My history teacher brought up the subject of the Korean war and went into the usual liberal analysis. I raised my hand once in class to bring up the point of sanctions and their effect on the DPRK's economy, which she conceded. This is the email I sent afterwards:

1. Who started the Korean War?

The dividing line was drawn by the U.S. without a democratic vote and so that the U.S could have Seoul (which was the traditional capital of the Korean Peninsula) in their occupied territory. (see p. 73 of Gowans’ Patriots, Traitors and Empires, 2018). The Japanese collaboration, concentration camps for leftists, the massacre of student protestors at Syngman Rhee’s palace in 1960 (see p. 349 of Bruce Cumings’ Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History, 2005), were clearly not indicative of a “democratic south”.

"Korea is a major responsibility which we [Amerikans] as a world power have voluntarily assumed. . . . We have committed here some of our most excruciating errors.... Opinion polls show that 64 out of every 100 Koreans dislike us." Mark Gayn in New York Star, November, 1947.

So the U.S. undemocratically divided the North (the Korean peninsula was united beforehand), disregarded the pact with the USSR that the division would only exist temporarily (Gowans, ch. 4), ignored the unpopularity in their occupation of the Republic of Korea, and the North is the aggressor for invading themselves? What nonsense!

2. The people believe that “Kim Il Sung is God”

You are mistaken. The “he is god” notion is a confusion. This is derived from the Ch'ŏndogyo Korean religion (see the Chondoist Chongu party represented by deputies in the SPA) which declares “we are god.” But the idea that it is widely believed that Kim Il Sung created the earth is nonsense. There is no evidence of this idea existing.

What of the notion that you can be punished if you do not have a photo of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il in your home? Again, no such idea exists. Perhaps you are referencing the story “North Korean woman executed for not saving photo.” This story is derived from [an anonymous source] in the tabloid “Daily NK” (original article here), which is funded by the NED. The NED is funded by the U.S. government. (here’s something I’ve wrote on this)

Note: Why these sensationalist stories?

3. Is/Was the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” Democratic?

I have written something on this as well [see here].

4. Is the DPRK an aggressor? And what is the role of “self-imposed” isolation?

Again (again). I have written a short piece on this accessible here.

5. What of the photo of the contrast of lights in the Korean Peninsula?

It is true that the North has an inferior economy (this is due to sanctions first and foremost). Nonetheless, the photo used is inaccurate (see this clip; excerpt from lecture available here).

Note: I’ll link a review I wrote of B. R. Myers’ The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters since the book is cited often and the review has insights on Japanese collaboration in SK and the 2010 shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, which might be helpful.

** Someone mentioned that the calendar revolves around Kim Il Sung’s birth. This is somewhat true, for example the year is Juche 112 in the DPRK (the months are the same though, see KCNA). Many nations have different calendars, so it is not unusual for this to be the case. And it is not unusual that the founder of a nation should be incorporated into the nation’s calendar. Any critiques of a “cult of personality” (ex. the somewhat linear succession of NDC/SAC presidency) are deeply ignorant. This is a criticism of the people for electing a certain family as a direct result of the devastation (3.5 million Koreans were killed by the U.S.) and the original leadership of Kim Il Sung through this. The absolute entitlement to make the critique from the standpoint of the nation that perpetrated the massacre cannot be overstated.

Here is her response: I appreciate your thoughtful effort to clarify. I would love the chance to chat further as I have several wonderings about the information you shared. Shall we schedule a scholarly chat on the matter? Are you free for lunch sometime next week?

And my response to hers:

Sure, I’m free for lunch whenever, although I’m not sure what you mean by “wonderings about the information you shared”? Bruce Cumings is a respected Korean War scholar in the West but Stephen Gowans is not. However, his work is well sourced and derived from a lot of the research done by Gowans.

Perhaps I should clarify the division point. Gowans writes specifically, “At midnight on August 10, 1945, two US army colonels, Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel, were ordered by John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War, to “find a place to divide Korea” to temporarily partition the peninsula into separate US and Soviet occupation zones to accept the Japanese surrender. McCloy, a Wall Street lawyer, would later serve as president of the World Bank, chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank and chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Rusk, a future US secretary of state, and Bonesteel, who would command the combined US and ROK forces in Korea in the late 1960s, chose the 38th parallel as a dividing line because it would place Seoul, Korea’s capital, within the US zone” (p. 73 of Gowans’ Patriots Traitors and Empires); Gowans cites p. 187 of Bruce Cumings’ Korea’s Place in the Sun. The two Americans who divided the peninsula had absolutely no knowledge of it, and thus the division is completely arbitrary colonial-type subjugation with no historical or geographic precedent.

The only issue I can imagine is the two youtube videos. The former is a video which puts the sensationalist stories in context and is by no means a source, merely a means of conveying my perspective whilst keeping the letter succinct. The latter is self-explanatory, a lecture from a scholar at Rutgers University. However, it is unlikely that these brief complaints were the issue, since apparently a meeting is in order. You said next week, this is fine with me.

I'm extremely worried about the meeting. Did I mishandle the emails and how should I approach the "scholarly discussion"? Any help would be appreciated.

Edit: Just noticed the typo in my reply saying that "Gowans sources Gowans" when I should have said Cumings. I have lost.