my reading the history I think Kim and Rhee's intentions were to take over each
certainly were behaving like other Asian Warlords with their tactics creating
the other an excuse to retailiate. Kim prepared better
and when he had the strength he attacked.
Kim locking up Stalin's and Mao's support using the fear of the Allies
has for decades protected Mongolia from the Japanese and most certaily would not
allow any incursion from Allied powers. Rhee OTOH did the same thing to
the US powers to get them involved.
the Peace talks the US all but threatened Rhee to not restart the war.
big concessions to make sure the 38th parrelle stayed that way with US economic
rate all the superpower got tired ultimatley wasting resources
civil war nobody was going to get anything out of.
Was Kim Il Sung Justified to Invade Seoul?
The terrorist attacks of 9-11 on the American homeland
is justification enough for the US to wage war on Afghanistan and
possibly on other countries - Iraq, North Korea and other 'rogue'
Kim Il Sung stated in his declaration of war address in June 1950 that
his troops were retaliating against attacks by Rhee's terrorists.
Until recently, American historians depicted Rhee Syngman as a man of God
(indeed, Rhee taught Sunday school in America for some 20 years), of peace (in
fact, Rhee kept on harping - March North, 'buk-jin', and sent his goons up
north to kill "Reds") and of democracy (Rhee had his political opponents
shot). Volumes of contrary facts have emerged and even the most rightist
historians now accept that Rhee was no Saint.
Pyongyang claims that North Korea was provoked into invading
Seoul. Was Kim justified? Was the US right to save Rhee's