Q: does it make any sense (korea)

[unmerged(5367)]

Korea was divided as a result of WW2, not Japan.
I just wonder what the whole idea behind it was.. Japan did surrender unconditionally, and Korea was a victim, not a perpetrator (like Japan & Germany).

Or was it all just greedy politics of USA to get as much as possible into their sphere, without taking anything that USSR had conquered?

 

[unmerged(5934)]

Actually the division of Germany, Korea and Austria wasn't devised as a punishment, but just as a temporary measure waiting for an agreement between the victors. As far as can be said, the general idea was more in the direction of Germany being divided again in an undefined number of small states, and Churchill at least favored remaking a sort of Austrian Empire under the guise of a 'Danubian Confederation' which in his words would be 'peaceful as a cow'.

And I don't think Korea occupied an important place in their minds. The Paralel 38 was just a convenient line to avoid the risk of clashes between the allies as they advanced from the north and south.

 

[Josephus I]

I believe, that by the end of the war Russian troops had landed in Korea, which is why it was divided. The Russians never reached Japan, thanks, in no small part, to the A-Bomb; so the US was the only occupying power when it surrendered.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

I believe Korea had been occupied by Japan for quite a while, and not just from the start of WWII. The initial plan was to re-unify, but once the Soviets occupied the top half, and the Americans the bottom half, it became impossible for the two to agree on elections.

 

[unmerged(5367)]

Since 1910.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Thanks!

 

[unmerged(10110)]

Hmm, I wonder if Japanese troops will get a bonus from "comfort women"? ::smirk::

 

[unmerged(5367)]

Originally posted by DamnedChimp
Hmm, I wonder if Japanese troops will get a bonus from "comfort women"? ::smirk::

I think you just committed a sin (to a korean) similar to using your "sig" as a generalisation towards black skinned people

Not that i really mind.. i just thought you as an american would.

 

[unmerged(4953)]

as long as the Americans get a "slaughter the japanese in cartloads "bonus

 

[TeutonicKnight]

Or was it all just greedy politics of USA to get as much as possible into their sphere, without taking anything that USSR had conquered?

Greedy? Thats the first I have ever heard that. And the Soviet Union was the pillar of sharing letting the Bulgarians, Polish and all of East Europe dictate whom shale rule them and how funny they chose to be incorperated into the Soviet Union. Shame of the U.S. for letting the Koreans dictate that they might want a little freedom.

 

[unmerged(5367)]

shame on U.S for dictating "freedom" on koreans, that is..

You dont really think the leaders of south korea were free to choose communism, or anything else?

 

[TeutonicKnight]

You dont really think the leaders of south korea were free to choose communism, or anything else?

At first no, but more of the fact because Korea was in ruins after Japan pulled out, it had little identity. The North was occupied by Russia and a Russian backed government. And the United States backed Rhee.

The US and Soviet Union both agreed to a 5 year interm governemnt. After which each respective nation would hold free elections.

 

[unmerged(4953)]

At first no, but more of the fact because Korea was in ruins after Japan pulled out, it had little identity.

Yeah right. Koreans are probably one of the most nationalistic countries in the world, they knew who they were.

The US and Soviet Union both agreed to a 5 year interm governemnt. After which each respective nation would hold free elections.

Which didnt happen did it, because had it then Kim Il Sung would have won these elections. Fact of the matter is Korea was a fascist state untill 1990's

 

[Aetius]

Actually Japan was divided into 4 occupation zones: a Soviet Zone, a British Zone, a Chinese Zone and a US Zone. It just never was implemented.

 

[unmerged(10110)]

Ok, that was out of line. I apologize if anyone was offended; I was just playing and I didn't mean for it to hurt anyone . Still, the whole "comfort woman" incident happened, and if I remember correctly they were implemented to keep Japanese moral up, much like the brothels in Western Europe. I don't know, as distasteful as it is maybe there should be a boost to morale in certain Japanese controlled zones.

Were there any revolts in Japanese occupied Asia? From most of what I've read about the war in the Pacific, it sounds like everyone in Asia just rolled over and died (at least compared to say, France or the ghetto uprisings), or didn't get around to overthrowing the Japanese (like the Korean anarchists).

As a last note, The Camel, what did you mean in regards to my sig? I just kinda picked the quote at random because it summed up how I viewed monarchy, but maybe I missed something. ::Fears::

 

[TeutonicKnight]

Yeah right. Koreans are probably one of the most nationalistic countries in the world, they knew who they were.

I was refering to the fact that they had been occupied by Japanese, American and Soviet troops, don't get into a little snit.

Which didnt happen did it, because had it then Kim Il Sung would have won these elections. Fact of the matter is Korea was a fascist state untill 1990's

Had the elections been held in pre 1950 around 48-49 when the only time the amount of people leaving S.K outstriped those entering S.K, then yes. After 1950 they were held and no, there was no way Kim would have gained a thing. The influx of American dollars boosted the Korean economy and therefore made Communism a moot point. Face it, Communism is inherently a failed Utpoian idea. Look at the facts of Communism, it only broils en masse in countries that are poor and inpovershed. Where the poor have no hope of gaining or having a better life, so they chose the path in which all are equal and the government "provides" all basic essentials.

 

[unmerged(4953)]

Had the elections been held in pre 1950 around 48-49 when the only time the amount of people leaving S.K outstriped those entering S.K, then yes. After 1950 they were held and no, there was no way Kim would have gained a thing. The influx of American dollars boosted the Korean economy and therefore made Communism a moot point.

Wrong. ROK didnt become wealtheir then North Korea untill the 70's not only that but the North Korean leader was an actualy freedom fighter whilest South Korean governmetn was made up of men who worked for the Japanse.

Face it, Communism is inherently a failed Utpoian idea. Look at the facts of Communism, it only broils en masse in countries that are poor and inpovershed. Where the poor have no hope of gaining or having a better life, so they chose the path in which all are equal and the government "provides" all basic essentials.

Does this somehow change that if the Koreans had a free vote they would have voted for North Korea all the way untill the 70's ? Not at all.

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by ZheShiWO
the North Korean leader was an actualy freedom fighter

What an odd charactertization of Kim Il Sung. Partisan against the Japanese, yes - "freedom fighter", I think not. Unless the sole content of freedom is the freedom of chosing the manner in which one demonstrates total commitment to the official cult of the Great Leader.

As to whether he would have won elections in 1950 or even 1960 in the South, I dont know. I do know that had he ever won an election and taken power, those would have been the last elections South Korea ever had.

 

[TeutonicKnight]

Does this somehow change that if the Koreans had a free vote they would have voted for North Korea all the way untill the 70's ? Not at all.

Has everything to do with it, seeing that Russia had no intentions on letting the North choose its path, nor letting the South choose its path either. The United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea arrived to supervise the election of a national assembly, which was held in May 1948. The Soviet Union, however, objected to the UN resolution and refused to admit the commission to the Soviet-controlled zone in the north. It was becoming increasingly clear that two separate regimes would be established on the peninsula.

Rhee had been elected by his peers, which was more than being appointed in the North by thier Communist overseers. Rhee gathered 180 out of 196 of the assembly votes, then on the first true election South Korea had he gathered 72% of the vote. He was eventualy beaten, but it was still an election. The North has yet to have an election, so I would, unless one is a complete moron, interpret thier elections as, well, an election by thier people.

Wrong. ROK didnt become wealtheir then North Korea untill the 70's not only that but the North Korean leader was an actualy freedom fighter whilest South Korean governmetn was made up of men who worked for the Japanse.

Wrong! The ROK steadily gained on the North untill they surpassed them, while the North being unable to capitalize on the fact that most heavy industry was located in the North, steadily declined. The South's GNP grew by at least 25% each year in the 1965 to 1978, which lead the South to surpass the North in the 60's, thus allowing Soul became one of worlds leading production centers. At any rate the South continued to flourish whilst the North continued to decline.

Funny how somebody who was a "freedom fighter" imported technology from Japan and other Western powers. I guess he realised that the Soviet Union could not/ would not help so much in the tech area as they were having problems of thier own with thier economy.

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by DamnedChimp
Were there any revolts in Japanese occupied Asia? From most of what I've read about the war in the Pacific, it sounds like everyone in Asia just rolled over and died (at least compared to say, France or the ghetto uprisings), or didn't get around to overthrowing the Japanese (like the Korean anarchists).

There were some uprisings in southeastern Asia in the later part of the war. I believe they started at about the time and after Tojo Hideki resigned from being Prime Minister, after the fall of Saipan. I read some books about Tojo and I read that he was the one who kept the people of Southeast Asia united. He was not too popular in Japan, however, because of his distribution policies. After he resigned from office there came to be some revolts. I am not sure about revolts in Indonesia, though. There were possibly some, but Mr. Sukarno, an Indonesian nationalist who cooperated with the Japanese when the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) was captured, came to power in August 1945, when Japan surrendered. He then became the leader of Indonesia. Many people celebrated however, in southeastern Asia. In the Dutch East Indies, the civilians made little Japanese flags to wave when the Army got there. Many were treated badly by their former European masters, so were not unhappy when the Japanese came because they had hopes of better treatment from new leaders. When Siam (Thailand) was invaded, the Thai and Japanese governments formed an alliance. I am not sure of too many other places in that area for revolts and stuff.. Sorry. But I hope this information helped you.

Meiji-Tenno