ZN,

Again, this isn’t about me persuading you to change your mind. I accept that you won’t. I’m making my own case, regardless, without any expectation of that altering your beliefs. In a sense, it’s an exercise, a way to hone my own arguments. I long ago gave up on the idea that minds are changed in these forums.

So a last word on the subject, and then I’ll bow out. Perhaps WV wants to add more, but I’ve had my say.

You mentioned the “warmongering north” got what it deserved. But, again, the south, at the time, was at least equal in matters of “warmongering.” From my readings, it was worse, in fact. It committed worse atrocities, again, at the time. So, if “warmongering” is the factor/rationale/variable that makes the war justifiable, America should have fought against both governments, north and south — which, of course, is kinda crazy. So that wasn’t a real option. Staying out of the entire thing made far more sense — at the time.

Anyway, that’s it for me. Hope all is well in Maine.

From Wiki:

Soviet occupation and division of Korea (1945–50)
Main articles: Division of Korea and History of North Korea
Suspected communist sympathizers awaiting execution in May 1948 after the Jeju Uprising

At the end of World War II in 1945, the Korean Peninsula was divided into two zones along the 38th parallel, with the northern half of the peninsula occupied by the Soviet Union and the southern half by the United States. Initial hopes for a unified, independent Korea evaporated as the politics of the Cold War resulted in the establishment of two separate states with diametrically opposed political, economic, and social systems.

Soviet general Terentii Shtykov recommended the establishment of the Soviet Civil Authority in October 1945, and supported Kim Il-sung as chairman of the Provisional People’s Committee for North Korea, established in February 1946. During the provisional government, Shtykov’s chief accomplishment was a sweeping land reform program that broke North Korea’s stratified class system. Landlords and Japanese collaborators fled to the South, where there was no land reform and sporadic unrest. Shtykov nationalized key industries and led the Soviet delegation to talks on the future of Korea in Moscow and Seoul.[43][44][45][46][47] In September 1946, South Korean citizens had risen up against the Allied Military Government. In April 1948, an uprising of the Jeju islanders was violently crushed. The South declared its statehood in May 1948 and two months later the ardent anti-communist Syngman Rhee[48] became its ruler. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was established in the North on 9 September 1948. Shtykov served as the first Soviet ambassador, while Kim Il-sung became premier.

Soviet forces withdrew from the North in 1948 and most American forces withdrew from the South in 1949. Ambassador Shtykov suspected Rhee was planning to invade the North, and was sympathetic to Kim’s goal of Korean unification under socialism. The two successfully lobbied Joseph Stalin to support a short blitzkrieg of the South, which culminated in the outbreak of the Korean War.[43][44][45][46]

This is just one quick summary, but I’m just not finding any credible histories that show a “totalitarian North” and the absence of that in the South. I’m seeing histories that describe both halves of the partition as having terrible governments, but with the North being less terrible at the time.

Also seeing that both the South and the North were aggressors at various times. It was never a scenario of white hats against black hats. More black hats against black hats, etc. The North feared the South would invade it. The South feared the North would, etc. etc. But the Korean people wanted unification.

I think the allies could have prevented this from ever becoming a problem in 1945 — and the allies once included the Soviet Union, of course.

Another obvious key here: In 1950, America had no way of knowing how Korea would look in 2017. Duh, as the young kids used to say. So it’s absurd to try to read justification into the actions of those in power back then, based on what happened decades later. They couldn’t possibly know. And at the time, the hard-right government in the south was no better than the one in the north. History actually shows us it was worse. At the time. In 1950. It was worse.

So America made its choice, at the time, based upon circumstances that existed at the time, not based on time travel to 2017, and then an assessment based on that. And, again, even if it could perform that particular feat of magic, if it didn’t ALSO know how Korea might have turned out if it had stayed out, or favored the north, then it still wouldn’t have been a proper basis for that decision.

Was it justified based upon how things were in 1950? Um, no. Not at all. Not given the actually existing behavior of the respective governments, north and south at the time, which were both abysmal . . . and certainly not when the Korean people are asked for their “vote” in the context of 1950 or prior to that.

zn wrote:

Well, I see the sloganizing coming from the “official” line that says it was justified

I don’t care about the “official line.” So much so that I could not actually tell you what it is. The idea that it was justifiable is my own determination.

The “sloganizing” comment was aimed at the original article starting this thread. I don’t care, I don’t like that kind of stuff. When the left dumbs down. And I wasn’t debating that, I was declaring a vote. That’s how I vote on that kind of writing. If someone votes different good for them.

That’s fine. I get the vote thing. But would you admit that we’ll never know what would have become of Korea if we had chosen the North instead, or just stayed out completely? Its current regime doesn’t tell us anything regarding that. It doesn’t in any way prove it was beyond redemption, as you suggest, if history had been altered. Radically alter history back then, and logic tells us Korea is on a radically different course now.

Remember, after WWII, Koreans, north and south, wanted unification. They didn’t want partition. The allies forced that to happen, against the will of the Korean people. So we set the table for civil war right off the bat.

Short video by Chomsky on the subject.

zn wrote:

I would say the Korean was entirely justifiable and that the South Korean leadership at the time is irrelevant. As events have shown, South Korea was redeemable. North Korea never was and never will be. I have no complaints about bombing North Korea because they started the war—it was a flat out invasion that came just short of succeeding. If Korea because a Stalin proxy that entire region would be far less stable and Japan would have been forced to be an adversarial military state locked in local conflict.

3 million died and that included South Koreans killed by North Korean forces. This is one reason I never buy into the left-wing upside down versions of right-wing propaganda pieces. I prefer the real way of wide-ranging historical sources and real historical analysis, not commie kids camp sloganizing.

Sloganizing is just regressive no matter who does it. I always prefer real analysis. My view on that has always been and always will be this–sloganizing is just the worst of the right turned upside down.

.

Well, I see the sloganizing coming from the “official” line that says it was justified, and I haven’t seen any “real analysis” to support it. I also disagree with your dismissal of alternative takes as coming from “commie kids.” The articles I’ve read on the subject are based primarily on Korea’s own “truth and reconciliation” projects, not from “commie kids.”

Also: It doesn’t prove what you say it proves — that because the NK government is so horrific now, our actions after WWII wouldn’t have mattered. We sided with the South, which instantly and radically improved their chances to survive and eventually — it took thirty more years — become more “democratic.” Logic tells us that if we had chosen the North instead, a similar progression should have occurred, at least. It’s not as if they were different species, North and South. They were all Koreans. All of them. Why would you think that our support of the North wouldn’t have resulted in at least as much progress — which, of course, is in the eye of the beholder — as the South finally achieved?

Same thing goes for the Russian Revolution of 1917. How different would the world be right now if the West, instead of doing everything it could to crush a truly leftist, popular rebellion, had supported it? Is it not highly likely that the West’s endless and violent assault, embargo, fomenting civil wars there, actually made it far, far more likely that a Lenin or a Stalin would arise? Is it not far more likely that the West’s violent opposition to any and all leftist, popular rebellions worldwide actually help those nations become despotic in reaction to this?

If we’re going to play the counterfactual game, let’s do that “real analysis” you’re talking about. Let’s look at all the historical sources, including things like the Koreans’ truth and reconciliation writings, etc.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 7 months ago by Billy_T.

I was watching a panel discussion on MSNBC yesterday — I know. I shouldn’t torture myself like that — and was struck with the persistence of another lie. That the media is “liberal.” It was odd in this way, too. Elise Jordan, a conservative commentator, chastized a Republican guest for playing the victimhood card when he said the press was overwhelmingly Democratic (party) and liberal. But she then went on to say, after the guest left, that it was overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic.

In reality, that charge might have had some teeth forty years ago, but not now. We had twelve years of right-wing Reagan/Bush, followed by the centrist-to-conservative Clinton, followed by right-wing Dubya, followed by the centrist-to-conservative Obama, followed by right-wing Trump. The press tends to grab large numbers of former pols from the Executive and Congress, and there have been zero “liberal” establishments to draw from, really, since LBJ.

In short, it’s not their grandfather’s press anymore.

The press in America is overwhelmingly center-right on pretty much all issues except for “social inclusion” stuff, but the hard right is still trying to brainwash the public into seeing “liberal bias” everywhere. Again, they may have had a case to make back in the 1960s and early 70s — maybe — but not since then.

Again, just to clarify:

I’m not merely turning the tables on the “official” story. I’m not in any way saying North Korea was the home of the “good guys” and that South Korea was the exclusive home the “bad guys.” I’m saying both arbitrarily created “nations” were controlled by dictators. In essence, there were no “good guys” in the picture, except, perhaps, Hawkeye, Radar and Trapper John.

Massacre in Korea, by Pablo Picasso, 1951

There was never a reason or rationale for us to go to war in Korea. And the actions of the allies after WWII set the table for the civil war there in the first place. It was yet one more case of the “great powers” thinking they could, through unelected fiat, draw boundaries and partition the lands of others against their will.

And contrary to the myth that it was the “bad guys” in North Korea versus the “good guys” in South Korea, the real aggressor was Syngman Rhee, a hard-right dictator we backed. Both the north and south were controlled by (installed) dictators, but Rhee was the one who committed mass atrocities that sparked the northern invasion. Rhee also threatened to attack the north prior to its invasion of the south.

The Korean War: Barbarism Unleashed

Excerpt:

Wolfowitz’ analysis is undercut by George Katsiaficas’ history, Asia’s Unknown Uprisings: South Korean Social Movements in the 20th Century (2012), which shows that democracy emerged in 1987 not because it was promoted by the U.S. but because of the efforts of committed social activists, many of whom endured torture, beatings, and massacres fighting against the American-imposed military dictatorship. For years, the U.S. had built up South Korea’s military and police forces, honoring the generals who committed myriad atrocities, including the 1980 Kwangju massacre, South Korea’s equivalent to the Tiananmen Square massacre in China in 1989.[6]

Many prominent historians have reinforced the official narrative about the Korean War. John L. Gaddis of Yale University, the so-called Dean of Cold War scholars presents the war as a clear-cut case of communist aggression backed by Soviet premier Joseph Stalin. David J. Bercuson of the University of Calgary considers the war to have prevented Korea from “becoming the Munich of the Cold War.”[7] Absent from this viewpoint are the perspectives and experiences of the Koreans themselves, which scholars such as Bruce Cumings take into account.

Well before the Korean War officially began on June 25, 1950, South Korea was in a state of revolt. The war actually began in 1946 when the American Military Government supported the repression of opposition movements in South Korea, particularly in the southern island of Cheju-do where tens of thousands of peasants were massacred between April 1948 and May 1949. The South also provoked the North, mounting clandestine raids and sabotage. Also absent from the official U.S. narrative is the recognition of the horrors of the war and the fact that U.S. and South Korean forces committed mass atrocities against civilians.[8]

• This reply was modified 9 years, 7 months ago by Billy_T.

That said, I do think Sanders would have won. And the Dems, if they actually do want to win elections, need to radically alter their strategies going forward. Instead of this mindless idea that they should work to pick off “moderate” Republicans, while remaining centrist, as they dance with corporate America, etc. etc. . . . They need to turn leftward and concentrate on voters they’ve been ignoring for decades . . . and if those right of center don’t like it, tough shit. Instead of courting Republicans who might want to switch sides, they need to inspire folks on the left who haven’t picked any side yet. Push policies that appeal to lefties, on economics, inequality, war, empire, surveillance, civil liberties, etc. etc. and do so without hedging, apology or regret. Do so boldly, in a fiery manner, and talk about the “morality” of this vision as well.

In any battle with the Republicans, they’re going to retain the vast majority of their core, regardless. But with this new push for actual left-wing governance, they’d expand their tent via the only fertile ground still available:

To their left.

The ground to their right is already locked down by the GOP.

Good interview with Hedges. And I was already a bit depressed before I watched it. Now? Sheesh.

Thanks, WV.

;>)

10. Many people asked, bewilderedly, “how did this [Trump] happen?” When I suggest it had a lot to do with the 35-year-long decline of incomes of the bottom 60 percent; the growing sense, ever since the Wall Street bailout, that the game is rigged; and the utter failure of both Republicans and Democrats to reverse these trends – they gave me blank stares.

These things have happened, yes. Though Reich short-changes the length of time. It’s actually more like 44 years for wages. The most recent decline started roughly in 1973. But the “rigging” of the system goes back generations prior to that, and it comes out of the internal mechanics and logic of the capitalist system itself. Capitalism will always produce mass inequality and ecological destruction. It’s baked in.

This really doesn’t explain Trump’s victory, IMO. If it did, why didn’t we see a Trump prior to this? Again, what Reich describes has been going on for generations. Why now?

That said, the (center-right) Dems and center-left parties all over the world are certainly guilty of leaving an opening for the far right, mostly because they’ve been too afraid to offer up strong, at least “progressive” economic solutions. But there’s a lot more to this than just economics. Again, if there weren’t, this all would have happened decades ago.

Beyond all of that, Reich’s “solution” is itself woefully inadequate. He wants to “save” capitalism, when it’s capitalism itself that has generated this mass inequality and ecological destruction, and always will. Reich and all too many “liberal” economists are talking about adding restraints to a system that perpetually shrugs them off, like a giant dog throws off lilliputian leashes. It’s too late for that.

The patient needs far more than bandaids. It needs a full body transplant.

One of my favorite online publications. Consistently good. And the youth of its editors gives me a lot of hope for the future.

It’s tragic that pretty much the entire world has “embraced” (by force) the capitalist cancer, with fewer and fewer protective filters. And I think the left makes a huge mistake when it, too, thinks that if we only go back to a time before “neoliberalism,” all will be well. In reality, “neoliberalism” is itself just a return, with added sophistication and new weaponry, to the neoclassical economics that dominated things prior to the Keynesian Era . . . . and that Keynesian Era was pretty much an aberration, a (roughly) thirty-year pause for the headlong march of capitalist destruction.

Capitalism is capitalism is capitalism. It doesn’t matter what form it takes. It can’t be reformed, or contained, or work for more than the rich, and still BE capitalism. It can’t help but generate mass inequality and ecological destruction.

Hope all is well, WV.

As is the case with most center-left media — and there isn’t much of it to begin with — Maddow is better when she’s dealing with a Republican White House. If a Dem is in office, she tends to cheerlead a bit too much. She and pretty much the entire MSNBC crew is basically unwatchable then.

But she’s been very good when it comes to Trump. Along with a few other excellent print journalists, she’s been able to expose him for what he is: THE most corrupt, crooked, compromised, lying sack of shit president we’ve ever had.

It’s not close.

The thing that scares me the most is he’s likely going to get away with it, and his mass firings of the US attorneys (plus having Sessions in place) is a big reason why. While it’s true that every president cleans house like this, Trump is the first one to ever do it all at once and without warning. They were given less than half a day to clear out.

Connecting the dots, this tells me it was planned in such a way to prevent them from saving the investigative actions they had been working on, passing it on others, keeping any semblance of institutional memory, etc. etc. there.

It’s beyond surreal that Trump won, and it’s very clear he didn’t even think he would until the evening of election day. But now that he’s actually president, it’s becoming more and more apparent, with each passing day, that America elected a criminal, serial-lying goon, on a scale we’ve never seen. And America has seen its share.