|
Post by marsatax on Oct 13, 2022 0:51:53 GMT
Does Hirohito belong on the list? He wasn't the shadow Emperor who was completely kept in the dark like the post-war image of him. He definitely knew what Japan was doing. But he wasn't an Emperor in the mold of Augustus or Napoleon. The Emperor was still God on Earth, the son of the Sun God. A Japanese Emperor wasn't expected to lower himself to muddle in the doings of men. And he did end the was after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when much of the Japanese military was still favoring a battle to the last man. An invasion of the Home Island would have been bloody on a scale that few people can comprehend. I wanted to include someone having to do with the Rape of Nanjing (1937-1938). Tojo was the aggressor regarding WWII and Pearl Harbor, but he was not the PM in 1937-1938. But Hirohito was the emperor at the time.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 14, 2022 15:02:13 GMT
Boris Yeltsin generally gets less condemnation than he deserves, probably because of his antics made a lot of people in the West very wealthy. He basically sold off Russia's assets to foreign bidders - life expectancy and literacy plummeted and alcoholism soared. He was also absolutely brutal against those who opposed him - using tanks against unarmed demonstrators etc.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 14, 2022 15:34:54 GMT
Does Hirohito belong on the list? He wasn't the shadow Emperor who was completely kept in the dark like the post-war image of him. He definitely knew what Japan was doing. But he wasn't an Emperor in the mold of Augustus or Napoleon. The Emperor was still God on Earth, the son of the Sun God. A Japanese Emperor wasn't expected to lower himself to muddle in the doings of men. And he did end the was after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when much of the Japanese military was still favoring a battle to the last man. An invasion of the Home Island would have been bloody on a scale that few people can comprehend. I wanted to include someone having to do with the Rape of Nanjing (1937-1938). Tojo was the aggressor regarding WWII and Pearl Harbor, but he was not the PM in 1937-1938. But Hirohito was the emperor at the time. It was General Matsui Iwane who ordered the rape of Nanjing. He ordered that the city of Nanking be destroyed, to break the spirit of Chinese resistance Fumimaro Konoe was prime minister in Japan at the time of the Rape of Nanjing.
|
|
needysboy
Sophomore
@needysboy
Posts: 347
Likes: 129
|
Post by needysboy on Oct 15, 2022 0:50:59 GMT
Hirohito? Wasn't he just a figure head?
The Bosnian Serb leadership from the 90s should probably be on the list.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 15, 2022 9:33:23 GMT
Hirohito? Wasn't he just a figure head?
The Bosnian Serb leadership from the 90s should probably be on the list. After 1945?, yes before 1945?, no He did a very good job at making people belive he was just a figure head before 1945, but he had a lot more power than he made people belive. And he played an active role in the war effort.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 17, 2022 13:06:22 GMT
You want scathing, wait a couple thousand years & see how harshly those history books judge us for letting that happen. That suggests the rest of the world just stood about with its hands in its pockets regarding Korea. If anything, foreign interference is the main contributor to the state of Korea today. Imagine how much better Korea would have been if the People's Republic of Korea under Yo-un Hyung had been recognised and left in peace. Instead, South Korea became a repressive US puppet and North Korea became increasingly authoritarian, adopting a siege mentality spurred on by the devastation caused by the Korean War, the constant threat of further military assaults and crippling economic sanctions.
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Oct 18, 2022 2:01:19 GMT
Hirohito? Wasn't he just a figure head? The Bosnian Serb leadership from the 90s should probably be on the list. I figured putting Milosevic on the list would be enough.
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Oct 18, 2022 2:06:58 GMT
You want scathing, wait a couple thousand years & see how harshly those history books judge us for letting that happen. That suggests the rest of the world just stood about with its hands in its pockets regarding Korea. If anything, foreign interference is the main contributor to the state of Korea today. Imagine how much better Korea would have been if the People's Republic of Korea under Yo-un Hyung had been recognised and left in peace. Instead, South Korea became a repressive US puppet and North Korea became increasingly authoritarian, adopting a siege mentality spurred on by the devastation caused by the Korean War, the constant threat of further military assaults and crippling economic sanctions. South Korea is a major success story. It is a prosperous free democracy.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 18, 2022 8:03:07 GMT
South Korea is a major success story. It is a prosperous free democracy. In recent times, perhaps, but it took a long time to get to its current position - its early days were filled with brutal political repression and rigged elections. It didn't even have free elections until 1987. And before the Korean War, it was the less prosperous of the two Koreas. Even if you look at it today, it's debatable just how free it is. Its military is under the command of another nation, conscription is in force and conscientious objectors are imprisoned. In recent years, it banned a pro-North (or at least, insufficiently anti-North) party that had 5 members elected to parliament. As for its economy, it's undoubtedly a powerhouse, but inequality has been steadily growing in recent years. But even if we consider South Korea a success, I was talking about Korea as a whole. Looking at the Korean War alone, 3-4 million Koreans were killed and even more displaced. It's highly unlikely the war would have ever happened if the USA and USSR had just left the Koreans to build their own nation and the death count would certainly have been greatly reduced if the US hadn't bombed North Korea to the ground and committed war crimes against it. Since the Korean War, North Korea has existed under constant threat of military invasion and sabotage, which is how the Kims justify their authoritarian measures, high military spending and development of nuclear arms. The foreign response has been economic sanctions which cause increased sufferings to normal North Koreans and if anything just bolster support for the Kims.
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Oct 19, 2022 14:17:10 GMT
South Korea is a major success story. It is a prosperous free democracy. In recent times, perhaps, but it took a long time to get to its current position - its early days were filled with brutal political repression and rigged elections. It didn't even have free elections until 1987. And before the Korean War, it was the less prosperous of the two Koreas. Even if you look at it today, it's debatable just how free it is. Its military is under the command of another nation, conscription is in force and conscientious objectors are imprisoned. In recent years, it banned a pro-North (or at least, insufficiently anti-North) party that had 5 members elected to parliament. As for its economy, it's undoubtedly a powerhouse, but inequality has been steadily growing in recent years. But even if we consider South Korea a success, I was talking about Korea as a whole. Looking at the Korean War alone, 3-4 million Koreans were killed and even more displaced. It's highly unlikely the war would have ever happened if the USA and USSR had just left the Koreans to build their own nation and the death count would certainly have been greatly reduced if the US hadn't bombed North Korea to the ground and committed war crimes against it. Since the Korean War, North Korea has existed under constant threat of military invasion and sabotage, which is how the Kims justify their authoritarian measures, high military spending and development of nuclear arms. The foreign response has been economic sanctions which cause increased sufferings to normal North Koreans and if anything just bolster support for the Kims. It's highly unlikely the war would have ever happened if the USA and USSR had just left the Koreans to build their own nation
Prior to 1950, the US had a policy of benign neglect regarding southern Korea. This is seen by the fact that the US was totally unprepared for the invasion from the north. But once we got our act together, defending the south was the right thing to do. Meanwhile, saying that things would have been better had the Soviets not done such-and-such is kind of silly. After WWII, communism was on the march in much of the world. Telling the communists "That's not nice", would have had no effect.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 19, 2022 15:25:51 GMT
Prior to 1950, the US had a policy of benign neglect regarding southern Korea. Benign neglect? Hardly. The US drew the border at the 38th parallel in the first place. No Koreans, north or south recognised it. The US then dissolved the provisional government in the south and set up a new one, selecting Syngman Rhee, who hadn't lived in Korea in years to lead it and rigging an election to legitimise him. Rhee's government, military and police were filled with former Japanese collaborators who were despised by the Koreans. The South Korean army carried out several massacres at this time to consolidate Rhee's rule. The US supported them fully in this, supplying them with arms, uniforms etc. American military advisors provided training and American operatives led counter-insurgency missions. In return, Rhee followed American dictates to export rice to Japan and signed South Korea's gold and tungsten mines over to US businesses - these were guarded by American troops. It's nowhere near that simple. For a start, the south was not united against the north. Rhee's government was trampling on anyone who wanted a united, socialist Korea. The US was not defending the south, it was defending Rhee's government in the south - very different things. Suppose the USA was cut in half by France and the French then took the rights to all the south's major exports. The French then put a puppet government in place in the southern half and supplied them with arms, training and personnel to crush anyone who didn't want to live under French control. Suppose then the northern half of the US invaded the southern half to drive the French influence out and then the French retaliated by not only pushing the northerners back, but bombing the north so much that no building over two storeys still stood and blowing up their dams to deliberately cause flooding, starvation and drought in defiance of the Geneva Convention. Once the French were done, millions of Americans were dead, many more homeless. Would you say the French were merely defending the southern United States?
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Oct 20, 2022 0:38:07 GMT
Prior to 1950, the US had a policy of benign neglect regarding southern Korea. Benign neglect? Hardly. The US drew the border at the 38th parallel in the first place. No Koreans, north or south recognised it. The US then dissolved the provisional government in the south and set up a new one, selecting Syngman Rhee, who hadn't lived in Korea in years to lead it and rigging an election to legitimise him. Rhee's government, military and police were filled with former Japanese collaborators who were despised by the Koreans. The South Korean army carried out several massacres at this time to consolidate Rhee's rule. The US supported them fully in this, supplying them with arms, uniforms etc. American military advisors provided training and American operatives led counter-insurgency missions. In return, Rhee followed American dictates to export rice to Japan and signed South Korea's gold and tungsten mines over to US businesses - these were guarded by American troops. It's nowhere near that simple. For a start, the south was not united against the north. Rhee's government was trampling on anyone who wanted a united, socialist Korea. The US was not defending the south, it was defending Rhee's government in the south - very different things. Suppose the USA was cut in half by France and the French then took the rights to all the south's major exports. The French then put a puppet government in place in the southern half and supplied them with arms, training and personnel to crush anyone who didn't want to live under French control. Suppose then the northern half of the US invaded the southern half to drive the French influence out and then the French retaliated by not only pushing the northerners back, but bombing the north so much that no building over two storeys still stood and blowing up their dams to deliberately cause flooding, starvation and drought in defiance of the Geneva Convention. Once the French were done, millions of Americans were dead, many more homeless. Would you say the French were merely defending the southern United States? The US drew the border at the 38th parallel in the first place.
That was never meant to be a permanent border. The Soviets contributed to the defeat of Japan in WWII, so we agreed to allow them to occupy about half of Korea. Americans probably believed that once Korea started to revive after the war, the country could be united, and the occupation forces could leave. True, this did not happen in Germany, but it DID happen in Austria. The Soviets went home on schedule. For a start, the south was not united against the north. Rhee's government was trampling on anyone who wanted a united, socialist Korea. The US was not defending the south, it was defending Rhee's government in the south - very different things.The North Koreans, backed by the Soviets, invaded the south with the intention of reuniting the country as a communist regime. Having seen the nature of North Korea under the Kims since then, preventing such a takeover was more than justified, even if the South was under a dictatorship for a while. Suppose the USA was cut in half by France and the French then took the rights to all the south's major exports. The French then put a puppet government in place in the southern half and supplied them with arms, training and personnel to crush anyone who didn't want to live under French control. Suppose then the northern half of the US invaded the southern half to drive the French influence out and then the French retaliated by not only pushing the northerners back, but bombing the north so much that no building over two storeys still stood and blowing up their dams to deliberately cause flooding, starvation and drought in defiance of the Geneva Convention. Once the French were done, millions of Americans were dead, many more homeless. Would you say the French were merely defending the southern United States?
To make the analogy complete, we should add that (1) French troops crushed a murderous regime that had occupied America, (2) that the north invaded the south not just to "drive the French influence out" but in addition to essentially enslave America by turning it into a giant concentration camp similar to Dachau, the Gulag, and the Khmer Rouge killing fields, and (3) that the south eventually became a free democracy again and became an industrial powerhouse.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 20, 2022 8:57:23 GMT
That was never meant to be a permanent border. The Soviets contributed to the defeat of Japan in WWII, so we agreed to allow them to occupy about half of Korea. Americans probably believed that once Korea started to revive after the war, the country could be united, and the occupation forces could leave. True, this did not happen in Germany, but it DID happen in Austria. The Soviets went home on schedule. I'm not going to say Germany and Austria were particularly well handled but at least in those cases they were countries that had fought against the Allies. The Koreans had aided the Allies against Japan - why on earth should the Allies then occupy their country and, in the case of the South Korea, violently replace a government made of those who had fought against the Japanese with one made up of Japanese collaborators? Not only that, but its primary exports are effectively seized by America (and the USSR did the same in the North albeit for a much shorter period). The US could have recognised the provisional government and proposed to the USSR that it do the same - there probably would have been no disagreement from Stalin, but even if there were, then other solutions could have been considered. And Rhee had every intention of taking over the North - in fact fighting between pro-capitalist and pro-communist forces had been occurring across Korea long before the invasion and US personnel were training South Koreans for counter-insurgency missions against the North. The reason why the North Korean attack in 1950 was declared an 'invasion' was because in that instance there had been a mass crossing of the 38th parallel which no Korean, even Rhee, recognised. The UN security council declared it as an invasion - a security council which at that time consisted solely of the US and its allies. At any rate, there were a lot of supporters in the South for the northern invasion which was one of the reasons why the North did so well in the early stages of the war - and this was after Rhee had done his best to violently suppress any support for the North. But even if the North was solely in the wrong in the initial invasion, the fact remains that it never would have happened had the US left well alone. You're ignoring the second part of the War where the US took the fight to North Korea and bombed it back to the stone age. Do you consider that justified? 1) Except that murderous regime were Americans and had much greater popular support amongst Americans than the French puppet government who were even more murderous. 2) I just don't get this mentality - "To stop potential oppressions and mass killings, let's mass kill and oppress! Sure, we may end up harming far more people than would have been hurt otherwise and the oppressors we're fighting will end up increasing oppression in their half with now at least some justification because of our actions, but it's worth it to save the world from the spectre of communism!" Also interesting that you mention Khmer Rouge which enjoyed critical support from the US and was in the end brought down by communist Vietnam. So clearly Americans didn't care that much about saving the world from 'slavery' when it wasn't in their financial and military interests to do so. It's also pertinent that the Killing Fields happened long after the Korean War so could hardly have been a justification for US aggression against North Korea. And less people died in the Killing Fields than died in the Korean War anyway. 3) Yep, millions dead, decades of political oppression, increased threat of nuclear war, but at least half the country eventually got political freedom so long as they don't vote for pro-North parties and don't want to control their own army or nationalise their own resources, and an economic boon which benefits all but the people at the bottom. Totally worth it. Just as well we didn't let those Koreans form their own government and hang on to their own resources!
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Oct 22, 2022 5:40:07 GMT
That was never meant to be a permanent border. The Soviets contributed to the defeat of Japan in WWII, so we agreed to allow them to occupy about half of Korea. Americans probably believed that once Korea started to revive after the war, the country could be united, and the occupation forces could leave. True, this did not happen in Germany, but it DID happen in Austria. The Soviets went home on schedule. I'm not going to say Germany and Austria were particularly well handled but at least in those cases they were countries that had fought against the Allies. The Koreans had aided the Allies against Japan - why on earth should the Allies then occupy their country and, in the case of the South Korea, violently replace a government made of those who had fought against the Japanese with one made up of Japanese collaborators? Not only that, but its primary exports are effectively seized by America (and the USSR did the same in the North albeit for a much shorter period). The US could have recognised the provisional government and proposed to the USSR that it do the same - there probably would have been no disagreement from Stalin, but even if there were, then other solutions could have been considered. And Rhee had every intention of taking over the North - in fact fighting between pro-capitalist and pro-communist forces had been occurring across Korea long before the invasion and US personnel were training South Koreans for counter-insurgency missions against the North. The reason why the North Korean attack in 1950 was declared an 'invasion' was because in that instance there had been a mass crossing of the 38th parallel which no Korean, even Rhee, recognised. The UN security council declared it as an invasion - a security council which at that time consisted solely of the US and its allies. At any rate, there were a lot of supporters in the South for the northern invasion which was one of the reasons why the North did so well in the early stages of the war - and this was after Rhee had done his best to violently suppress any support for the North. But even if the North was solely in the wrong in the initial invasion, the fact remains that it never would have happened had the US left well alone. You're ignoring the second part of the War where the US took the fight to North Korea and bombed it back to the stone age. Do you consider that justified? 1) Except that murderous regime were Americans and had much greater popular support amongst Americans than the French puppet government who were even more murderous. 2) I just don't get this mentality - "To stop potential oppressions and mass killings, let's mass kill and oppress! Sure, we may end up harming far more people than would have been hurt otherwise and the oppressors we're fighting will end up increasing oppression in their half with now at least some justification because of our actions, but it's worth it to save the world from the spectre of communism!" Also interesting that you mention Khmer Rouge which enjoyed critical support from the US and was in the end brought down by communist Vietnam. So clearly Americans didn't care that much about saving the world from 'slavery' when it wasn't in their financial and military interests to do so. It's also pertinent that the Killing Fields happened long after the Korean War so could hardly have been a justification for US aggression against North Korea. And less people died in the Killing Fields than died in the Korean War anyway. 3) Yep, millions dead, decades of political oppression, increased threat of nuclear war, but at least half the country eventually got political freedom so long as they don't vote for pro-North parties and don't want to control their own army or nationalise their own resources, and an economic boon which benefits all but the people at the bottom. Totally worth it. Just as well we didn't let those Koreans form their own government and hang on to their own resources! I'm not going to say Germany and Austria were particularly well handled but at least in those cases they were countries that had fought against the Allies. The Koreans had aided the Allies against Japan - why on earth should the Allies then occupy their country and, in the case of the South Korea, violently replace a government made of those who had fought against the Japanese with one made up of Japanese collaborators?
I do not defend overthrowing a government. But, at the same time, I imagine that the purpose of the occupation was to keep things stable while the Koreans got their country back on its feet. Unlike Germany, Austria, and Japan, Korea had not been an independent country since 1910. For 35 years it was under Japanese occupation. So, due to lack of experience, it needed help in doing the work to become an independent country again. This is analogous to the way much of the Middle East was divided into British- and French-controlled mandates after WWI. Those mandate territories eventually became independent. You're ignoring the second part of the War where the US took the fight to North Korea and bombed it back to the stone age. Do you consider that justified?The hope was that the Korean Peninsula could be reunited under the capitalist regime of the South. Attempting to do that was fully justified. It is true that we failed. But if we had succeeded, today the whole Peninsula would be one Korea under a free democratic government. To make the analogy complete, we should add that (1) French troops crushed a murderous regime that had occupied America, Except that murderous regime were Americans and had much greater popular support amongst Americans than the French puppet government who were even more murderous.
I was responding to your analogy, in which French troops liberate America and divide it in half, the way American troops liberated Korea and divided it in half. The "murderous regime" that was crushed by the liberating troops in the case of Korea was the Japanese Empire. America actually helped liberate southern Korea three times: first from the Japanese, then from the North Koreans, and lastly from the Chinese. I just don't get this mentality - "To stop potential oppressions and mass killings, let's mass kill and oppress! Sure, we may end up harming far more people than would have been hurt otherwise and the oppressors we're fighting will end up increasing oppression in their half with now at least some justification because of our actions, but it's worth it to save the world from the spectre of communism!"
And I don't get the mentality of someone who, went confronted with an invading army devoted to communism, which is a form of slavery, says we should just run away and go back home, and leave the Koreans to their fate. Also interesting that you mention Khmer Rouge which enjoyed critical support from the US
Rubbish. America fought AGAINST the Khmer Rouge during the Vietnam War. In fact, the very last battle in the war involving Americans was the Mayaguez incident, which pitted US forces against the Khmer Rouge. and was in the end brought down by communist Vietnam.
Something the Vietnamese can forever be proud of. But, at the same time, they overstayed their welcome. The way the Soviets overstayed their welcome after liberating Eastern Europe. So clearly Americans didn't care that much about saving the world from 'slavery' when it wasn't in their financial and military interests to do so.Wrong. At the time, the British told President Truman that Britain could no longer act as the main guard against aggressive and expansionist regimes in the world (because of all the damage, financial losses, and territorial losses Britain suffered from WWII). Truman picked up the baton and decided that the US must take Britain's place by containing the Soviets in Europe and by fighting against communist expansionism elsewhere, too. So, when communist North Korea invaded the South, we got involved. It's also pertinent that the Killing Fields happened long after the Korean War so could hardly have been a justification for US aggression against North Korea. I was speaking in hindsight. The Kims of North Korea have turned most of the country into a giant concentration camp, similar to Dachau, the Gulag, and the Killing Fields. Koreans who managed to escape from the North consistently confirm this. Yep, millions dead, decades of political oppression, increased threat of nuclear war, but at least half the country eventually got political freedom so long as they don't vote for pro-North parties and don't want to control their own army or nationalise their own resources, and an economic boon which benefits all but the people at the bottom. Totally worth it.All of that is better than having all of Korea under the control of the North. Ever hear the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words"? Ever see a photo of the Korean Peninsula at night? It says it all.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 22, 2022 15:28:40 GMT
I do not defend overthrowing a government. But, at the same time, I imagine that the purpose of the occupation was to keep things stable while the Koreans got their country back on its feet. Keep it stable by splitting it in two, taking its chief exports, installing an unpopular government and massacring its citizens, South and North? Even if all of that were OK, who the hell gives the USA the right to decide how a foreign nation should be managed? And the Middle East is now one of the world's most unstable regions. Even though it was against the wishes of the majority of Koreans. Again what the hell gives the USA the right? Except the South Koreans had to fight hard for that democratic freedom. The US-backed regime resisted it every step of the way. And as mentioned previously, the level of freedom and democracy even now is debatable. I get you're not a fan of communism but how bad do you think it is that you think the killing of millions, mass displacements, war crimes, famine and drought the preferable option? And even if you think communism is still the greater evil, again what gives America the right to dictate Korean affairs? And yet it continued to recognise the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia until 1993. There have also been numerous allegations of it arming Cambodia against Vietnam. The US had at best a mixed attitude to Cambodia certainly compared to its attitude to North Korea. Yet even you place Pol Pot as being worse than the Kims. And then there are oppressive regimes that the US has unequivocally supported in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Israel and South Korea in its first 4 decades (to name only a few). The US doesn't care about saving the oppressed, only its own financial and military interests. But presumably you don't think the US having a presence in Korea for the past 80 years is an issue? Britain itself was an aggressive and expansionist power. As is the US. Much of the more extreme testimony from North Korean defectors has been debunked. The testimony of people like Yeonmi Park has been found to have numerous inconsistencies and yet she's still trotted out routinely in public speaking events. In fact there's so much stuff put out in the media about North Korea which turns out to be absolute crap - remember when we were being told Kim Jong Un had been deposed and executed by his uncle? Turned out to be crap. Not that I'm saying that North Korea hasn't committed human rights abuses or that's it's not an oppressive regime but it's nowhere near in the same league as Dachau or the Killing Fields. And it's no worse (and I suspect perhaps a bit better) than some of the shit Rhee pulled in South Korea with US support. Give Michael Palin's documentary on North Korea a watch. It's extremely anti the NK government, but it shows normal North Koreans having fairly normal lives. They have free time, hobbies, diverse interests, a strong culture etc. If they are slaves, they seem better off than many 'free' people across history and geography. They would be even better off if the West would drop the economic sanctions against the country and hadn't destroyed the country's entire infrastructure. But even if everything people said about North Korea was true, are the North Koreans better off being mass exterminated by the US then living under an oppressive regime? So the highly consumerist country with heavy foreign investment has more lights on at night than the one that had all its infrastructure destroyed, had to spend a fortune on the military due to the constant threat of invasion and has been subject to crippling economic sanctions? Not really a surprise. My contention has never been North Korea today is a more pleasant place to live than South Korea today anyway. It's that Korea as a whole would have been much better off over the last 80 years if other countries had left it alone.
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Oct 22, 2022 22:13:30 GMT
I do not defend overthrowing a government. But, at the same time, I imagine that the purpose of the occupation was to keep things stable while the Koreans got their country back on its feet. Keep it stable by splitting it in two, taking its chief exports, installing an unpopular government and massacring its citizens, South and North? Even if all of that were OK, who the hell gives the USA the right to decide how a foreign nation should be managed? And the Middle East is now one of the world's most unstable regions. Even though it was against the wishes of the majority of Koreans. Again what the hell gives the USA the right? Except the South Koreans had to fight hard for that democratic freedom. The US-backed regime resisted it every step of the way. And as mentioned previously, the level of freedom and democracy even now is debatable. I get you're not a fan of communism but how bad do you think it is that you think the killing of millions, mass displacements, war crimes, famine and drought the preferable option? And even if you think communism is still the greater evil, again what gives America the right to dictate Korean affairs? And yet it continued to recognise the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia until 1993. There have also been numerous allegations of it arming Cambodia against Vietnam. The US had at best a mixed attitude to Cambodia certainly compared to its attitude to North Korea. Yet even you place Pol Pot as being worse than the Kims. And then there are oppressive regimes that the US has unequivocally supported in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Israel and South Korea in its first 4 decades (to name only a few). The US doesn't care about saving the oppressed, only its own financial and military interests. But presumably you don't think the US having a presence in Korea for the past 80 years is an issue? Britain itself was an aggressive and expansionist power. As is the US. Much of the more extreme testimony from North Korean defectors has been debunked. The testimony of people like Yeonmi Park has been found to have numerous inconsistencies and yet she's still trotted out routinely in public speaking events. In fact there's so much stuff put out in the media about North Korea which turns out to be absolute crap - remember when we were being told Kim Jong Un had been deposed and executed by his uncle? Turned out to be crap. Not that I'm saying that North Korea hasn't committed human rights abuses or that's it's not an oppressive regime but it's nowhere near in the same league as Dachau or the Killing Fields. And it's no worse (and I suspect perhaps a bit better) than some of the shit Rhee pulled in South Korea with US support. Give Michael Palin's documentary on North Korea a watch. It's extremely anti the NK government, but it shows normal North Koreans having fairly normal lives. They have free time, hobbies, diverse interests, a strong culture etc. If they are slaves, they seem better off than many 'free' people across history and geography. They would be even better off if the West would drop the economic sanctions against the country and hadn't destroyed the country's entire infrastructure. But even if everything people said about North Korea was true, are the North Koreans better off being mass exterminated by the US then living under an oppressive regime? So the highly consumerist country with heavy foreign investment has more lights on at night than the one that had all its infrastructure destroyed, had to spend a fortune on the military due to the constant threat of invasion and has been subject to crippling economic sanctions? Not really a surprise. My contention has never been North Korea today is a more pleasant place to live than South Korea today anyway. It's that Korea as a whole would have been much better off over the last 80 years if other countries had left it alone. Keep it stable by splitting it in two
We were under obligation to the Russians to let them occupy some territory in Asia because of their contribution to the defeat of Japan. installing an unpopular government
Again, I will not defend overthrowing a government. massacring its citizens, South and North?
North Korea massacres its citizens as standard operating procedure. The US and its allies prevented the North from taking over the South, and a lot of American soldiers died in the process. Even if all of that were OK, who the hell gives the USA the right to decide how a foreign nation should be managed?
We helped liberate Korea from the Japanese. And South Korea is a success story: a third world country that became a free and prosperous first world country. And the Middle East is now one of the world's most unstable regions.
That’s not the fault of the West. Since the time of al-Ghazali and the Asharites, the Islamic world abandoned logical reasoning as something to aspire to. And so it became inhospitable land for scientific advancement and democracy. Instead, it took the worst ideas of Europeans, fascism and totalitarianism, and implemented them. Then, some Muslims decided that the problem was modernity itself, and so they worked for Islamic fundamentalism. There is also the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis. The mandate system is incidental in most of this. Even though it was against the wishes of the majority of Koreans. Again what the hell gives the USA the right?
Are you saying that the majority of Koreans wanted total control by the communists of the North? I find that hard to believe. Except the South Koreans had to fight hard for that democratic freedom.And they succeeded. You think they would have succeeded in the North? And as mentioned previously, the level of freedom and democracy even now is debatable.
In 2020 Freedom House ranked South Korea as FREE, and it had been ranked as such for quite a few years. This year it ranks PARTLY FREE. I am disappointed about that. But it is still better than North Korea, which always ranks NOT FREE. I get you're not a fan of communism but how bad do you think it is that you think the killing of millions, mass displacements, war crimes, famine and drought the preferable option?
Mass murder, mass displacements, war crimes, and famine are the standard condition under the North Korean regime. I get that you are not a fan of war, but a totalitarian regime essentially is in a permanent state of war with its own people. And even if you think communism is still the greater evil, again what gives America the right to dictate Korean affairs?
If we overstepped our bounds and interfered where we don’t belong, I get that you are angry. Iranians feel the same way for our support for the coup that overthrew Mossadegh and reinstalled the Shah. We treated a great and ancient society like a banana republic. At the same time, Korea was a third world country and the South is now a prosperous partly free country. The Korean people can always ask us to leave and allow the North to take over, but I think very few want that. And yet it continued to recognise the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia until 1993.
Yes, that was pretty sleazy of us. Still, the KR never regained control of Cambodia. There have also been numerous allegations of it arming Cambodia against Vietnam.
The Vietnamese were occupying Cambodia. They deserved credit for overthrowing the KR, but that lasts only so long. We supported non-KR groups that were fighting to convince the Vietnamese to go home. Yet even you place Pol Pot as being worse than the Kims.It’s close, but Pol Pot and his thugs murdered more people. And then there are oppressive regimes that the US has unequivocally supported in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Israel and South Korea in its first 4 decades (to name only a few).
The world is an imperfect place, and sometimes doing the right thing requires that you support someone who is oppressive and evil. The quintessential example of that was our support for Stalin in WWII. Stalin was one of the most brutal and murderous dictators in all of history, but we needed the help of his country in order to crush Nazi Germany, which was the greater danger at the time. I know little about Indonesia, except that Suharto was an anti-communist US ally who also committed Genocide at home and in East Timor. Saudi Arabia is definitely an oppressive regime, but it helped us to liberate Kuwait and to crush Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which was a bigger threat. Regarding Chile, we can forever by criticized for supporting Pinochet, but according to Freedom House’s map, Chile is a free democracy today. Israel was and is a free democracy, which is the least oppressive form of government. The US doesn't care about saving the oppressed, only its own financial and military interests.
There is a lot of overlap between our interests and moral considerations. The regimes and leaders we oppose tend to be the least free and most brutal. These include the Nazis, the Japanese militarists, and the Italian Fascists in WWII, the North in the Korean War, the Soviet Union in the Cold War, Baathist Iraq in the Gulf War, and the Taliban in Afghanistan. True, we failed against the Taliban. But we had at least partial success against the others. And that led to liberating oppressed people: Western Europeans in WWII, Eastern Europeans in the Cold War, the Kuwaitis in the Gulf War, and so on. The pattern continues even today. We are giving large quantities of weapons to Ukraine, which is both in our interests (to discourage further Russian aggression) and also morally right (to help the Ukrainian people fight for their freedom). But presumably you don't think the US having a presence in Korea for the past 80 years is an issue?
As long as South Korea is free, or at least partly free, no, I don’t see it as a major issue. Our presence is a signal to the North that an invasion of the South would also be an attack on the U.S. Britain itself was an aggressive and expansionist power.
True, but even before WWII, the very idea of imperialism was on the way out. One can admire Churchill and his countrymen for standing up to the Nazis, while at the same time admiring Mahatma Gandhi and HIS countrymen for standing up to British imperialism. Much of the more extreme testimony from North Korean defectors has been debunked. The testimony of people like Yeonmi Park has been found to have numerous inconsistencies and yet she's still trotted out routinely in public speaking events. In fact there's so much stuff put out in the media about North Korea which turns out to be absolute crapI remember the way leftists here in America and in Europe pooh-poohed testimony from Cambodian refugees about the Genocide the Khmer Rouge was conducting. The leftists were wrong and the refugees were right. Almost all Koreans who manage to escape the North give essentially the same story, that North Korea is an incredibly brutal and oppressive regime, with constant shortages and famines. I also remember the story of Otto Warmbier, a young American visitor to the North, who was convicted of trying to steal a propaganda poster. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison, but was released early in a vegetative state and died upon his return to the U.S. No doubt he experienced a great deal of torture. Not that I'm saying that North Korea hasn't committed human rights abuses or that's it's not an oppressive regime but it's nowhere near in the same league as Dachau or the Killing Fields. And it's no worse (and I suspect perhaps a bit better) than some of the shit Rhee pulled in South Korea with US support.
According to this source, Rhee murdered about 80,000 people, while Kim Il-Sung murdered 5 times as many. And that does not even include Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un. www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.htmlThis guy estimates that North Korea has murdered more than a million. www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP10.HTM So the highly consumerist country with heavy foreign investment has more lights on at night than the one that had all its infrastructure destroyed, had to spend a fortune on the military due to the constant threat of invasion and has been subject to crippling economic sanctions? Not really a surprise.
South Korea would not have heavy foreign investment if the country had nothing to offer to foreigners. And BOTH Koreas spend a fortune on the military. North Korea is in the Dark Ages. Literally.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 22, 2022 22:23:45 GMT
marsataxI sense we're not going to agree on this so I think best that we end this now. But I appreciate the civil discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Nov 7, 2022 17:46:54 GMT
25 Worst Leaders of the Past Hundred Years 1. Hitler (Germany) 2. Stalin (Russia) 3. Mao (China) 4. Pol Pot (Cambodia) 5. Tojo (Japan) 6. Hirohito (Japan) 7. Mussolini (Italy) 8-10. The Kims of North Korea 11-12. The Ayatollahs of Iran 13. Saddam Hussein (Iraq) 14. Vladimir Putin (Russia) 15. Idi Amin (Uganda) 16. Suharto (Indonesia) 17. Enver Pasha (Ottoman Turkey during the Genocide of the Armenians) 18. Jean Kambanda (Rwanda during the Genocide of the Tutsis) 19. Mullah Omar (Afghanistan) 20. Bashar al-Assad (Syria) 21. Milosevic (Serbia) 22. Mengistu (Ethiopia) 23. Xi Jinpeng (China) 24. Lenin (Russia) 25. Leonid Brezhnev (Russia) Anyone have a different list? These are all leaders demonized by the West but when the military studies leaders they focus on effectiveness not morality. Using that criterion, is there anything on the list you would change?
|
|