Martin, There is no question that it was extremely important to Kim Il-sung to get the support and approval of the USSR for his full-scale attack on the South. The relationship, at best, was of younger brother-to-older brother, in the Asian style. If you remember that Kim once had been a low-ranking soldier in Stalin's army, then it was quite an achievement for him even to be able to talk to the capo di capos. For his part, Stalin told Kim that he had to get Mao's support and approval as well, thus making it clear who the other elder brother was. At the time there was no question of who the eldest brother was. Stalin's prestige in the world communist movement was enormous and almost beyond question. He also was the only source for Kim of modern weapons, without which Kim's invasion could not succeed. Mao could have offered other material support, but not as certain as Stalin. Kim led a large faction in the North Korean military who had served in the Soviet Army. The other large faction had served in the Chinese PLA. Therefore it was natural that Kim look more to the Soviets for his support. Ironically it was the Chinese who ultimately saved his hide, as they are still propping up his son. When you set up a straw man of "monolithic communism" and then knock it down, I do not think that you really have accomplished anything. You miss or underrate the complexities of the relationships within the international communist movement, as well as between the different national communist movements. Regards, Don ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Dunne Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 4:05 PM To: KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu Subject: RE: Korean-War:UN Peace Keeping
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu
[mailto:owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu]On Behalf Of DONALD KILMER
>Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2002 4:54 AM
>To: korean war
>Subject: Re: Korean-War:UN Peace Keeping
>
>
>
>Really, guys. All it shows is that the communists (those in Moscow as well
as those in
>Beijing and Pyongyang) did not expect the U.S. to respond so decisively,
both on
>the ground and at the U.N., and for the world community to completely agree
with
>the U.S. position.
I can't agree with that. If positions were reversed, I wouldn't accept that
the US boycotted the Security Council because they didn't expect the USSR
and the world to react. I can accept that the Soviets didn't run back on the
morning of the 25th of 1950 because they weren't prepared to lose face.
As I see it, the alternatives are-
1. Communism was not monolithic. Moscow did not direct PDROK to attack.
Moscow would have stayed in the Security Council if they had. Moscow took a
bath.
2. The ROK attacked first.
On the basis of my honours thesis, I choose the first scenario. I flatter
myself to imagine that this was fairly obvious at the time too.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jhk789@aol.com
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 4:33 AM
To: KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu
Subject: Re: Korean-War:UN Peace Keeping
In a message dated 5/9/2002 10:08:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
martindunne@bigpond.com.au writes:
Incidentally, this is the single greatest piece of evidence that Communism
was neither monolithic nor a conspiracy- they had shot themselves in the
foot.
I agree to that.
In fact, it is a strong evidence that there was no real conspiracy or
coordination among N.Korea, Soviet Union and China for launching the Korean
War.
John2
|