The leaders of the US are nowhere near being in the league of the late Kim Il Sung. His son is another story and a bit more mysterious.
BTW, there is a lot of controversy about the details of the life of the old man. Some in the ROK claim that he was a phoney, that the real anti-Japanese leader of the 1930s died. Of course, his official biographies had him almost singlehandedly driving the Japanese from Korea and leading all kinds of victorious battles in the USSR during WW II. The most reliable evidence suggests that he rode into Korea in a Soviet tank. But, he did have sufficient local support that he did not need the Soviets to maintain him in power. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Charles Brown <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thursday, May 25, 2000 4:52 PM Subject: Re: seth & defusing korea tensions
>
>
>>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb at jmu.edu> 05/25/00 03:30PM >>>
>Brad,
> 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).
>
>_____________
>
>CB: Would you say that the U.S. is not run by megalomaniacal dictators "
>
>
>___________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
>