How did Kim Il Sung establish a communist monarchy? How did the Korean War and Cold War shape the two Koreas through 1994?

Kim Il Sung established a communist monarchy because he was chosen to rule the people of North Korea, who were ruled under Confuscianism and a certain order and power structure, found this way of life familiar. Kim Il Sung followed the leadership of Stalin. Sung was a man of the people. The people worshipped him and they were rewarded in kind. As the Soviets occupied North Korea and the Americans occupied South Korea there was the clear divide in social structure and a differing system of beliefs over time. Additionally, Sung knew the fates of Mao in China and Stalin's legacies being diminished in their passing. He knew appointing his son into a position of power would not tarnish his legacy.

The Korean War and Cold War shaped the two Koreas because due to the conflicts and political differences families have been separated. Thousands of families were separated because of the border (38th parallel) that separates the North and the South on the peninsula. The Korean War established differing ideologies, Communism in the North with the South moving towards Capitalism. Also, during the Cold War there were hopes of unifying the peninsula but that still has not happened to this day.

As I listen to the video and read through the reading of today, I realize how two countries could remain at odds and alienated for more than 70 years, especially since there was for only a single and unified Korea for centuries which was governed by generations of ruling kingdoms. But thinking of the two opposing superpowers today United States and Russia still struggling for control even now it shows how cold war can last a long time. I remember watch “ Ode to my Father’ a while ago and laughing at some scenes but then crying in  the end but look forward to watching it again.

After the zoom session last night, I found out the answer to the question I posed 'how did the Olympics impact Roh Tae Woo's election in the same year and how did he feel overall about having them there the same year he was elected?'

I was amazed to learn that the Olympics were so important to South Korea's global image at that time and that it had to be a successful event. Also, that Roh Tae Woo wasn't as fearful as hosting them the year he got elected as I would have been if were the new leader coming into the 6th republic. The Olympics to me, is the one global event that puts the spotlight on all the countries of the world every four years, and to think all that goes into it logistically to make it successful and becoming a new leader in a country at the same time is really mind blowing. I also, found it interesting that Korea was one of the few countries to ever host both winter and summer olympic games. Being from Texas, I am almost certain we'd never be asked to host a winter olympics haha. 

         The information gained through the article on “Korea’s 20^th Century Odyssey” was new to me  in most respects and familiar in fewer others.  

            To begin with, it was known to me that the U.S. military went to fight in Korea for reasons that had to do with fears of a new Communistic wave that would spread through the rest of the world, if left unchecked. It was known to me, moreover, that the war engaged the U.S. and Korea in a war that depended on napalm bombing and that there were deaths as a result of such a warfare. At different times, I have had students who told me they had one grandparent who fought during the Korean war. 

              Nonetheless, there were many more things that were unfamiliar to me. For one thing, it was how the war was perceived by the U.S. as a “police action,” or a conflict, but not a war. In this light, the United Nations came to be the overarching commanding entity that became involved and sanctioned the use of weapons for the purpose of defending peace and order. The commander of the United Nations military representation in Korea was an American commander, general MacArthur, who was blamed later for risking the lives of the military by attempting to forge forward, when the outcome would have been potentially disastrous, particularly, when China joined the North Koreans in their effort to defeat the attacks with their own use of weaponry. Some intellectuals were, also, fearful of the onset of the WWIII, if nuclear weapons were part of the subsequent military conflicts on the ground. In the same light, I did not know the confrontations were so intense at different times during the war that would lead to the city of Seoul being overrun four times in the three-year war, assumingly, by both the North Koreans and the South Koreans, which suggests the war front was moving north and south depending on how the military was positioned toward the two major cities, Seoul and Pyongyang, which determined the degree of success of either sides involved in the conflict; that is, if the front line was moving down to Seoul, it meant the North Koreans were being successful in maintaining their defense and they were aggressively moving south to defeat the foreign troops and South Koreans and occupy the entire Korean peninsula. But, if the front line was moving up to Pyongyang, it suggested the UN troops were making progress. 

            Furthermore, other things that were unfamiliar to me were how there were so many victims from both sides, but mostly from the Korean side, regardless of whether they were North, or South Korean. The article points out that there were: “ 33,626 Americans, while hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Koreans(North and South) soldiers, and millions of civilians died in the brutal police action.”(Robinson) The heartbreaking truth was the high death toll of civilians, which makes me think that in every war the civilians are those who suffer the most, even though the government and those involved in directly conflict suffer less. The war ended in a truce, also, although I thought it ended after two-to-three years. This makes it clearer why today the situation between the North and South Koreas are still intense, and there is military at the border division between the two countries, which remained the same ever since the first establishment of the 38 parallel division line before the outbreak of the war. 

            Finally, the article spoke about North Korean’s bunker mentality, which was something I did not know, and how such a mentality originated in the fear the country has of a future threat of bombing. That the country was devastated  during the war is the cause of this fear and the hatred that exists in the history of North Korea towards the West, and in particular, towards the U.S. that had caused all the devastation. The thought that the country was able “ with “the tenacious will of the government, the determined leadership of the centralized mass party” to make the country stand on its own feet is a testament of how strong the government exerts its influence on the people. The author describes the people’s bunker mentality as paranoia, which had led to the building of “defenses and strategic industries into Korea’s ubiquitous granite hills and mountains.” (Robinson)The use of nuclear weapons is one way the country could defend itself and that is a scary reality. The latter explains why not only the West but also China, Japan, and South Korea are on the alert and supporting sanctions on North Korea to keep the area safe. The U.S. is also supportive of such measures because any nuclear  conflict has global consequences. 

       There were several things that I learned through this video clip, which helped me understand better the history and the reality of the two Koreas currently. 

            First, it was that North Korea was invaded by the Soviets and the South Koreans by the Americans at the end of  WII. Koreans could not agree on a single government, so they had to establish their own government and the country was divided along the 38 parallel line several miles north of Seoul. The instability of a political government allowed for the establishment of a centralized government, or the involvement of foreign powers, as it was what happened in the above political contexts.  Dynastic Communism rules in North Korea, whereas democracy rules the government in South Korea. Students benefit from knowing how government plays a role in the shaping of the life of a country. 

            Over the course of the presentation, also,  it became clearer to me that governments have a big influence over history and culture. The first president of North Korea, Kim II Sung, had no significant political education, or family lineage, but because of his experience as a guerrilla fighter in Manchuria, he learned the tactics to win the game of politics and, thus, he won the first presidential seat of North Korea, and it seems he became the reason for the establishment of socialist monarchy and dynastic socialism in the country that would inform all the subsequent types of government. Such government types explain the anti-capitalistic ideologies that define the life of North Koreans versus their counterparts in the South. Being anti-capitalistic, though, suggests there are lurking seeds of anti-U.S. ideologies, which might not be espoused necessarily by the people but they are supported by the government, unless the government changes its ruler and the ruler shows signs of being more willing to keep open the paths of communication with the outside world. 

            In contrast to North Korea, South Korea had to go through a rough path to the establishment of its  government, just because it deviated from the path of a centralized government ideology. It was unknown to me that South Koreans had to experience some form of dictatorship before they reached the current state of democracy. During the presentation it was made clear to me how the reason for such turbulent times was the fear that existed in the South for an imminent threat from the north in the form of another military campaign, or the threat of communism, which resulted in a strict and centralized government  such as that by Rhee, who eliminated opponents and was considered “ a ruthless ruler.”  But through subsequent governments, who contributed in different ways to write the constitution, democracy was coming to be a stronger influence. It surprised me to learn there were, also, student protests that contributed to the democratization of the government over time. It was interesting to learn that the rapid economic growth that followed the government of Roh Tae Woe was a more certain assurance of the road to democratization that was paved for South Koreans. Nonetheless,  such a process would not have been achieved, overall, according to the information in the presentation, if it was not for “the struggles by the students, intellectuals, and workers.” The case with South Korea is a good example to show how the path to democracy is a path hard won for every country, as it happened in the U.S. in the colonial times. 

Angelique--

The link on the adopted children from South Korea was really interesting and  reminded me of "Ode to My Father" and the sense of loss the brother experienced from having lost his father and baby sister during the Korean War. In both contexts we see how the issue of family and belongingness is foregrounded as a cultural value that was jeopardised because of the Korean conflict in the case of the movie, but I wonder what the reason was for the adoption of children in large numbers from south Korea in later years. I knew about Chinese adoptions, mostly of girls, but not of the same practice in South Korea. Is it possible to conjecture that, since the Korean War that has officially not ended because of the division between the two countries that keeps the two countries still apart economically and politically, such a reality has given rise to this sense of loss  to a deeper extent than it would otherwise would have been. Is the sense of loss the mature  individuals speak and communicate through the tone of their talk, as they recollect their experiences of adoption and loss of a sense of belongingness, then, a byproduct   of a collective sense of loss from being raised away from "the mother country,"   instead of just a consequence of an individual sense of loss as a result of having grown up feeling "given away" by their  natural families?  Thankful for the insightful link.