View the H-Diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Diplo home page.
Dr. Nichols presents a judgment about the Korean War as a self-evident truth to disagree with those who view the Vietnam War as a civil conflict when he writes that "Letting the North take over the South would be like arguing that intervening in the Korean War was interfering with the Koreans 'determining their own future'." Common sense actually requires acknowledging as obvious that the United States WAS interfering with the right of Koreans to determine their own future. In fact, along with the Soviet Union, it had been doing so at least since August 1945 when the two decided to partition the peninsula. The United States is still "interfering with the Koreans 'determining their own future'" in 2004 as it does in countless countries around the world. Dr. Nichols writes in another post that characterizing the Korean War "as a kind of domestic dispute" is "a fantastic mischaracterization." Many Korea scholars would be surprised to learn that their understanding of this conflict is misguided and the target of such ridicule. I would join them in believing that Soviet-American efforts to deny the Korean people self-determination after World War II was an intrusion into a continuing civil struggle on the Korean peninsula that had its origins in the late nineteenth century. Dr. Nichols asks would "anyone really argue that a massive armored invasion, using Soviet weapons and supported by Soviet air cover, was somehow only a matter of Koreans finding their own common destiny?" My simple answer, without the opportunity to elaborate, would be "yes" to this transparently simplistic question, thereby defying a fellow Korean War scholar's definition of "common sense." In a post from Rob MacNichol, he writes that "Ho was the product of the Comintern. He was not bringing nationalism to Vietnam. It was there before him. Ho brought communism to Vietnam. Communism was not a Vietnamese ideology. It was born out of Western notions." Logically, anyone bringing democracy to Vietnam also would have questionable nationalist credentials, such as Ngo Dinh Diem, would he not? Had the United States not systematically undermined the Geneva Accords which provided a formula for an alien democratic outcome in Vietnam (doing so ironically in the name of defending democracy), mindless destruction and millions of deaths could have been avoided. That is much closer to a self-evident truth than the claim that the conflict in Korea was not by name and nature Korean. James I. Matray Professor and Chair California State University, Chico