Hacker News Reader

Comment by jchook | Hacker News Reader

Possible that we in the US do not learn much about the atrocities of South Korean autocracies because they were largely supported and propped up for decades by the US government.

After nearly 40 years of Japanese rule, Korea formed a unified independent, democratically elected government with representation from right, center, and left political leaders on September 6, 1945. The very next day US forces showed up to dissolve the government and keep power in the hands of the Japanese.

The subsequent election in South Korea was boycotted by nearly every political group.

In the late 1940s, Kim Gu had unification talks with Kim il-Sung but the CIA had him assassinated in 1949.

From there it’s a long chain of military dictatorships, coups, and suppression of democratic uprisings, with US influence and support.

View on HN

I'm no expert in 1940s Korean history, but I think it was more like Game of Thrones (everyone fighting everyone else while fervently believing they're on the right side), than typical Hollywood (righteous people fighting against a powerful supervillain).

Even Kim Gu himself, giant as he was, is widely believed to be connected to various assassinations (and attempted assassinations) of his political enemies.

* Also I don't think it was ever proven who ordered Kim's assassination - I think most people assume it's President Rhee. (It's no secret that Rhee was very fond of the person who killed Kim.)

> In the late 1940s, Kim Gu had unification talks with Kim il-Sung but the CIA had him assassinated in 1949.

Taking a look at Wikipedia, the assassin seems to have been an US Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC, of "ratlines" fame) asset. Are there indications of him also being employed by OSS or some of its descendants (among which CIA is included), or did you just mistake one part of the US government for another?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Gu#Death_and_legacy

Does it matter which organization actually carried out the orders?

In almost every situation like this, every principal player is an asset of some organization. An intelligence agency would be stupid not to be supporting every side of the conflict.

It very well could be. A potential CIA tie is speculated on the Wikipedia for Ahn Doo-Hee. I read that he was CIA trained on a Historic.ly thread, which cited “Korea: A History” by Bong-youn Choy.

I’ve been reading The Puzzle Palace recently and it’s interesting to hear how much reorganization and shuffling and sharing of responsibilities happened in the intelligence agencies after Perl Harbor and esp around Korea.

“Perl” Harbour is an enjoyable typo.

Honestly, a lot of Americans don't even seem to be aware of massacres committed by former enemies like North Vietnam after they won the Vietnam War. It's not a surprise they're not aware of what a distant ally did outside of the Korean War

American history education focuses very heavily on domestic affairs, and is further segmented by local priorities (e.g. “American Civil War” vs. “War of Northern Aggression”)

At least growing up in NYC, domestic history is really focused on domestic affairs. We barely touched the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War was kind of a footnote. The World Wars are discussed in that they set up the US as a superpower but the actual implications of that are more or less glossed over (nothing about South American activities, barely anything about the Korean War; I think we talked for one hour in high school about Mossadegh and that was “world history.”) And that’s probably one of the more progressive curriculums in the country; in the past there has been uproar over textbooks in other states saying that slavery was a consensual migration for economic reasons.

> War of Northern Aggression

Are you suggesting this is taught as an alternative lens on the American Civil War? I've never heard this name, and went to public school in the South.

I don't see the previous comment making the note around schooling in particular, but rather that what names people use to describe things kind of tell which sides they want you to see as the good one. It's likely that many people who see themselves as "the good people" while being on the side of the confederate would use that naming instead of calling it a "civil war"

See also: "USA bringing democracy to countries that don't have it" VS "USA invading countries to steer their internal/international policies"

The South is by no means a monolith. I don't expect schools in, say, Atlanta, Richmond, and Fayetteville to be teaching the same things. In fact, schools in NYC and Nassau County often don't teach the same things despite being in the same metro area, due to how highly balkanized school districts are.

So it seems like that particular term has fallen out of favor (coming into prominence and usage during the last breaths of segregation) but there are still alternate names like "War Between the States". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_American_Civil_Wa...

One can always rebuke the user by saying, "Oh, you mean 'The War of the Rebellion'?" (The official style, as far as I know of the Army's histories.)

|and keep power in the hands of the Japanese

I think you mean Japanese collaborators, who were hated by the population, but who also were the only people with any experience in technical and administrative areas.

Yes

Politics are dirty especially you fought with a dirty opponent like china supported North Korea. I think the great is so much then we might lost sight why the horrible dictatorship of South Korea and Taiwan in those days. One wonder whether they will fall into communist hand, even today. Korea not sure. Quite sure the nationalist party might even today.

That’s pretty disingenuous take.

After the Pacific War ended, territories occupied by the Japanese were divided up across the allies for post-war occupation.

Korea was divided into North and South, with the USSR taking the North and the allies taking the South. As an expediency, the Japanese were left to maintain order as the allies didn’t have the troops immediately available.

Their take accurately recapped events, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_Korea

It's still disingenuous because they are being very selective with their facts. They are trying to imply that the People's Republic was somehow: 1) able to maintain control over the entire country in terms of security, food, governance, 2) actually had broad based support beyond small groups and that support was durable, 3) wasn't just a communist cover (as it was in Eastern Europe).

It's a nice "what if" story, but pretending a fully functional democratic government was overthrown by US and Russia for no reason is disingenuous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com