Stalin's bungling of the Korean War

chimx
Posts: 16 Joined: 16-09-07
Submitted by chimx on 17 September, 2007 - 22:01.

I had asked this question at revleft.com some time ago and never received a suitable answer. Soviet involvement with the DPRK's invasion of the ROK always struck me as completely mismanaged. Not only was Stalin afraid of inciting the United States to declare war on the USSR, but by boycotting the UN Security Council, he basically paved the way for UN invasion.

Since the opening of Soviet archives it has been clearly shown that the USSR was deeply involved with the planning of the Korean War. For example, see this document: Report on Military Situation by Shtykov to Cde. Zakharov. But why did they pick an invasion date that corresponded with a time when the USSR was boycotting the security council due to the bodies non-admittance stance of the newly formed PRC?

Back in January of 1950, the Russian rep to the Security council had walked out for this reason, but we know that Kim Il-sung had been in talks with Stalin over an invasion since 1949 at least. More importantly, the day before this walk-out, Dean Acheson of the U.S. State Department had made a speech stating that Korea was not within the United States "defensive perimeter" and even went so far as to say that any area outside of this perimeter would have to rely on UN intervention. (see for example, this document).

So why would Stalin "OK" an invasion at this time, knowing that the UN most likely would become involved and there be nothing the USSR could do to stop it?

cantdocartwheels "in the aeroplane over the sea"
Posts: 1796 Joined: 15-03-04 Location: London then off to Brighton
18 September, 2007 - 08:36

Huh i would have thought it was obvious. Stalin was quite clearly forced to play his hand and cement russian influence in south east asia in the face the threat fo rising chinese influence after maos takeover in 49. Its a good indicator of the political and economic tensions that existed between these two nation states long before the sino-soviet split blew part the illusion of a unified ''communist'' bloc.

Anyways starting thread about the internal quarrels of state capitalist regimes 50 years ago seems a fairly odd first post for a libertarian communist board confused

,

chimx
Posts: 16 Joined: 16-09-07
18 September, 2007 - 13:16
Quote:
Stalin was quite clearly forced to play his hand and cement russian influence in south east asia in the face the threat fo rising chinese influence after maos takeover in 49.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, especially in regards to southeast asia, unless you are mistakenly labeling Korea as southeastern asia. But if that is the case, Stalin was making greater sacrifices arguably for China by boycotting the UN security council than simply giving the "green light" for a DPRK invasion, which was in turn hindered by fighting for the PRC in the UN at the time.

Quote:
Anyways starting thread about the internal quarrels of state capitalist regimes 50 years ago seems a fairly odd first post for a libertarian communist board

I didn't realize that this history forum was limiting its discussion to moments of libertarian communist experiences. That would probably give us decade to talk about in the entirety of human history. A thread on the FORA in Argentina, maybe two on the Spanish Civil War, and then we would be twiddling our thumbs.

Personally I find Korean history at this time to be particularly interesting. The experience of the CPKI and KPR following Korea's liberation from Japan has some striking similarities to the soviet experience of 1917 before it was undermined by the US and USSR.

cantdocartwheels "in the aeroplane over the sea"
Posts: 1796 Joined: 15-03-04 Location: London then off to Brighton
19 September, 2007 - 09:40

So your claiming that stalin and mao were in some form of united front, all happy and cosy in 1949 then? And yeah koreas in south east asia, where else would you describe it as being.

Korean history is interesting in the sense that your studying one of the 20th centuries longest lasting dictatorships so its ''intersting'' in a macabre sense to see what realistically amounts to a fascist regime bought to its logical isolated conclusion. Don't see much else interesting about it though, its just a really shit country to live in.

Peter "Australian: therefore a liar and a cunt"
Posts: 542 Joined: 09-03-06 Location: Canberra
19 September, 2007 - 11:29
cantdocartwheels wrote:
And yeah koreas in south east asia, where else would you describe it as being.

North-east Asia, ever looked at a globe?

JH
Posts: 354 Joined: 11-02-07
19 September, 2007 - 11:58
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Korean history is interesting in the sense that your studying one of the 20th centuries longest lasting dictatorships so its ''intersting'' in a macabre sense to see what realistically amounts to a fascist regime bought to its logical isolated conclusion. Don't see much else interesting about it though, its just a really shit country to live in.

It also had a very large and influential anarchist movement up until the Korean War. There's more to the world than Spain.

chimx
Posts: 16 Joined: 16-09-07
19 September, 2007 - 15:55
Quote:
Korean history is interesting in the sense that your studying one of the 20th centuries longest lasting dictatorships so its ''intersting'' in a macabre sense to see what realistically amounts to a fascist regime bought to its logical isolated conclusion. Don't see much else interesting about it though, its just a really shit country to live in.

Well that is offensively ethnocentric. Their history isn't worth studying because of an unfortunate despot in power today?

Spain had a dictator in power for quite some time called Franco. Should we not see anything interesting in its history either?

>:(

Quote:
So your claiming that stalin and mao were in some form of united front, all happy and cosy in 1949 then?

In 1950 the USSR was boycotting the UN Security Council so that the PRC would be admitted into the UN instead of the Chinese nationalists. They did this at the cost of the Korean War. That is what I have been saying.

Quote:
North-east Asia, ever looked at a globe?

And yes, Korea is in northern Asia. Vietnam, Laos, etc. are considered to be the area of southern Asia, but Korea is located far north of those countries next to japan.

catch "unpractical[sic] and blinkered"
Posts: 9935 Joined: 07-02-06 Location: London
19 September, 2007 - 19:10

Korea and Japan are usually seen as East Asia, with Siberia as North Asia no?

chimx
Posts: 16 Joined: 16-09-07
19 September, 2007 - 19:12

I've heard it as described as both.