Comments on: Duelling histories? Part 2

By: j

Sat, 01 Apr 2006 20:24:47 +0000

Besides whatever the motives may be, one should be aware that none of the articles included in that book are new. They are all articles that were published elsewhere before hand, and just complied for this edition. Most of the articles could be said to be “revionist” in the Korean historiography sense, and some were published either by the same writers who had previously taken a more leftist stance, or by writers in who were educated in the US (thus distanced from the more leftist/nationalist stance of the most Korean historians). Also, as the chief editors note, there were numerous other articles that they wished to includ, but couldn’t, cause the original authors did not want to be associated with this book which was getting too much attention from the media as part of the “new right” movement. I would say, if it was not for all the politically charged attention, the book is worth attention, if only as a glance of the more diverse and recent interpretations regarding post-liberation Korean history.

By: Owen

Owen — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:29:15 +0000

Since there seems to be some misunderstanding about this and I’ve been accused elsewhere of believing things that I don’t, I’ll give my opinion on the first three points above.

On 1, my opinion would be that the superpowers share the blame for the division. The Soviets accepted General Order no ! in August 1945 so they could get a chunk of the peninsula. After that both sides set about setting up their respective systems and fostering their proteges – division was pretty much inevitable.

Yes, no. 2 is pretty one-sided. I don’t disagree that it was primarily an international war rather than a civil war but obviously it was about rivalry between the two superpowers. Remember though, that what I have written above is a simplified version of an already simplified account of what is inside the book so the argument there might be more subtle.

On 3, I would also tend to agree with the older book, although I’m no expert on the politics of the 1950s in South Korea. Rhee was, after all, a man who had even moderate democratic opponents put to death.

I’d like to know more about the recent stuff from the Soviet archives because the documents I’ve heard about indicate that Stalin wanted Kim Il Sung to initiate the Korean War.

By: JS Narins

JS Narins — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 01:19:17 +0000

The documentary evidence I’ve seen presented seems to support the former view, for numbers 1,2, and 3.

I thought the most recent releases from the Soviet Archives showed that Uncle Joe was dead set against a Kim invasion.

#2 seems the most awful. Only the Soviet Union was engaged in an anti-western campaign, but Truman had no anti-communist strategy? The Domino Theory existed then, too.

By: Song

Song — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:45:51 +0000

Owen, after reading your reply, I went back and read some more articles.
And it turned out that Roh’s “blood flowed backwards” after reading the 1979 book.
Not because he was against it but because he was frustrated at the political situation back then.
This alleged comment is suggesting that Roh shares the similar understanding of Korean history with the 386 generation (leftist students in the 80’s).

As for the right in Korea, this year’s book somehow helps them to denigrate the 1979 publication.
Yet the new work is not as rightist as they expected to be.

By: Owen

Owen — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:43:39 +0000

Two things: First, I'm confused now about Roh's statement. I believe he is alleged (by Pak Chi-hyang in her introduction and subsequently by various newspapers) to have said that he felt angry (lit. that his 'blood flowed backwards') while reading the old 1979 book, not the new one. It has now been shown that he has never even mentioned the original book (해전사) in any of his speeches. See this Oh My News article. Second, although the right in Korea are clearly using this in an attempt to bash a certain left view of history and certain people in particular (Kang Man-gil comes to mind), this doesn't necessarily mean that they will like the content of the book when they actually read it. I think I'll also have to reserve further judgement until I've read the book.