Through my
research over the past few days, and much to my chagrin, I have begun to
uncover yet another dark fragment of the Korean War. Originally, I was under
the impression that the invasion of South Korea in 1950 was primarily owed to
either Russia’s agenda of communist dissemination, or an exercise of power from
the newly appointed, Kim Il Sung. While both of these are important
contributions to the conflict, evidence suggests there are other factors at
play as well.
An exchange
of dialogues took place in the year preceding the invasion between Stalin and
Kim (1949). The exchange reveals Stalin’s initial dissent towards the idea of
engaging in military conflict with the South. However, the attitude shifts towards
a positive stance at the start of 1950. The question that emerges is, what
altered the position of the USSR? A number of things may have contributed to
this decision, as historians may point out. One thing being a certain level of
tranquility obtained over the recently emerged, and communist, People’s
Republic of China, following a civil war. Another possible contributing factor
may have been the Soviet’s acquisition of successful nuclear warheads in August
of 1949. There are two, possibly lesser known, facts that also exist.
The first of
these I contribute to the outspoken demeanor of the U.S. appointed president of
South Korea. On numerous occasions, he was known to have spoken of invading
North Korea, boasting of the strength of South Korean soldiers. Ironically,
this eventually led to a fear of trust between him and the U.S., causing a withdrawal
of resources, as well as limited provisioning of rifles and ammo (excluding tanks
and artillery). The extent to which the
USSR took him seriously is uncertain.
The second
issue, which was a failure on the part of the U.S., came from the speech of the
51st secretary of state, Dean Acheson. During a speech in January of
1950, Acheson failed to include South Korea within the defense perimeter of the
U.S. This mistake, although unknown to the USSR and N.K., may have acted as the
green light for the invasion.
The exact impact
of these issues still remain unclear, however I think they are each worth
noting.
-As always,
your thoughts and perspectives are welcomed in this quest for knowledge.
https://web.viu.ca/davies/H323Vietnam/Acheson.htm
- Excerpts of Acheson’s Speech
Still
looking for a good excerpt of Syngman’s speech – Updates to follow
Hi Cameron,
ReplyDeleteAs I've continued my research, I've found a lot of research that contradicts my initial assumptions as well. While this may have been due to my lack of knowledge of the perception of old age/geriatrics in Ancient Greece in the first place, the information I am gathering is far more interesting than I would have ever imagined, and I hope you feel the same way about the intricacies of the conflict you unveiled through your research! Sometimes I get really discouraged when I have to diverge from the plan, and this is a bad trait for me to possess.
Overall, it would be really interesting to see if those two factors did have an impact on the invasion!
CB
Yes, like to see this progress in research. Very interesting approach to letting us know how your research has evolved.
ReplyDelete