Also did the communists do a bad job in china? That is at most controversial... not "brain washed".
North Korea Invades South Korea on June 25th 1950. The UN, for probably the first,last, and only time, takes military action (at American behest and because the Russian's were boycotting the UN) led by a US General and primarily American troops. This force and the South Korean Army repel the North Koreans and drive into North Korea (which was suppose to hold open elections but didn't as part of unification), the Chinese enter the way as the UN forces approached (but did not cross) the Chinese boarder.
EDIT: This is not to say that the UN forces crossing the 38th Parallel was the best idea or that they were not happy to occupy North Korea or that they didn't have ambitions to do so from the outset , but aggressor is really a misleading term when they did not fire the first shot.
"Communism" was the "terrorism" of my parents' generation...
The Allies destroyed whatever government Korea had. Without someone to step in to keep the roads maintained, the local cops on their beat, and the courts running, the country would have otherwise collapsed. So of course you step in and try to set up elections so the people in the country can vote in a new constitution and a new government, and then you leave. Unless you're Stalin, in which case you pick some crazy guy, install him as a dictator, and call the country a "Democratic People's Republic" to make it look legitimate. You'd think no one would fall for that, but you did.
I just want to see Korea reunited.
Conclusion: Divided States
North korea didn't believe the UN/US (i.e. Non-koreans) should be deciding the fate of their country. (I am in no way defending the current North Korean regime).
I completely understand a sovereign nation attacking a 'puppet state' in order to unify it.
(to respond to the grand parent as well) If the Russians were 'boycotting' the UN, then it wasn't the UN, it was just "The Allies".
But that makes the POWs change of attitude less brainwashy and more 'informed' in my opinion.
Say what you will about the US, but I think the results of a Stalinist / Maoist mashup speaks for itself. It is and was pretty obvious who the agressor was in Korea -- the Soviet tanks rolled into North Korea weeks before the Japanese surrender specifically to grab Korean territory. The Northern attack on the south was very clearly a land grab.
Soviet Russia was a founding member of the UN.
An excellent understanding of the UN is in Churchill's "THE SECOND WORLD WAR" books.
Some countries were split into occupation zones between the Western allies and the Soviets. Germany was one. There were four occupation zones: British, American, French, and Soviet. The intention was for a new German government to be formed that would govern all four zones, but negotiations broke down and the Soviet occupied zone formed one government (German Democratic Republic, known as East Germany) and the Western occupied zones formed another (Federal Republic of Germany). This state of affairs continued until the fall of communism, when the East Germans more or less decided to join the Federal Republic giving us today's Germany.
Korea was a similar case. There was no Korean government--it was a Japanese possession since 1910--so, with the intent of punishing Japan and giving the Korean people self-determination, it was temporarily occupied by the Allies until they could set up a democratic government. It was partitioned between the Soviets and the Americans, who, as in Germany, formed opposing governments. And then the North invaded the South--and that's where the war began.
Actually, baseball has existed in Japan since the 1870s. It was in no way a post-WW2 phenomenon.
> Korea was a similar case...
I don't see how dividing up a country among the victors makes any sense, either in the case of Germany or that of Korea. What exactly did they expect to occur after a couple decades had passed?
In Germany's particular case, many of the allies were comfortable with the notion of dividing Germany anyway, since at least that way the Germans wouldn't start trying to conquer the rest of Europe again. But it wasn't the agreed plan, nor was it feasible to salvage the whole country as a democracy, either, nor did it seem wise to let Stalin have the whole country.
Did you consider spending 10 seconds on wikipedia? No. But you still felt it necessary, even after recognising your ignorance, to vomit forth your opinion.
...all that is wrong with the world...
The communists of the 50s were busy starving their own people in great leaps forwards, in the 60s they innovated on that with a cultural revolution; Mao finally dies; China didn't start to stabalize until Deng brought back capitalism.
As far as I know Deng did advocate a more open and free policy when it came to the markets, not in very concrete terms but certainly in veiled terms like "pragmatism" and "we must do whatever works" [1]. I'm not saying Deng made China a Randian libertarian's wet-dream but it seems he did push for free markets a little bit.
[1] http://www.pbs.org/heavenonearth/leaders_thinkers_zedong_xia...
Imitating the free-enterprise model of Hong Kong and Taiwan, decades after those territories had far outpaced China in prosperity. And one of the great advantages China has enjoyed in economic development, as compared to several other territories, is the large number of people who can communicate in local languages (various forms of Chinese) but who grew up without communist influences on their primary and secondary education. "Compatriots" from Taiwan and Hong Kong, and also "overseas Chinese" from many places in southeast Asia played a crucial role in boosting China's economic growth through direct investment after the beginnings of system reform in 1978. (Basis of knowledge: I began studying Chinese during the Cultural Revolution, and have met quite a few people from outside China who have invested over there, after investment began to be permitted.)
In a purely definitional sense, China is at best a hybrid economy now, and was a primarily communist economy long after its economy started booming.
Even to the extent that China's economy is ostensibly privately owned, the government still exercises tremendous control. For example while the banks are joint stock companies, and thus reflect substantial private ownership of equity, the Chinese government still owns the majority of the shares in many of them giving them tremendous power over those banks.
I don't think China can be fairly called a "capitalist" economy. It's a managed economy where the managers have allowed the free market to allocate resources at the lower levels, while the central government directs broader, longer-term economic objectives.
You can mostly thank DXP for all the cheap chinese junk that Walmart started selling in the 90s.
China had the unfortunate luck of being left in ruins when it becoming "Communist". Deng rebooted the whole thing, it remains to be seen whether they will continue communism into the future. To call it "capitalism" is a bit rich (no pun), given all major industries are owned by the government (the people).
The 50s they also brought health care to vast majority of the population. The 60s they increased literacy across the country by simplifying the language, and standardising education.
Should we both just keep cherry picking information to paint our own narrative, or admit this isn't a black and white subject?
It isn't capitalism vs communism. Capitalism is a form of economy, communism is form of government. The mix of those, I believe china call it: "Socialism with chinese characteristics".
The fact primary industry and exports are state owned is a big tick for: Communism. That's true, regardless what you see living there.
(People making money and doing business is not anti-communism, it is where the money goes that makes it "communist").
Isn't the famous Deng quote: It doesn't matter what color the cat is, as long as it catches the mouse.
The communist party doesn't really follow any tenants of Marxism at all. Most are only concerned with propping up their families and embezzling enough money to send their kids to a nice school abroad that doesn't suck.
You've just described "people in power" world wide. It isn't unique to communism, or china.
A huge amount of their economy is state owned[0]
That alone is a tenant of marxism. I'm not particularly interested in "true scotsman" style argument regarding is China 'really communist', as you can easily make the case that the U.S isn't technically a democracy, but it doesn't get us anywhere. It's just an argument of semantics.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_State-owned_enterprises...
China is basically an aristocracy at this point, more so than other countries with corruption. Communist ideology plays little role in politics beyond little red book pissing contests that the left and moderates occasionally get into.
Controversial? Good lord, Mao's Great Leap Forward killed between 23 and 42 million people in just a few years.
Could you say the same for Deng Xiaoping (also a communist)?
Post-Mao, well... Hua was a disaster and Deng was never a good communist. Mao himself accused Deng of being a capitalist and banished him to the countryside in the 60s. Once he finally gained power and brought back mild capitalism (really, market socialism), it still took 20 years for China to really get going.
Sane points: Education, Health, both improved under communist rule.
It's also questionable to define the economic system of Deng's China as "communist" in the same way as Soviet Russia and, say, Cuba.
Starvation was common before communism (this is second hand "communist propaganda" from my father, probably originally from a similar source to the information the Korean POW's were given), but it wasn't concentrated into a few years like in the great leap forward.
The Korean War - 1950 - 1953.
Until the Great Leap, Mao had done a fantastic job. Life expectancies shot up by about 15 years, as he dismantled feudalism, and established a relatively functional and stable state. Then he undid all the good he'd done, in the 1958, sending life expectancies back to ~35. Then things improved again, when Deng and co managed to contain Mao a little better (though they sometimes had ... issues).
tl;dr - Mao had done a fantastic job, up to 1958, which was well after the Korean War ended.
Compare West and East Germany. Compare North and South Korea. Compare Mainland China and Taiwan. And once you've done those comparisons ask yourself about what kind of job the communists have done. Many millions dead. Many more millions in poverty. That's the job they've done.
Where do you think that the economic development of Taiwan would be if it wasn't backed by the US? And where do you think they will be in 20 years, with China constantly rising in power and influence.
I don't think it's controversial to say that they'll probably be part of China, considering that there is even political support for that in Taiwan.
US: ~$50000 Taiwan: ~$39000 EU: ~$35000 China: ~$9000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP...
China's goal posts are not in the same spot as the US's.
Child mortality http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&c...