South Korea doesn’t count, you can’t invade yourself
North Korea and South Korea were separate entities following the surrender of Imperial Japan, with the North administered by the Soviets and the South administered by the US. North Korea 100% invaded South Korea, both with troops and supporting insurgency groups.
They were not though, neither the communists nor the Japanese collaborators believed the line was a legitimate or permanent division of the country. The plan was always reunification and no Korean party accepted the terms you're talking about.
Ironically there was an independent government emerging in the wake of the collapse of Japan but the US occupation outlawed it when they came in.
The People's Republic of Korea was basically the Korean government in exile during World War II. I think they merged into the DPRK after the US refused to let them take control of South Korea, even though they were the legitimate government of Korea.
I think that's a slight exaggeration, although I get what you're saying. But I think it's important to demonstrate to libs that I'm being consistent so I'll explain what I mean.
I don't think the communal decision making bodies that spun up in the wake of the Japanese evacuation were necessarily completely aligned with Kim or the communists in exile, it was virtually impossible to maintain a functioning domestic apparatus and what I've read makes it seem like these were mostly improvisational.
That said, I think in the long run you're right, I see it as similar to Vietnam later: because US foreign policy was aligned with elements that were naturally unpopular to the population of the country (in Korea's case, the Japanese and domestic collaborators) a democratic resolution of the question of what sort of government a united Korea would chose for itself was not going to be an acceptable outcome to the US.
But we don't know what they would organically choose for themselves because that decision was foreclosed by US occupation. I suspect a popular referendum was the best possible outcome but I think it would probably look very different from the current DPRK, for understandable reasons.
It is true that there are big differences in the ideology of the PRK and the DPRK, but the DPRK still was made as a sort of reconstitution of the PRK government
My point was more this. In the American Civil War, the South was a breakaway region. In the Korean War, the North and South were separate countries with separate governments. The government of the North invaded the South. Period.
Before this gets brought up, the governments of both countries were authoritarian turds.
The US created south korea out of thin air at the end of WWII, literally just drawing a line on a map.
Then they both held elections. The south's election was rigged by the US, who used their sway at the UN (the USSR was boycotting at the time and PRC still hadn't been accepted) to get South Korea's puppet state recognized as the gov't of all Korea, including the parts that didn't even have the US's sham elections. As preparation to invade the north, the US purged any non-compliant elements from the gov't (going so far as to put compradors who'd worked for Japan during occupation in high ranking positions) and carried out massacres of elements likely to side with communists (such as rural villages that lead communal lifestyles).
The north saw America was coming for them and the longer they waited, the worse position they'd be in.
Well you're a dumbass if you can't understand this lol. What the fuck does the American Civil War have to do with this? Nobody forced the slavers to make a separate country. Meanwhile the US forced the south of Korea to set up a government and refuse any discussion with the rest of Korea. You can define invasion however you want but it's nonsense to define how you're trying other "governments tm" being how you define it
North Korea and South Korea were separate entities following the surrender of Imperial Japan, with the North administered by the Soviets and the South administered by the US. North Korea 100% invaded South Korea, both with troops and supporting insurgency groups.
They were not though, neither the communists nor the Japanese collaborators believed the line was a legitimate or permanent division of the country. The plan was always reunification and no Korean party accepted the terms you're talking about.
Ironically there was an independent government emerging in the wake of the collapse of Japan but the US occupation outlawed it when they came in.
The People's Republic of Korea was basically the Korean government in exile during World War II. I think they merged into the DPRK after the US refused to let them take control of South Korea, even though they were the legitimate government of Korea.
I think that's a slight exaggeration, although I get what you're saying. But I think it's important to demonstrate to libs that I'm being consistent so I'll explain what I mean.
I don't think the communal decision making bodies that spun up in the wake of the Japanese evacuation were necessarily completely aligned with Kim or the communists in exile, it was virtually impossible to maintain a functioning domestic apparatus and what I've read makes it seem like these were mostly improvisational.
That said, I think in the long run you're right, I see it as similar to Vietnam later: because US foreign policy was aligned with elements that were naturally unpopular to the population of the country (in Korea's case, the Japanese and domestic collaborators) a democratic resolution of the question of what sort of government a united Korea would chose for itself was not going to be an acceptable outcome to the US.
But we don't know what they would organically choose for themselves because that decision was foreclosed by US occupation. I suspect a popular referendum was the best possible outcome but I think it would probably look very different from the current DPRK, for understandable reasons.
It is true that there are big differences in the ideology of the PRK and the DPRK, but the DPRK still was made as a sort of reconstitution of the PRK government
Foreign powers unilaterally divided the country in half, and the actual country itself just has to accept it?
My point was more this. In the American Civil War, the South was a breakaway region. In the Korean War, the North and South were separate countries with separate governments. The government of the North invaded the South. Period.
Before this gets brought up, the governments of both countries were authoritarian turds.
The US created south korea out of thin air at the end of WWII, literally just drawing a line on a map.
Then they both held elections. The south's election was rigged by the US, who used their sway at the UN (the USSR was boycotting at the time and PRC still hadn't been accepted) to get South Korea's puppet state recognized as the gov't of all Korea, including the parts that didn't even have the US's sham elections. As preparation to invade the north, the US purged any non-compliant elements from the gov't (going so far as to put compradors who'd worked for Japan during occupation in high ranking positions) and carried out massacres of elements likely to side with communists (such as rural villages that lead communal lifestyles).
The north saw America was coming for them and the longer they waited, the worse position they'd be in.
Well you're a dumbass if you can't understand this lol. What the fuck does the American Civil War have to do with this? Nobody forced the slavers to make a separate country. Meanwhile the US forced the south of Korea to set up a government and refuse any discussion with the rest of Korea. You can define invasion however you want but it's nonsense to define how you're trying other "governments tm" being how you define it
most historically literate liberal
Death to America