The Korean War

[Nolan]

I heard somewhere that it was not North Korea that started the Korean War, but South Korea. Is there any proof to back up this claim?

[Kléber]

Without US imperialism nuking Japan and forcing an unconditional surrender which gave them control of South Korea, would the war still have happened? of course not. But unfortunately, no, North Korea definitely started that one. I read somewhere, Stalin even told Kim to calm down and "think it over" because he was too eager to invade the South.

[Bolshevism1917]

It depends entirely on what you mean by starting a war. The evidence suggests that the formal outbreak of conflict was preceded by a long period of border raids in which both sides were heavily involved, so you can say that the war itself was simply the culmination of what had been happening beforehand and would eventually have happened anyway even if North Korea hadn't decided to launch the first offensive - and if you adopt that perspective it doesn't actually matter who fired the first shot or committed the first act of aggression, if it even makes sense to identify a particular event or battle as the start of the war. The work of Bruce Cummings will doubtless contain more information on this as he's considered a revisionist historian on Korea. I don't actually think that Marxists should look at or respond any conflict simply in terms of who started it because that kind of analysis assumes that our political standpoints should be based on the formalities of bourgeois diplomacy and international relations instead of being rooted in an understanding of how conflicts relate to the interests of the working class, at a national and international level, especially in terms of whether a particular combatant is an imperialist power or oppressed nation, as well as the economic and political contradictions which lead to tensions being transformed into military conflicts. In the case of the Korean War, the correct position to take was not to support either side, because neither government had anything to offer the working class, and the war was to some extent a proxy war, conducted by the rival imperialist blocs.

[Bolshevism1917]

An example of why it's wrong to derive our political positions from the question of which combatant started a given conflict is the first Gulf War - in that case it seems hard to deny that Iraq started the war against Kuwait (notwithstanding the fact that the US had given signs that they would be willing to accept the invasion and would not seek to force Iraq to withdraw) but it would have been reactionary to accept the subsequent military response on the part of the imperialist powers as deserving of socialist support or not to take the side of Iraq once the war had developed beyond the conflict with Kuwait because an analysis of the history of both countries (as well as of the region as a whole) tells us that Kuwait has always functioned as a rentier-state and as a base of operations for imperialism, such that, considered in terms of which outcomes would have weakened or strengthened imperialism, socialists had no choice but to support the military victory of Iraq, whilst also agitating for socialist revolution on a regional basis and exposing the reactionary class character of the Iraqi regime, including its partial support for imperialism.

[chimx]

I heard somewhere that it was not North Korea that started the Korean War, but South Korea. Is there any proof to back up this claim?

No there isn't. With the opening of Soviet Archives, historians have found documents that show Kim Il Sung had been having talks with Stalin for about a year before the Korean War started, begging for approval to attack the southern regime. Stalin finally gave a green light for the summer of 1950 and Kim invaded.

You can read these documents yourself if you want. I have a link to them posted in the "primary sources" thread pinned in this history forum.

To be fair, South Korea under Rhee was also anxious for war, and the US knew it. Because of that, the US only supplied the southern regime with enough weapons to defend against a northern invasion, not enough for an offensive invasion. There were also numerous small border classes between north and south before the actual northern invasion.

[chimx]

Without US imperialism nuking Japan and forcing an unconditional surrender which gave them control of South Korea, would the war still have happened?

Russia actually gave the US southern Korea. Russia was at war with Japan too. The US and Russia made a prearranged agreement that Russia would disarm Japan in northern Korea and the US would disarm Japan below the 38th parallel. Russia had an army in that region far before the US, but they stopped marching south at the 38th and waited for the Americans to come in, as had been prearranged.

[RedStarOverChina]

The Korean War didn't start as Kim Il-sung launched the massive offensive that triggered American involvement. It existed in the form of a civil war before that happened. South Korea's Rhee Syngman had been sending hundreds of South Korean troops into the North to sabotage and strike at North Korean targets---both civilian and military.

In civil wars, it's almost always impossible to determine "who started it".

[Barry Lyndon]

It seems to me that South Korea provoked the war. Around 1948, there was a pro-Communist uprising in South Korea that was brutally repressed by Synghman Rhee, whose security forces massacred 100,000 Communists and their sympathizers in the two years before the war, often using former Japanese colonial troops and officials to do the dirty work(something that the Communists, to my knowledge, didn't do). South Korea also launched hundreds of cross-border attacks on villages and towns in the North. From the North Korean's perspective, they weren't so much invading the south as attempting to make the whole of Korea free from imperialist domination-they saw the South Korean government as a US-backed puppet state, which it certainly was(although the same could be said about the North vis-a-vis the USSR).

[Red Commissar]

No there isn't. With the opening of Soviet Archives, historians have found documents that show Kim Il Sung had been having talks with Stalin for about a year before the Korean War started, begging for approval to attack the southern regime. Stalin finally gave a green light for the summer of 1950 and Kim invaded.

You can read these documents yourself if you want. I have a link to them posted in the "primary sources" thread pinned in this history forum.

To be fair, South Korea under Rhee was also anxious for war, and the US knew it. Because of that, the US only supplied the southern regime with enough weapons to defend against a northern invasion, not enough for an offensive invasion. There were also numerous small border classes between north and south before the actual northern invasion.

This is true.

I think it's important to remember it's meaningless in this case to argue over how started it first, because ultimately it seems both sides were jumping for a reason to fight one another. However someone has to make the opening move to escalate their border skirmishes into a full blown war, and NK was the one who did that. If NK sat around long enough though, I'd imagine SK would have done the same exact thing. It wasn't like either was acting innocently and was taken by surprise.

[chimx]

The Korean War didn't start as Kim Il-sung launched the massive offensive that triggered American involvement. It existed in the form of a civil war before that happened. South Korea's Rhee Syngman had been sending hundreds of South Korean troops into the North to sabotage and strike at North Korean targets---both civilian and military.

In civil wars, it's almost always impossible to determine "who started it".

Both of the Korea's were ripe with political unrest, but Kim still launched a major military invasion of the South.

[manic expression]

Even before open war began, conflict had already been initiated by the capitalists. The imperialist collaborationists occupied the south against the will of the workers, and thus it was the duty of the KWP to liberate and unite Korea. It was in defense of the rights of the Korean workers and the Korean nation that the liberated North responded to the belligerence of the occupied South.

[chimx]

collaborationists? Actually if you read the history, Syngman Rhee was in fact a popular political leader and was voted to be the president of the Korean People's Republic when elections were first held. The KPR is what later formed into the DPRK. And the occupation of the south only happened because the USSR agreed to it.

[chimx]

Even before open war began, conflict had already been initiated by the capitalists. The imperialist collaborationists occupied the south against the will of the workers, and thus it was the duty of the KWP to liberate and unite Korea. It was in defense of the rights of the Korean workers and the Korean nation that the liberated North responded to the belligerence of the occupied South.

I thought I would point something else out, every major socialist party including the KWP supported a 5 year American trusteeship in southern Korea.* The so-called "imperialists collaborationists" (sic), who I am assuming you mean the nationalists, were the ones who opposed trusteeship and American imperialism.

Oh the irony!

* See the 1945 Moscow Conference.

[Sam Da Communist]

Kimmy's party was pretty much in the dark after the anti-communist USA and the UN started backing syngman rhee. The question is should he have done what he did? The civil war pretty much ensued and they almost won. If they had won, it would have been much glorious.


It seems to me that South Korea provoked the war. Around 1948, there was a pro-Communist uprising in South Korea that was brutally repressed by Synghman Rhee, whose security forces massacred 100,000 Communists and their sympathizers in the two years before the war, often using former Japanese colonial troops and officials to do the dirty work(something that the Communists, to my knowledge, didn't do). South Korea also launched hundreds of cross-border attacks on villages and towns in the North. From the North Korean's perspective, they weren't so much invading the south as attempting to make the whole of Korea free from imperialist domination-they saw the South Korean government as a US-backed puppet state, which it certainly was(although the same could be said about the North vis-a-vis the USSR).

before the war there were workers uprisings. i believe the massacres of commies (child and women civilians) happened during the Workers party of korea's offensive.


Even before open war began, conflict had already been initiated by the capitalists. The imperialist collaborationists occupied the south against the will of the workers, and thus it was the duty of the KWP to liberate and unite Korea. It was in defense of the rights of the Korean workers and the Korean nation that the liberated North responded to the belligerence of the occupied South.

yep. gotta smash them.

And i repeat, should they have invaded? or waited it out until the workers were more concious about syngman rhees authoritarianism? perhaps they would've ended up like Burma/myanmar or Philippines if they did nothing and let Rhee lead korea. or it could have turned out like cuba.

[manic expression]

collaborationists? Actually if you read the history, Syngman Rhee was in fact a popular political leader and was voted to be the president of the Korean People's Republic when elections were first held. The KPR is what later formed into the DPRK. And the occupation of the south only happened because the USSR agreed to it.
:lol: Rhee was appointed the head of the Korean government by the US. He then attacked his political opponents, including socialists. When those same groups boycotted the 1948 elections (no prizes for guessing why), he of course won them, thanks to his previous actions as appointee. After that, he imprisoned, tortured and eventually murdered every communist he could get his hands on.

The USSR agreed to the occupation because the US had a certain bargaining chip on their side (it starts with an "N" and rhymes with "Duke"). What happened to that whole "read the history" thing you were talking about? You should try it sometime.

But I'm sure Rhee would appreciate your kind words.


I thought I would point something else out, every major socialist party including the KWP supported a 5 year American trusteeship in southern Korea.* The so-called "imperialists collaborationists" (sic), who I am assuming you mean the nationalists, were the ones who opposed trusteeship and American imperialism.
Too bad you can't point out that the KWP was following the Soviet line, and that was the line due to reasons I've already mentioned.

And the imperialist collaborationists were the ones using US backing to oppress the workers, silence socialists and generally act as a puppet for American interests. Like Rhee, the guy you can't stop fawning over. Not too much irony here, just business as usual.

[chimx]

Rhee was appointed the head of the Korean government by the US. He then attacked his political opponents, including socialists. When those same groups boycotted the 1948 elections (no prizes for guessing why), he of course won them, thanks to his previous actions as appointee. After that, he imprisoned, tortured and eventually murdered every communist he could get his hands on.

lolwat? are you just making stuff up as you go? It is a widely known fact that US Dept. of State, and eventually Hodge/USAMGiK came to be very distrustful of Rhee cause he was bat shit crazy. By 1946 the policy was to reach out towards "moderates" and distance themselves from the extreme rightists like Ku and Rhee. From the State Dept:


While it is realized that at the present time it may be difficult, it is felt that every effort should be made to find leaders in our zone who are neither associated with the Kim Koo [Kim Ku] group nor the Soviet dominanated groups, who will put forth a progressive program for Korea

And here is a cable from the USAMGiK, which talks about the cooling towards Rhee:


General Hodge does not necessarily feel that Rhee is essential or even desirable in a future provisional government, but so long as he is one of the few nationally known leaders among democratic elements, his cooperation now can hardly be dispensed with.

More than anything, Hodge and the State Department wanted Yo Un-hyong and Kim Kyu-sik, as evidenced by working to create a centrist coalition in '46, discussing the idea with these leaders heavily.

Now take note of this. Elections to an Interim Government happened in December of 1946. 50% of the legislature was elected democratically, while 50% was appointed by Hodge and the USAMGiK. Zero leftists and moderates were elected at this time; instead votes went to the KDP and Rhee's NSRRKI. This can probably be blamed for the poor election planning and/or the undemocratic nature of the election. What is interesting, and what completely contradicts your argument, is that Hodge appointed 31 leftists/moderates to the assembly (out of the total 90). He even canceled elections in Seoul when only rightists won, calling for a second election. Kim Kiu-sik was able to win the election and became Chairman of the Assembly, but Hodge had to appoint An Chae-hong, one of the founders of the CPKI, as Chief Administrator.

All the evidence shows that Hodge was pushing for Kim Kiu-sik and other moderates in the 1948 election. They refused to participate in the elections, so the choice went to Rhee by default. But if you read the history, you'll see that there is a great deal of mistrust towards Rhee, whom the US felt to be a loose cannon.

The only time Rhee was appointed a position in government was when he was appointed president of the Korean People's Republic (KPR).


Too bad you can't point out that the KWP was following the Soviet line, and that was the line due to reasons I've already mentioned.

The KWP did not yet exist at this time, during the Moscow Agreement, if I'm not mistaken. It was a later combination of workers parties of North and South. The communist movement in Korea was extremely diverse, and Kim Il-sung was very much "new blood" compared to the older communist leaders, later purged by Kim's government. They could have been following a Soviet line, but it was a US/USSR agreement. You can just as easily say they were following an American line.

The fact of the matter is that communists in southern Korea, under the American Military Government, supported American trusteeship, whereas the nationalists and rightists vehemently opposed it. In truth the reasoning behind this decision isn't very clear. One could see that the southern communists were trying to be pragmatic, so that the USAMGiK would be more likely to let them participate in governence since they were "playing nice". It was a naive position to take though, and probably cost them support.

[manic expression]

lolwat? are you just making stuff up as you go? It is a widely known fact that US Dept. of State, and eventually Hodge/USAMGiK came to be very distrustful of Rhee cause he was bat shit crazy. By 1946 the policy was to reach out towards "moderates" and distance themselves from the extreme rightists like Ku and Rhee. From the State Dept:

And here is a cable from the USAMGiK, which talks about the cooling towards Rhee:

More than anything, Hodge and the State Department wanted Yo Un-hyong and Kim Kyu-sik, as evidenced by working to create a centrist coalition in '46, discussing the idea with these leaders heavily.
Great. That doesn't diminish my arguments whatsoever. The US "cooled" on lots of right-wing dictators; what, exactly, does this change in the big picture? How, exactly, does this weaken my points?


All the evidence shows that Hodge was pushing for Kim Kiu-sik and other moderates in the 1948 election. They refused to participate in the elections, so the choice went to Rhee by default. But if you read the history, you'll see that there is a great deal of mistrust towards Rhee, whom the US felt to be a loose cannon.
A pattern that was to be repeated. Diem would follow much the same path. Your problem, however, is that none of this debunks what I've said.


The only time Rhee was appointed a position in government was when he was appointed president of the Korean People's Republic (KPR).
By whom, exactly? The US. It goes back to my first post quite well.


The KWP did not yet exist at this time, during the Moscow Agreement, if I'm not mistaken. It was a later combination of workers parties of North and South. The communist movement in Korea was extremely diverse, and Kim Il-sung was very much "new blood" compared to the older communist leaders, later purged by Kim's government. They could have been following a Soviet line, but it was a US/USSR agreement. You can just as easily say they were following an American line.
They weren't following an American line, because when the lines changed, the Korean communists went against American imperialism. Do I really need to spell this out for you?


The fact of the matter is that communists in southern Korea, under the American Military Government, supported American trusteeship, whereas the nationalists and rightists vehemently opposed it. In truth the reasoning behind this decision isn't very clear.
I've touched on this before.

[chimx]

By whom, exactly? The US. It goes back to my first post quite well.

If you don't know what the KPR is, then you don't have a very firm grasp on the history of Korea between 1945-1950. The KPR was the government created by Koreans themselves following the CPKI (committees for the preparedness of korean independence). The CPKI/KPR laid the foundation for what eventually became the DPRK, and the first president appointed/elected to the KPR was Rhee. The USAMGiK did not like the KPR and outlawed it in 1945.

Rhee was never appointed a position in government by the US. It is well documented that the US did not like Rhee, did not think he would make a good leader of South Korea, and very much wanted moderates in charge of the ROK such as Kim Kiu-sik.

A more accurate interpretation of events is that despite the US' and Hodge's moderate preferences, the Military Command's political praxis made centrist participation in government difficult. I.e.: Rhee was an accidental consequence of the American's bungling of the Korean question.

[kiwigunner]

Just a quick clarification, the usa never officially went to war by themselves, the United Nations went to war (the first and only time to date) which the USA was a member

The korean war has not ended, technically the UN/ South Korea vs North Korea/China are still at war, there is a ceasefire but no formal end to the war.

The border raids you were talking about were very common and you have to rember since the mid 1800ś japan ruled korea, they were very harsh on the population.

But yes North Korea invaded south korea and the world went to war again.

[manic expression]

The USAMGiK did not like the KPR and outlawed it in 1945.

Rhee was never appointed a position in government by the US. It is well documented that the US did not like Rhee, did not think he would make a good leader of South Korea, and very much wanted moderates in charge of the ROK such as Kim Kiu-sik.
Rhee sought to align his government strongly with the United States, and against both North Korea and Japan.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Republic_of_South_Korea#endnote_rep1for1) The policy of the First Republic on North Korea, before and after the Korean War, was one of "unification by force." [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Republic_of_South_Korea#endnote_rep1for2) Although some talks towards normalization of relations with Japan took place, they achieved little.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Republic_of_South_Korea#endnote_rep1for3) Meanwhile, the government took in vast sums of American aid, in amounts sometimes near the total size of the national budget.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Republic_of_South_Korea#endnote_rep1for4)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Republic_of_South_Korea

Further citations are there. I'd like to see some sort of explanation for the above, since it greatly contradicts your position here.


Just a quick clarification, the usa never officially went to war by themselves, the United Nations went to war (the first and only time to date) which the USA was a member
That UN resolution, from what I remember, was illegal according to the rules of the UN. IIRC, all permanent members of the Security Council must be represented for a vote to be valid, and the Soviet Union was not present at the vote, making its result null and void.

[chimx]

I never said that the US didn't give financial assistance to the ROK. I've written about it before on this site in fact. I even scanned a book on my shelf so you can see the financial break down of US assistance to the ROK:

http://imgur.com/OP1WR.jpg

source: Korea and The United States: A Century of Cooperation. edited by Youngnok Koo and Dae-Sook Suh. 1984.

That doesn't change the fact that the US didn't like Rhee. In 1947 the CIA would report that he was a "demagogue" who was "bent on autocratic rule."(1) They thought he was a right-wing extremist. However, after the DPRK invaded the ROK, Truman changed America's policy regarding Korea (remember, the US basically abandoned Korea completely between 1948 and 1950, leaving it to its own devices). The US felt that preserving the ROK was necessary to stop the spread of communism in east Asia. While the US was initially critical of Rhee, the new policy became: stability and security first, democracy and human rights second.

1. Cumings, "anti-americanism in the republic of korea" in the united states and south korea: reinvigorating the partnership. This is available online for reading at keia.org last I checked.


Regarding the UN, I can touch on the legality of it later. The USSR was absent at the time because it was boycotting the security council due to the UN's refusal to let the newly formed PRC in. It's not as if the Soviets called in sick that day and the US used it as an excuse to launch a police action.