Comments on: Gregory Henderson Reporting on a Massacre

By: lirelou

lirelou — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:09:02 +0000

One more point I was unaware of. Henderson, as Vice Consul, was not a “diplomat” under the strict interpretation of that term. He may have enjoyed diplomatic immunity, but his day to day duties would have involved dealing with U.S. trade, visas, and citizenship issues, as opposed to the heavier “diplomatic” issues handled by the Ambassador, his Chief of Mission, and those assigned “diplomatic duties” within the Embassy. That he was interested in Korea is undoubted, as he left a valuable collection of Korean celedon to Harvard University’s museum.

By: K. M. Lawson

K. M. Lawson — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:19:12 +0000

I agree with all the problems you mentioned. I am, however, not familiar with all the procedures you have described, which is certainly helpful clarification. It shows that having a more intimate understanding of the appropriate channels of communication within an institutional structure can be important for historians to make the most out of these kinds of documents. Thanks very much for your contribution.

By: lirelou

lirelou — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:03:44 +0000

A good post. I always get suspicious of round numbers, and 40 is suspiciously round. The context, as noted above, is also missing. When reports are entered into intelligence channels, there is supposed to be an effort to qualify the information by laying out the reporter’s level of access to the information, their motive for reporting it, and their assessed reliability. Unfortunately, not all information entered into official channels is subjected to this scrutiny. Often competing staff sections will receive different reports, which they push into the system for their own purposes. Here we have the Vice Consul (Dept of State) receiving a report from a Host Nation military source, which properly should have gone to his Military Attache (Dept of Defence, but working directly for the Ambassador), which was duly pushed into military channels (The Divisional Advisory Detachment, which was under KMAG, a military headquarters responsible to a military chain of command). Small wonder that finding related documents has proven difficult. The line about bayonet practice conjures up images of the Japanese Imperial Army at Shanghai. It may even be true, but Henderson does not clarify whether or not these words are the source’s, or his own “obiter dicta”.

By: K. M. Lawson

K. M. Lawson — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:44:53 +0000

Sem thanks for looking that up!

By: Sem

Sem — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:41:59 +0000

The original quote indeed comes from “The Politics of the Vortex,” p. 167:
“Such traditions [of summary trials] died hard. The Korean War stimulated the process by bringing floods of cases against those
arrested on charges of collaboration with the Communist occupiers. … Additional tens of thousands – probably over 100,000 –
were killed without any trial whatsoever when ROK soldiers and the Counter-Intelligence Corps recaptured such areas of leftist
repute as Yonggwang …”
A note at the end of this paragraph refers to “UNCURK, which detailed many [problems in the administration of justice] in GAOR,
sixth Session, Supplement No. 12 (A/1881), 1951, pp. 20-22.”
I don’t know what these acronyms stand for; in any case, there is clearly no further information as to how he arrives at
these figures.