Hacker News Reader

Comment by w1ntermute | Hacker News Reader

Nobody has explained to me why Korea was even divided up into the North and South in the first place. It should have been left to its own devices after the Japanese empire collapsed at the end of WW2. That is, the US/UN shouldn't have been occupying the South and the USSR/China shouldn't have been occupying the North. Seems to me that the fault should be assigned to all of those countries/organizations.

View on HN

There's no such thing as "its own devices" for a country with no surviving government. All the various countries conquered by the Axis during World War II were occupied by various Allied powers with the intention of reestablishing them as independent countries. Poland and Czechoslovakia, to name two, were occupied solely by the Soviets and was set up as Soviet-controlled puppet states. Japan. to name another, was occupied solely by the United States and was reformed into a fairly pro-Western democratic country, complete with baseball.

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.

> was reformed into a fairly pro-Western democratic country, complete with baseball

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?

The expectation was that dividing Germany or Korea would be a temporary measure until a democratic government was formed. It was never intended to last even one decade. In Germany, three out of four occupied zones signed up for the democratic government which was formed in 1949, only 4 years after the end of the war. The agreed-upon plan was for Germany and Korea to form single, democratic governments, rendering the occupation zones a temporary measure. The fact on the ground was that the Soviets had millions of troops on the ground and surrendering all of Korea, or all of Germany to Stalin would have had grave consequences. No one likes being a divided country, but presumably the South Koreans prefer not being part of North Korea and the West Germans preferred not being part of the DDR.

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.

The problem at the time was the Allied Powers (the Western non-Axis powers and the Soviet Union) were not united about how to resolve the issue of the sovereignty of Korea after the end of World War II. Germany was divided, over in Europe, for much the same reason, but there wasn't an invasion across the line of control between the Soviet occupied zone and the Western occupied zone in Germany, as there was an invasion from North Korea to South Korea in 1950. Perhaps if Stalin's plan had succeeded in Korea, an invasion of western Europe would have followed.

History is written by the victors.

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".

North Korea's fate was decided by the Soviets just as much as South Korea's was by the US. There were even Soviet pilots flying in the North Korean air force in the Korean War. The Soviets didn't have the ironclad control over North Korea that they had over Eastern Europe, but they certainly weren't any less involved than the US was in the South.

That's a pretty good point. They were essentially both puppets of the large powers, and the war pretty much a proxy war.

But that makes the POWs change of attitude less brainwashy and more 'informed' in my opinion.

How could you even make that statement?

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.

It was a whole bunch of nations, united.

Are you suggesting that an alliance (between nations) is equivalent to the United Nations?

Eh yes.

Soviet Russia was a founding member of the UN.

An excellent understanding of the UN is in Churchill's "THE SECOND WORLD WAR" books.

Just like a good alliance of powers = Allies :)

To me, this sounds like "The neighbors were not united about which parent should get custody of the children when they divorced." I cannot fathom why we all would be involved in an internal dispute. And the USSRussia would have invaded western Europe...where the US & allies had set up many military bases?

"Communism" was the "terrorism" of my parents' generation...

Change "custody of the children" to "meth lab" and you'll suddenly understand why the neighbors have an interest in what happens at that other house.

What would you have proposed? Leaving Korea in a state of complete anarchy until they somehow sorted things out?

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.

We couldn't occupy them like we did Iraq?

I just want to see Korea reunited.

All the countries that occupied Iraq agreed on how to rebuild the country. That wasn't the case in Korea. No one in South Korea wants to reunite Korea badly enough to live under a hereditary Stalinist dictatorship, nor does said dictatorship want to give up power, so the situation is at a stalemate.

umm.. a few of Americas lackeys came along for the ride as it was politically expedient. Despite this governments fell. Iraq was America's mess and a few unfortunates followed them on down. I'm not sure there was any agreement on rebuilding, it was, and still is a catastrophic mess. Nothing other than embarrassment should be felt over the humanitarian disaster this adventure was.

I agree with all of that. The fact that the invasion was mostly unilateral is exactly why Iraq wasn't divided after the war, which was my entire point.

Sorry, I see that now. Thanks.

It's like this. You control half of a country. Your Rival controls the other half. Now you both announce to release your half to form a single country but who should rule? If you let your Rival decide, you can bet it's gonna be "his man" and thus in all future dealings, the country would be his ally. Your rival thinks the same way. Hence the dispute. So even if you WANT to be nice and leave it, how can you be sure that the guy who ends up ruling the place isn't your rival's man? So you have a huge reason in staying around and make sure nothing of the sort happens.

Conclusion: Divided States

Nobody's explained it to you? OMG! How you can you have been tortured so?

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com