korea had been conquered by Japan and occupied for the past 35 years. They were in no position to be able to hold off a new incoming conqueror on their own. Which China very much would have been, simply replacing the old empire with the new one. With Korea then permanently losing the opportunity to be its own independent country, regardless of whether it was officially annexed or not. Which is why the UN would later back intervention.
obviously they weren't passive participants. that goes without fucking saying. but america is as personally culpable for the war as any of them in splitting the country in two and installing a corrupt and ineffectual government led by people who hadn't actually lived through the decades of colonial oppression.

they also didn't ask for chinese permission, they asked for soviet permission. did those puppet strings exist? of course, but they were there as soon as two governments formed that had the backing of two foreign entities rather than anyone with popular support in the country (which to be clear, the PRK had - more than rhee's). there was no devil's devil going on with the chinese. the chinese were acting in self-interest, but not in this comic supervillain way you're painting it as. stalin's ambitions mattered far more to enabling the war to begin from the north's side.

you continually ignore the fact that the chinese-dominated part of the war only began after macarthur deliberately overstepped his boundaries and his mandate twicefold, in stepping over the 38th parallel and then stepping over the yalu river. china was not terribly interested in dominating north korea politically or economically and this can be seen in what unfolded after the war. they weren't a controlling or particularly notable party in determining north korean affairs. very few north korean policies followed chinese ones other than a general posture against capitalism. kim had members of his party aligned with them ejected or killed in the intervening years. relations were anything but positive. the ussr had far more to do with north korea than china did for decades, even after the ussr-prc split. kim owed his power to the soviets, not the chinese (though would eventually resent this as well).

i don't really understand your fixation over china's role in korea. they were a major participant in the war but they weren't an inciting factor and there's nothing to empirically suggest that they had any interest in dominating korea after it ended other than bizarre AU fanfiction over what might've happened if china successfully took control and a flattening of the very real and present korean national spirit that drove the country to an immense amount of civil bloodshed before the war even began. just as we can only speculate what may have happened if macarthur hadn't marched over the yalu river. but we do, you know, know that macarthur did. and that's where history is.

or well, actually i lied, i do understand your fixation over china's role in korea. it's to continue upholding the idea that the korean war was just and the sacrifices, a burden that korean lives largely took and its' survivors lived with decades afterward, was good actually. who knows what would've happened! surely nothing good. not like any massacres or brutal oppression happened where america was concerned, least of all asia.

but you know, all that bloodshed was worth it because we stopped the chinese from doing something they might've been thinking about (even if there's no real proof) and ignore the festering divisions that existed in the country and the forces that split them wider
 

JesseEwiak

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
3,781
Good God. Do you get all of your political knowledge from Destiny by any chance?



Nobody's done this? One side is defending genocide whilst oversimplifying history to paint the US as heroes who made hard decisions, the other side at worse is suggesting that maybe regions wouldn't be such a mess if the US didn't fuck them? Nobody's discrediting any of the horrific shit the governments that arose did.

Right - they're just saying that government should've had double the population to do horrific shit, because that's better than the US doing anything militarily ever, because any death cause by the US military is imperialism while deaths caused by North Korea is A-OK, because at least it's Koreans killing other Koreans.

Again, most of US interventions - bad idea and have caused more deaths than they've saved. Korea is not one of those interventions,
 

Sankara

Alt Account
Banned
May 19, 2019
1,311
Paris
You're literally calling the Encyclopedia Britannica fake news. While citing a figure that is literally made by, as YOUR OWN ARTICLE PUTS IT:


You're literally calling a frankenstein source that cites what you're calling fake news and WIKPEDIA the end all be all for the civilian death toll.

Did I say "fake news"? No, stop putting words in my mouth. I said be critical of the sources you're using. At least the Korean War Memorial Foundation uses a large swath of sources to balance things.

Not to mention that the U.S. was not the aggressor in that war by any stretch.

Hilarious. From Bruce Cumings, a historian at Chicago University:

The Korean War did not begin on June 25, 1950, much special pleading and argument to the contrary. If it did not begin then, Kim II Sung could not have "started" it then, either, but only at some earlier point. As we search backward for that point, we slowly grope toward the truth that civil wars do not start: they come. They originate in multiple causes, with blame enough to go around for everyone—and blame enough to include Americans who thoughtlessly divided Korea and then reestablished the colonial government machinery and the Koreans who served it. How many Koreans might still be alive had not that happened? Blame enough to include a Soviet Union likewise unconcerned with Korea's ancient integrity and determined to "build socialism" whether Koreans wanted their kind of system or not. How many Koreans might still be alive had that not happened? And then, as we peer inside Korea to inquire about Korean actions that might have avoided national division and fratricidal conflict, we get a long list indeed.[7]

A longer account:

According to Cumings, the North Koreans "essentially saw the war in 1950 as a way to settle the hash of the top command of the South Korean Army, nearly all of whom had served the Japanese." The one essential thing to understand about the war was that it was first a civil war, "a war fought primarily by Koreans from conflicting social systems, for Korean goals. It did not last three years, but had a beginning in 1932, and has never ended."

After World War II, U.S. forces set out to build a new government in South Korea. Colonel Cecil Nist recommended "several hundred conservatives" who he felt might make good leaders. Most of them had collaborated with the Japanese, but he felt that this fact would soon be forgotten. "This pool of people," Cumings writes, "held most of the leaders who would subsequently shape South Korean politics." Window dressing was needed to obscure the collaborationist nature of the leadership, so Syngman Rhee was handpicked as South Korea's first president. As an exile during the period of Japanese occupation, he could not be accused of collaboration. The right man had been picked for the job. "Rhee understood Americans and their reflexive, unthinking, and uninformed anticommunism, and made that his stock-in-trade."

Left-wing People's Committees arose in the South following the end of World War II, grassroots organizations dedicated to undoing the system of privilege and oppression that had been implemented under Japanese rule. Intense political struggle was underway over South Korea's political future. According to a CIA report written in the late 1940s, "extreme Rightists control the overt political system," primarily through the Japanese-built National Police, which were "ruthlessly brutal in suppressing disorder." The government bureaucracy, it added, "was substantially the old Japanese machinery."

The entire Rhee regime, in fact, was characterized by ferocious lawlessness and repressiveness, and brooked no dissent. The South Korean National Police, Cumings reports, "ran rackets, procured destitute girls for brothels, blackmailed people by threatening to call them communists, and executed thousands of political prisoners."

Having looked forward to liberation from Japanese Imperial rule, many people were angered to see the same system of privilege, inequality, and repression continue under independence. Spontaneous uprisings by People's Committees mushroomed across the southern provinces. Rhee was determined to crush resistance. Cheju Island, where uprisings were particularly spirited, was declared an enemy zone. The police forcibly relocated many residents to the coast. "More than half of all villages on the mountain slopes were burned and destroyed, and civilians thought to be aiding the insurgents were massacred." The National Police were assisted by right-wing youth squads. "Women, children and the elderly who were left behind were tortured to gain information on the insurgents, and then killed."

American advisors accompanied South Korean units engaged in repression. U.S. advisor James Hausman helped organized the defeat of the uprising in the port city of Yosu. Privately, he felt that the National Police were "brutal bastards" and "worse than the Japanese." But that was to be encouraged and, Cumings writes, "he sought to make their brutality more efficient by showing them, for example, how to douse corpses of executed people with gasoline, thus to hide the method of execution or blame it on communists." By the spring of 1950, Rhee had imposed his will on the southern provinces at the cost of some 100,000 dead.

During the Korean War, the U.S. air campaign was unrelenting. "If we keep on tearing the place apart," Secretary of Defense Robert Lovett said, "we can make it a most unpopular affair for the North Koreans. We ought to go right ahead." Hungarian journalist Tibor Meray witnessed "complete devastation between the Yalu River and the capital," and there were simply "no more cities in North Korea." The U.S. Air Force estimated that urban destruction in North Korea exceeded that of Germany and Japan in World War II.

Many Americans in Korea were oblivious to the culture and complexities in what they regarded as a strange land. Journalist Reginald Thompson wrote, "There were few who dared to write the truth of things as they saw them." American soldiers "never spoke of the enemy as though they were people, but as one might speak of apes." Among his fellow journalists, "every man's dearest wish was to kill a Korean." Such attitudes made massacres of civilians, such as at Nogun-Ri, possible.

Once South Korean and American troops crossed the border, the Rhee regime imposed its own sense of order on the North. In July 1950, South Korean police massacred 7,000 political prisoners whom they had trucked into the village of Taejon. Witnesses reported that two jeeps with American officers observed the executions. This was by no means an isolated event, and mass executions were carried out wherever Rhee's National Police operated in the North. Meanwhile, repression continued in the South. In July 1950, a CIA officer helplessly witnessed the killing of prisoners in Suwon. "Trucks loaded with the condemned arrived. Their hands were already tied behind them. They were hastily pushed into a big line along the edge of the newly opened grave. They were quickly shot in the head and pushed into the grave." The Truman Administration knew that the South Korean National Police were running amok, committing atrocities. Rather than doing anything to deter the course of events, U.S. officials capitalized on it and created propaganda by falsely blaming the North Koreans for the massacres.

If the Korean War has had a significant impact on both South and North Korea, it has also changed the U.S. "The Korean conflict was the occasion for transforming the United States into a very different country than it had ever been before," observes Cumings, "one with hundreds of permanent military bases abroad, a large standing army and a permanent national security state at home." As Dean Acheson, Secretary of State under President Truman, put it, the Korean War "came along and saved us." It made possible the quadrupling of the defense budget under Truman, and brought about final approval of National Security Council Report 68, which triggered the Cold War and militarized American policy. Echoes of the Korean War continue to influence events on the Korean Peninsula to the present day, and the concept that the role of the U.S. should be policeman of the world has never gone away.

and from Hugh Deanes who was a reporter in South Korea in the 1940s:

Although American troops were allegedly sent to oversee the surrender of Japanese forces, their mission was much bigger. Significantly, even before U.S. forces had landed in Korea, they were told by their commanding officer that the Korean people were to be considered enemies of the United States. The United States sought domination over as much of Korea as possible because of its strategic proximity to Japan, China, and the Soviet Union. Because the great majority of Koreans had their own vision of a democratic, independent, and socialist country, they stood in the way of U.S. plans.

The logic of the situation quickly led the United States to ally with the existing Japanese colonial administration in Korea and with rightwing Koreans against the popularly supported Korean People's Republic and its associated mass organizations. Deane describes in some detail how the U.S. occupation proceeded to smash any and all opposition to its rule over the south.

Deane also explains the decision to formally divide the country as an American one. The U.S. government, recognizing that it could not exert its will in the north, eventually decided that a divided Korea, with the south under U.S. control, was the best outcome it could achieve. Thus, in September 1947, it pressured the United Nations (UN) to agree to oversee separate elections in the south (which had the greatest population) and the north to create a Korean government. The Soviets and North Koreans opposed the U.S.-orchestrated voting plan (given the repression of the left in the south) and refused to allow the UN access to the north.

The overwhelming majority of southerners also opposed the election. As a result, even the head of the delegated UN Commission, K. P. S. Menon (the chief delegate from India), expressed doubts about proceeding. However, one month later, Menon agreed to support the election. Deane reports the reason for this change of heart as follows: "In March I was informed by an upset member of the Indian embassy that the State Department virtually blackmailed India…The American ambassador in New Delhi informed Nehru that the Indian action on Korea would affect the U.S. attitude toward the Kashmir dispute. Nehru cabled orders to India's commission delegation to refrain from criticizing American policies in South Korea and to vote with the U.S." (64). The vote went ahead; South Korea became a country and Rhee became its first president.

The United States succeeded in splitting the nation but it could not provide legitimacy for the new government. Armed struggle against the newly created southern regime began. Thus, even before the June 25 "start" of the Korean War fighting, a civil war raged in South Korea. This war, in essence a war over the future political, social, and economic orientation of the south and by extension all of Korea, was the direct result of U.S. actions. And it was impossible that the question of Korea's future could be decided in only one-half of the country.
 

Josh5890

I'm Your Favorite Poster's Favorite Poster
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
23,227
I would recommend this one: Hugh Deane, The Korean War, 1945-1953 (San Francisco: China Books and Periodicals, Inc., 1999) https://www.amazon.com/Korean-War-1945-1953-Hugh-Deane/dp/0835126447

Deane was a reporter in South Korea in the 40's so he gives a lot of great information (some tidbits). Highly recommended.

Another I found informative was Martin Hart-Landsberg, Korea: Division, Reunification, and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1998) https://www.amazon.com/Korea-Division-Reunification-Foreign-Policy/dp/0853459274

samoyed this is also for you

LOL you had to pick two books without kindle editions. I will still check them out. Thanks