Although I think he has overdone some of his rhetoric in this debate, I have to side with Tim on this one. The evidence from Bruce Cumings' work and that of other serious scholars is pretty clear. Both the US and the USSR largely withdrew for a period of time in the late 1940s. Kim Il Sung was the leader of a genuinely nationalist anti-Japanese movement and had great credibility and support because of that, even if later he proved to be a megalomaniac dictator (yes, I agree with that characterization).
If he did not have strong indigenous support, why did the US shut down the locally initiated government in Seoul and insist on imposing the regrettable Syngman Rhee? They were fearful that this spontaneous local group would end up supporting Kim Il Sung. This is pretty clear. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Brad De Long <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thursday, May 25, 2000 1:19 PM Subject: re: seth & defusing korea tensions
>>As for the hegemonism issue, its clear to all Koreans that the only
>>significant foreign military presence in Korea for the past 50 years
>>has been the US...
>>
>>Tim Shorrock
>
>
>The Soviet Union's installation of and support for the Kim Il
>Sung-Kim Jong Il regime doesn't count as "hegemonism"? Absent the
>Soviet Union, it seems to me that the chances that a regime like that
>of Kim Jong Il maintaining power in North Korea would have been
>zero...
>
>
>Brad DeLong
>