|
Here's a good thread on what's going on: https://twitter.com/prchovanec/status/989895930727026689
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
I’m sure all the Koreans who were murdered by the Japanese imperial police (reconstituted under US rule) would be very upset I called the government colonial
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Does China still say they have a claim on Korea?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:I’m sure all the Koreans who were murdered by the Japanese imperial police (reconstituted under US rule) would be very upset I called the government colonial It's just that you keep shrieking about the South being "colonial" and filled with Japanese collaborators while ignoring that the North was just the same, except with a slightly higher proportion of airdropped colonial administrators.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Does China still say they have a claim on Korea?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Does China still say they have a claim on Korea? They never really claimed to. The whole thing about them claiming the Korean kingdoms that were in their modern borders is more about stopping secession in Korean-majority parts of China today than actually taking a chunk out of Korea itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's just that you keep shrieking about the South being "colonial" and filled with Japanese collaborators while ignoring that the North was just the same, except with a slightly higher proportion of airdropped colonial administrators. Sounds like whataboutism, someone call the whataboutist police!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's just that you keep shrieking about the South being "colonial" and filled with Japanese collaborators while ignoring that the North was just the same, except with a slightly higher proportion of airdropped colonial administrators. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
drat, that's a good point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Koramei posted:If they actually do end the war then there'll be no pretense for them to have such massive militaries anymore, and dialing back on that removes a huge amount of the tension and could pave the way for all sorts of other better things. Well, there's also this problem in that we've seen this happen several times over the last 40 years or so: 1. Saber Rattling. 2. People get upset, and then there are conciliatory messages. 3. Part of the conciliatory deal involves aid/bribes/whatever-you-feel-like-calling-it to the DPRK in exchange for some promise or other 4. DPRK breaks some part of the deal (I'm sure examples exist of someone else breaking their part of the deal first) Go back to 1. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt this is a sea change moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Was the Japanese regime revived in the North? No. It was dismantled. Collaborators were tried. Kim Il-sung was a Korean nationalist, whatever his flaws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
The realities in North Korea (and South Korea) are different enough now compared to how they've ever been that IMO this is the most promising in the long line of similar encounters there's ever been. It's not different, but it's the ripest corn in the turd-pile.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
It's almost like post-WW2 both North and South Korea gained sovereignty at around the same point in time, based on the USSR/US post-WW2 agreements and occupation timeline.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Koramei posted:It's not different, but it's the ripest corn in the turd-pile. Pretty much this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Was the Japanese regime revived in the North? No. It was dismantled. Collaborators were tried. Kim Il-sung was a Korean nationalist, whatever his flaws. Was the Japanese regime revived in the South? No. It was dismantled. Collaborators were tried. Syngman Rhee was a Korean nationalist, whatever his flaws. Like come on dude the Soviets even initially had the civilian administration of the area north of the 38th Parallel entrusted to Japanese appointee Cho Man-Sik, who they booted because he wouldn't be quite enough of a Soviet puppet for their tastes. Much like in de-Nazification, both sides stopped well short of any sort of complete removal of the collaborators, and had slightly different standards for which ones they'd accept - but make no mistake they accepted tons of them. It all comes down to the Soviets and Americans not entering Korea in the first place with any sort of coherent plans besides "end the occupation by Japan, occupy it ourselves until some point", and then not having much idea once in place besides "keep Our Side in charge".
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:What a racist perspective to say that South Korea was merely an occupied colony rather than its own nation. You'll find that the usual ilk here aren't exactly quick to allow people/nations their own agency. Then again, given the superior modes of government they outline...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Here's a good thread on what's going on: So short term gains for TRUMP with long term losses for the US. That sure sounds Republican.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Lmao, South Korea was basically a US colony run by former Japanese collaborators. The US and the former imperial government had already massacred over 100,000 people in the south by the time Kim Il-sung "invaded" (except not really, because you can't invade your own country) The North had plenty of japanese collaborators in their government. They basically kept the entire propaganda arm intact and had them replace the words Japan with Korea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The North had plenty of japanese collaborators in their government. They basically kept the entire propaganda arm intact and had them replace the words Japan with Korea. Chomskyan is an Imperial Japan apologist as well so this is a point in their favor to him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
I for one am supremely glad that this has all boiled over and created peace instead of mass irradiation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:So short term gains for TRUMP with long term losses for the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Absolutely nothing about loving off out of Korea is a loss for the US. Eh, if the US backs away or gets maneuvered away from its second most important ally in the region, it kind of puts into question how serious we'll be about standing with other countries when disputes with China arise. I obviously don't think concerns about US credibility are worth fighting a potentially nuclear war over on the Korean peninsula (which is why the US should be finding ways to remain engaged in a productive way instead of going with crazy threats while South Korea is on a very different page), but getting the gently caress out isn't an unambiguous good for the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Eh, if the US backs away or gets maneuvered away from its second most important ally in the region, it kind of puts into question how serious we'll be about standing with other countries when disputes with China arise. I obviously don't think concerns about US credibility are worth fighting a potentially nuclear war over on the Korean peninsula (which is why the US should be finding ways to remain engaged in a productive way instead of going with crazy threats while South Korea is on a very different page), but getting the gently caress out isn't an unambiguous good for the US. This. While a lot of really loving good outcomes for Korea are on the table (including denuclearization, demilitarization, and perhaps even reunification), the U.S.' "contribution" to the rapprochement over the last year and a half has pretty much been to poop its pants and roll around in it. It may be better for South Korea to distance itself from us in the long-run, but I don't think it's in the U.S.' interests at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It may be better for South Korea to distance itself from us in the long-run, but I don't think it's in the U.S.' interests at all. China isn't going anywhere, so I doubt South Korea perceives that as in its interest no matter how the business with North Korea goes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The North had plenty of japanese collaborators in their government. They basically kept the entire propaganda arm intact and had them replace the words Japan with Korea. This is how diplomat Owen Lattimore described South Korea at the time  Do you understand the difference between a government run by collaborators and a propaganda arm maybe (provide a source) being retained? All this nitpicking about South Korea being called "colonial" is pretty irrelevant, I might add. The salient point is that the Korean conflict didn't start in 1950 when Kim Il-sung crossed an arbitrary border drawn by imperial powers as Fojar idiotically implies. It was an ongoing conflict where the US and its South Korean allies had already massacred tens of thousands of people by the time that came to pass. And even if it had, that would not justify the horrific war crimes committed by the US during the war. Red and Black fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Apr 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:China isn't going anywhere, so I doubt South Korea perceives that as in its interest no matter how the business with North Korea goes. Well yeah, but I don't think they would have chosen for the U.S. to not send them an ambassador, either. Trump's been forcing their hand a bit, through his sheer stupidity. That said, yeah, you're right - there's probably a floor for how much relations will devolve. Plus I strongly suspect that Kim will follow in his daddy's footsteps by pulling a 180 on the thaw with the South in a few months' time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Trump's sitting right there just bursting at the seams for the slightest excuse to start ranting about Kim again and justify any backdown on the North's part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
This might work, I think? Or this, I guess? I can't find much about Japanese citizens remaining in North Korea after the end of the war; most accounts were that both Koreas booted all of the Japanese out or as many as they could before the soviets and the us rolled in. E: I'm not seeing anything for South Korea having Japanese citizens left over after the war either E2; goddamn it I can't read Korean or Chinese this is all useless Grapplejack fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Apr 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Absolutely nothing about loving off out of Korea is a loss for the US. Comfortable american liberals are pathologically addicted to maintaining an empire overseas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Eh, if the US backs away or gets maneuvered away from its second most important ally in the region, it kind of puts into question how serious we'll be about standing with other countries when disputes with China arise. I obviously don't think concerns about US credibility are worth fighting a potentially nuclear war over on the Korean peninsula (which is why the US should be finding ways to remain engaged in a productive way instead of going with crazy threats while South Korea is on a very different page), but getting the gently caress out isn't an unambiguous good for the US. Peven Stan posted:Comfortable american liberals are pathologically addicted to maintaining an empire overseas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The US presence in Korea is basically a tripwire force, and it has outlived its usefulness. The ROK is perfectly capable of raining fire and death over their Northern cousins should they choose to. They don't need a big line of bored 19 year-old Americans standing on the DMZ to guarantee enough pissed off voters to get Uncle Sam involved in a potential war. Reducing the US presence to strategic bases away from the DMZ will make everyone involved happier with no loss of security for anyone. US force projection in Korea / Japan is almost entirely about containment of China rather than anything to do with defense of those regions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
friend of mine made this:
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The US presence in Korea is basically a tripwire force, and it has outlived its usefulness. The ROK is perfectly capable of raining fire and death over their Northern cousins should they choose to. They don't need a big line of bored 19 year-old Americans standing on the DMZ to guarantee enough pissed off voters to get Uncle Sam involved in a potential war. Reducing the US presence to strategic bases away from the DMZ will make everyone involved happier with no loss of security for anyone. Unless China or Russia got involved, in which case South Korea needs the credible prospect of American involvement unless it wants to build its own nuclear arsenal. Nevermind the fact that North Korea is already a nuclear power and South Korea isn't. At this point the US isn't there solely for North Korea, and they aren't there solely for the conventional deterrent either, and everyone involved recognizes it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:US force projection in Korea / Japan is almost entirely about containment of China rather than anything to do with defense of those regions. Fojar38 posted:Unless China or Russia got involved, in which case South Korea needs the credible prospect of American involvement unless it wants to build its own nuclear arsenal. Nevermind the fact that North Korea is already a nuclear power and South Korea isn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:This might work, I think? Or this, I guess? I can't find much about Japanese citizens remaining in North Korea after the end of the war; most accounts were that both Koreas booted all of the Japanese out or as many as they could before the soviets and the us rolled in. Japanese collaborators means Koreans who worked with the Japanese over the prior, you know, 30+ years of Japanese annexation before the end of World War II. You can probably imagine why all areas of Korea were full of those and why it remained that way after the war and indeed well past the Korean War itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The US isn't deterring China with camps on the DMZ. It's a tripwire. Any attack on South Korea is going to require nuking/killing Americans which triggers a response up to and including those thousands of ICBM's. It's the same way in the Baltics. Nobody thinks that a few NATO forces are going to solo the entire Russian army, but their presence means that if they want to fight Latvia they need to fight the entirety of NATO. This is intended to be a reassurance to those small countries who are rightfully concerned that the US wouldn't commit to their defense unless there was American blood on the table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It's the same way in the Baltics. Nobody thinks that a few NATO forces are going to solo the entire Russian army, but their presence means that if they want to fight Latvia they need to fight the entirety of NATO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The difference is that the Latvians and Estonians, despite being tough as nails, don't stand a chance if Russia comes knocking. They'd all be up to their necks in the Baltic on like H+12. The South Koreans could credibly stomp the North on their own. North Korea is not a conventional threat to anyone outside of North Korea. But they could not credibly stomp Russia or China, both of whom are also security threats to South Korea, which is what my original point was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:But they could not credibly stomp Russia or China, both of whom are also security threats to North Korea, which is what my original point was. Seriously is this what you got? "What if a Russia/China/DPRK super-axis of almost communism sneak invades Seoul?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I think if Russia starts rolling armored divisions down to the 38th parallel someone might notice. Yeah South Korea should definitely form the basis of their security arrangements on the belief that none of the stronger nearby regional powers would ever attack them because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 02:03
|
|