4 ms·

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 sovereign

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.

stephengillie 13y ago
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...
- philwelch 13y ago
  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.
  - stephengillie 13y ago
    We couldn't occupy them like we did Iraq? I just want to see Korea reunited.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      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.
      - lostlogin 13y ago
        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.
        philwelch 13y ago
        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.
        lostlogin 13y ago
        Sorry, I see that now. Thanks.
- jessedhillon 13y ago
  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.
- xerophtye 13y ago
  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
Volpe 13y ago
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".
- philwelch 13y ago
  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.
  - Volpe 13y ago
    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.
    - Spooky23 13y ago
      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.
- willvarfar 13y ago
  It was a whole bunch of nations, united.
  - Volpe 13y ago

stephengillie 13y ago

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...

philwelch 13y ago
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.
- stephengillie 13y ago
  We couldn't occupy them like we did Iraq? I just want to see Korea reunited.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    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.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      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.
      - philwelch 13y ago
        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.
        lostlogin 13y ago
        Sorry, I see that now. Thanks.
jessedhillon 13y ago
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.
xerophtye 13y ago
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

Volpe 13y ago

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".

philwelch 13y ago
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.
- Volpe 13y ago
  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.
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    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.
willvarfar 13y ago
It was a whole bunch of nations, united.
- Volpe 13y ago