What do you think?
Rate this book
The Partition of Korea After World War II: A Global History
Drawing on multi-archival research in Korean, Russian and English, this book looks at the complexity and changes in Stalin's policy toward Korea for answers about the division of Korea in 1945 and the failure of reunification between 1945 and 1948. Lee argues that the trusteeship decision is key to the division's origins and permanency.
246 pages, Hardcover
First published May 14, 2006
26 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
Read
July 4, 2021A well-written book! I reccomend it!
The author writes down in a facile manner and because of its structure, two parts explaining two different perspectives, he helps the reader in understanding the influence and the decisions of the Great Powers in a country. With professionalism, Lee did his best in translating the Russian and Korean sources and used the citations in order to outline the damaged history of Korean peninsula and the irreversible changes that took place in the second half of the 20th century.
Using the correspondence and the treaties between the greatest countries of the century and the Korean peninsula, Lee tries to explain the hardest years in Korean history, three years that have cost more than the thirty years under the Japanese rule. In the period between 1945 and 1948 the world has been changed forever for the Koreans because of the decisions of Russia and the United States. At the end of The Second World War the division of Korea took place after the discussions between the USSR and the U.S. according to that the peninsula is split in two halves along the 38th parallel, the north zone under Soviet administration and the other one, the South zone, under Americans. The repeated failures regarding the unification of peninsula is just another mistake of the United States in its agreements with Kremlin. The author also explains how Stalin, the big brother, affected the course of events in North Korea, which became soon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).
In just 248 pages, Lee`s work focus on two dimensions, the first part under the name ‘U.S. an Soviet Policies toward Korea, 1945-1948’ synthesized in three chapters, one explaining the situation in Korea before August 1945, the second one summarizing the political events between August and December 1945 and the last one portraying the situation after 1945 and until 1948. The first part is full of extracts from letters, Treaties and conversations between the U.S. and USSR, but none of them expressing the real wish of Koreans: the independence. Even if Japan gave up on Korea after the Second World War, the peninsula did not receive the independence because the United States applied the same policy in Korea as it did in Philippines. By now, Korea entered under two different administrations because it ‘wasn`t ready for being an independent and self-sufficient state’ and it needed another force to prepare it for the world, policy that was a success in Philippines but a mistake in the Korean peninsula because its consequences were irremediable and irreparable. By mutual agreement, U.S. and USSR divided the peninsula in two different countries, with two governments and ideologies. The Soviets ‘entered northern Korea with the goal of destroying the Japanese plunderers and did not follow the goal of introducing a soviet political order in Korea or of acquiring Korean territory’ and the Americans wanted to set free the Korean population. But for Koreans, what seemed to be freedom was in fact another form of obedience under foreign suzerainty. The second part, entitled ‘U.S. and Soviet occupation policies in Korea an the Korean responses, 1945-1948’, is being representative for the interpretation of Korean history because it explains the reaction of Korean population at the obligation of being again under foreign administration. In just one chapter, the author explains the relationship between the Koreans, the USSR and the United States and the changes that took place after another occupation. The Korean response at the end of `40 and the beginning of `50 will be strong enough to assure independence and in shaping a new ideology and even a new own religion (cheondoism). Worth to mention is that Kim Il Sung, the first leader of North Korea, was being given special attention by the Soviet leaders and, judging by Kim`s autobiography, he formed a strong friendship with Zhdanov and Shtykov. He also mentions that Stalin was interested in him (‘Zhdanov told me he would report to Stalin the results of our meeting. Afterwards, I met with Zhdanov several times and formed a deep friendship with him. It seems Meretskov also told Stalin a lot about me…’ ) and probably this is why Kim was chosen as a leader in the northern Korea while in south there was an American military governor, John R.Hodge.
To conclude his work, Lee explains the factors of the Korean division and how it affected the Korean people. The division of Korea was, in fact, ‘a product of both international and domestic factors while pointing out the importance of the trusteeship decision and the contingent nature of the division.’ There was no evidence that Stalin, in fall 1945, wanted to sovietizing northern Korea or creating a separate North Korean state, and the problem was in fact how the Americans treated the Korean situation. The author agrees that ‘Stalin took the trusteeship more seriously than did the United States’ even if the U.S. came with the idea of using the same policy as in Philippines, and he suggested that ‘had the Unite States taken the trusteeship equally seriously and the Korean Right also supported it, U.S.-Soviet and Right-Left cooperation in Korea could have succeeded and the trusteeship itself could have succeed as a result of witch Korea would have emerged as a united independent nation.’
Therefore, the failure in having a single independent Korea can be found in history and, for this, is necessary a closer look in the territorial discussions between the two world powers, United States and Soviet Union. With a foreign state being involved in a national and ideological problem between the two Koreas, the solution will be never found and it implies an impediment in the unification of Korea because of cultural and political influences that comes from outside. Also, worth to mention is that North Korea and South Korea are still in a war, and even if the two of them have a strong diplomatic relationship, there are still tensions because of north nuclear plan and south development, differences that mark the deep rift, an irreparable mistake, in the Korean peninsula.
The author writes down in a facile manner and because of its structure, two parts explaining two different perspectives, he helps the reader in understanding the influence and the decisions of the Great Powers in a country. With professionalism, Lee did his best in translating the Russian and Korean sources and used the citations in order to outline the damaged history of Korean peninsula and the irreversible changes that took place in the second half of the 20th century.
Using the correspondence and the treaties between the greatest countries of the century and the Korean peninsula, Lee tries to explain the hardest years in Korean history, three years that have cost more than the thirty years under the Japanese rule. In the period between 1945 and 1948 the world has been changed forever for the Koreans because of the decisions of Russia and the United States. At the end of The Second World War the division of Korea took place after the discussions between the USSR and the U.S. according to that the peninsula is split in two halves along the 38th parallel, the north zone under Soviet administration and the other one, the South zone, under Americans. The repeated failures regarding the unification of peninsula is just another mistake of the United States in its agreements with Kremlin. The author also explains how Stalin, the big brother, affected the course of events in North Korea, which became soon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).
In just 248 pages, Lee`s work focus on two dimensions, the first part under the name ‘U.S. an Soviet Policies toward Korea, 1945-1948’ synthesized in three chapters, one explaining the situation in Korea before August 1945, the second one summarizing the political events between August and December 1945 and the last one portraying the situation after 1945 and until 1948. The first part is full of extracts from letters, Treaties and conversations between the U.S. and USSR, but none of them expressing the real wish of Koreans: the independence. Even if Japan gave up on Korea after the Second World War, the peninsula did not receive the independence because the United States applied the same policy in Korea as it did in Philippines. By now, Korea entered under two different administrations because it ‘wasn`t ready for being an independent and self-sufficient state’ and it needed another force to prepare it for the world, policy that was a success in Philippines but a mistake in the Korean peninsula because its consequences were irremediable and irreparable. By mutual agreement, U.S. and USSR divided the peninsula in two different countries, with two governments and ideologies. The Soviets ‘entered northern Korea with the goal of destroying the Japanese plunderers and did not follow the goal of introducing a soviet political order in Korea or of acquiring Korean territory’ and the Americans wanted to set free the Korean population. But for Koreans, what seemed to be freedom was in fact another form of obedience under foreign suzerainty. The second part, entitled ‘U.S. and Soviet occupation policies in Korea an the Korean responses, 1945-1948’, is being representative for the interpretation of Korean history because it explains the reaction of Korean population at the obligation of being again under foreign administration. In just one chapter, the author explains the relationship between the Koreans, the USSR and the United States and the changes that took place after another occupation. The Korean response at the end of `40 and the beginning of `50 will be strong enough to assure independence and in shaping a new ideology and even a new own religion (cheondoism). Worth to mention is that Kim Il Sung, the first leader of North Korea, was being given special attention by the Soviet leaders and, judging by Kim`s autobiography, he formed a strong friendship with Zhdanov and Shtykov. He also mentions that Stalin was interested in him (‘Zhdanov told me he would report to Stalin the results of our meeting. Afterwards, I met with Zhdanov several times and formed a deep friendship with him. It seems Meretskov also told Stalin a lot about me…’ ) and probably this is why Kim was chosen as a leader in the northern Korea while in south there was an American military governor, John R.Hodge.
To conclude his work, Lee explains the factors of the Korean division and how it affected the Korean people. The division of Korea was, in fact, ‘a product of both international and domestic factors while pointing out the importance of the trusteeship decision and the contingent nature of the division.’ There was no evidence that Stalin, in fall 1945, wanted to sovietizing northern Korea or creating a separate North Korean state, and the problem was in fact how the Americans treated the Korean situation. The author agrees that ‘Stalin took the trusteeship more seriously than did the United States’ even if the U.S. came with the idea of using the same policy as in Philippines, and he suggested that ‘had the Unite States taken the trusteeship equally seriously and the Korean Right also supported it, U.S.-Soviet and Right-Left cooperation in Korea could have succeeded and the trusteeship itself could have succeed as a result of witch Korea would have emerged as a united independent nation.’
Therefore, the failure in having a single independent Korea can be found in history and, for this, is necessary a closer look in the territorial discussions between the two world powers, United States and Soviet Union. With a foreign state being involved in a national and ideological problem between the two Koreas, the solution will be never found and it implies an impediment in the unification of Korea because of cultural and political influences that comes from outside. Also, worth to mention is that North Korea and South Korea are still in a war, and even if the two of them have a strong diplomatic relationship, there are still tensions because of north nuclear plan and south development, differences that mark the deep rift, an irreparable mistake, in the Korean peninsula.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 9, 2024
I read this for my thesis, great sources, a focused book with in depth knowledge about the developments of the korean war. Would i have read this if not for my thesis? Probably, no? But nevertheless incredibly important knowledge for researches of korean studies/ east asia studies
June 24, 2016
A short book, but very detailed and well researched look at the forces that lead to a divided Korea today and the political factors that fueled the division after WWII from both the US, Russian and Korean sides. While not a large book it did take some time to ready and digest everything as the book is densely packed with information.
August 1, 2021
Dry academic history
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews