High schools switch history textbooks
December 04, 2008
Faced with an ideological debate over history, dozens of high schools in Seoul intend to switch the modern history textbook they currently use, and schools elsewhere are expected to follow suit. According to the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, 30 to 40 high schools withdrew their order for Kumsung Publishing’s textbook for the coming year. That textbook was deemed the most leftist by the government. Textbook authors criticized the government and local education offices for pressuring schools to switch texts.
“The number doesn’t matter. The problem is that the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education tried to persuade principals of Seoul high schools to adopt a different textbook,” said Kim Han-jong, a history education professor of Korea National University of Education. Kim is also an author of the Kumsung textbook.
The change occurred after education offices in cities and provinces dissuaded schools from using the Kumsung textbook after the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology asked textbook publishers to make changes to their texts.
The Seoul education office gave instructions in early November to principals, school committee members and parents at Seoul high schools under the name of “correcting leftist textbooks.” The Seoul education office also asked high schools to report whether they would keep using the history textbook they currently use or switch to other textbooks.
Kyunggi Girls High School in southern Seoul recently proposed dropping the Kumsung textbook to its school committee but it finally decided to continue to use the textbook due to opposition from teachers.
Kumsung and four other publishers reportedly plan to modify textbooks in line with the government guidelines despite protests from their authors.
By Limb Jae-un Staff Reporter [jbiz91@joongang.co.kr]
[Editorial] Goverment’s distortions of history are no way to overcome the economic crisis
This administration’s attempt to distort history is reaching its zenith. It has issued a general mobilization of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology; offices of education in the country’s provinces and independent cities; and high school principals to revise textbooks in a negative direction and for education that glorifies the Cold War and dictatorship. The other day the Education Ministry directed the publisher of one version of the textbook to make revisions to 55 points in the text. It is readying for a fight, invoking its authority to order revisions, something that is already legally controversial, after the book’s authors rejected what were initially just the ministry’s formal recommendations. The law on school textbooks (Article 26) says the education minister “has the authority to order revisions,” but the Korean Authorized Textbook Association is of the view that the ministry does not get to use that part of the law as the basis for issuing orders for “authorized revisions.”
Schools are in states of chaos because of friction between principals and teachers over the cancellation of their selections of the Kumsung Publishing version of the book “A Modern and Contemporary History of Korea.” The schools are following along because of the coercion coming from their local offices of education, which are invoking their authority over appointments and budget allocation, but they are trampling on the system in place for textbook selection and even on educational autonomy, so serious aftereffects are to be expected. Some offices of education are tightening the reigns on their schools by telling them to report on the results of their “reselection.”
The Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education is going ahead with its Special Lectures on Modern Korean History, distorting modern and contemporary Korean history, and is ready to spend 300 million won on it. The lecturers slated for the series include Lee Dok-bok, Ahn Byeong-jik, Ryu Keun-il, men who are either government scholars or commentators with ultra-right views and who do not specialize in history. Schools are being turned inside out because of discord between parents organizations, teachers organizations and the school authorities who are pushing ahead with the plan. Amidst all this, the SMOE is strong-arming schools that have resisted participating in the special lectures into having them anyway.
The “history” the administration is trying to instill in students was well revealed yesterday in lectures by Lee Dong-bok and Gang Wi-seok. During the years under President Park Chung-hee “it was common to have abnormal things happen by being taken away and having hot red pepper water poured down your throat, but if we'd gone a normal route we would not have the Republic of Korea that we have today. Democratic methods are right, but efficiency does not increase,” [one of them] said. In other words, destroying freedom and democracy is okay if it is done for the sake of efficiency. You even heard such far-fetched logic when Lee declared, “If the 38th parallel had not been drawn, the Soviet Army would have taken over the Korean Peninsula, and you might have become just like our fellow Koreans languishing in North Korea.”
The whole country is downtrodden because of the economic crisis. This is not the time to be absorbed with absurd distortions of history and a war of ideology. Looking at the way this administration is behaving, you’d think that distorting history is the way to overcome the economic crisis. The national economy is the immediate problem, but history will record this as having messed things up for the long-term.
Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]
The National Institute of Korean History says that the South Korean government should be described as the only legitimate government in Korean history textbooks.
It also said that the establishment and development of the North Korean regime should be described from an objective and critical viewpoint.
The institute added that textbook publishers should be careful about quoting North Korean materials, as they are published for propaganda purposes.
The Education Ministry said that the institute presented the report on directions to revise Korean history textbooks after reviewing six modern and contemporary textbooks. The ministry will soon rewrite Korean history textbooks based on the report.
The rewritten textbooks will be used starting from March next year.
Gov't Advises Revision of 'Leftist' History Textbooks
2008-10-30 16:00:04
The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology has advised authors of allegedly “leftist” history textbooks to modify problematic phrases or expressions.
The ministry on Thursday said that after its review of six modern history textbooks for high schools, it has decided to send to publishers its recommended re-wording for 55 phrases after consulting a history textbook experts’ council.
The ministry added that the authors agreed to modify 102 other phrases voluntarily.
The phrases subject to revisions contain allegedly negative views about South Korea’s history and misleading information about North Korea's communist regime.
The revisions will be reflected in new history textbooks to be used starting March of next year.
Textbook Writers Reject Gov’t Recommendations
2008-11-04 16:45:10
The writers of Korean modern history textbook have turned down the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology’s revision recommendations.
Sangmyung University Professor Chu Chinoh, and eight others, criticized the ministry for initiating the revision of textbook content based on the ruling camp's suggestions.
The writers said that, although they could not find any “leftist” content in the disputed texts, the government issued some 50 recommendations to justify revision. They added that the recommendations were merely editing corrections.
The textbook writers said the government is setting a bad precedence in that changes in power can bring about textbook revisions.
Academics Call for Textbook-Revision Halt
2008-11-11 13:46:34
Both domestic and foreign historians have asked the government to halt its request for textbook revisions, which they see as a detrimental move to education’s independence from politics.
More than 600 historians are saying that the Education Ministry’s recommendation that modern history textbooks be revised suppresses academic and ideological freedom.
The historians claim the Korean government is trying to rewrite history textbooks to suit its own taste.
They called on the ministry to respect the achievements of historians, guarantee education’s political neutrality, and stop pressuring publishers and authors to make unnecessary revisions.
Gov't Orders History Text Revision
2008-11-28 09:52:43
The government has ordered domestic publishers to revise the content of Korean modern history textbooks, issuing letters ordering the publishers to make the revisions
The Education Ministry says it suggested the publishers make a total of 55 revisions to related textbooks. But after receiving revision plans from six publishers last month, the ministry decided to make less than half the recommended revisions.
An official from the ministry says the publishers will have until Sunday to comply with the revisions or stronger measures will be taken, such as revoking textbook publishing licenses.
Publishers to Revise Controversial History Textbooks
2008-11-29 13:37:08
Publishers of school textbooks on Korea's modern history sent a document to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology on Friday night, promising to revise their controversial descriptions of some historical events.
A ministry official said that five of six publishers have expressed their willingness to accept the ministry's request for revisions.
The official added that while the ministry has yet to discuss the revisions with the authors, it is up to the publishers and the authors to resolve copyright issues.
The ministry plans to announce its final position early next month over the proposed revision of history textbooks.
30 Seoul High Schools to Switch History Textbooks
2008-12-03 13:53:41
Many of the high schools in Seoul will begin using modern history textbooks other than ones published by Kumsung Publishing Company.
Thirty high schools will replace the current Kumsung textbooks which the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education says are leftist in ideology.
As a result, 36 percent of Seoul high schools will now use the Kumsung modern history textbook, down from 51 percent.
The change comes after high school principals attended a conference on modern history textbooks hosted by the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education last month.
Gov’t Revises History Textbooks
2008-12-17 13:58:46
The government will make hundreds of revisions to high school history textbooks, which the current administration considers left-leaning.
The Education Ministry said it approved 206 textbook revisions after receiving revision plans from publishers and consulting with a panel of history textbook experts.
The ministry will now prepare for the publication of the new textbooks and plans to begin distributing the revised editions to schools in mid-January.
But distribution could be disrupted if the court rules in favor of authors who have requested the revisions be halted.
• I am now preparing to file a suit with the Constitutional Court and will seek an injunction order as well. (출처: The Korea Herald)
“나는 현재 헌법재판소에 권한쟁의 심판청구와 집행 정치 가처분 신청를 준비 중에 있다.”
• The main reason behind a prolonged slump in consumption, which takes up a considerable portion of domestic demand, is the fall in consumers` disposable income, the report said. (출처: The Korea Herald)
“내수 침체 장기화의 주된 원인은 소비자의 가처분소득 감소에 있다”고 보고서는 밝혔다.
• The group of Seoul City officials, law experts and ordinary people also requested the court to order suspension of the project to relocate Korea`s capital from Seoul to South Chungcheong Province until it rules on the petition. (출처: The Korea Herald)
서울시 의원, 법률 전문가, 일반 시민으로 구성된 헌법소원의 청구인단은 헌법재판소의 결정시까지 신행정수도건설추진위원회 활동을 전면 중지시켜달라는 취지의 가처분 신청도 함께 제출했다.
• Disposable income grew 5 percent last year but incomes for the self-employed, which account for a third of the national work force, shrank 3 percent, said Oh. (출처: The Korea Herald)
지난해 가처분소득은 5% 증가했지만 전체 경제활동인구의 3분의 1을 차지하고 있는 자영업자들의 소득은 3% 감소했다”고 오 이코노미스트는 말했다.
• High oil prices are expected to elevate consumer prices, reducing the disposable income of households and disrupt the recovery of domestic consumption. (출처: The Korea Herald)
고유가는 물가를 올리고 이는 다시 가계의 가처분소득을 줄여 내수 회복을 가로막을 것으로 보인다.
• The gross domestic investment ratio - total capital divided by the nation`s disposable income - came to 25.7 percent, slightly down from 26.7 percent from a year earlier. (출처: The Korea Herald)
총자본을 가처분소득으로 나눈 국내 총투자율은 25.7퍼센트로 1년 전의 26.7퍼센트에서 소폭 하락했다.
• The nation`s gross savings ratio - savings to total disposable income - stood at 30 percent in the first quarter, down from 31.1 percent a year earlier, as growth for disposable income slowed, BOK said. (출처: The Korea Herald)
한국의 가처분소득에 대한 저축의 비율인 총저축율은 1분기에 가처분소득 증가율이 둔화됨에 따라 30퍼센트로 1년전의 31.1퍼센트에서 떨어졌다고 한국은행은 말했다.
• Civic groups working with the comfort women who were exploited by the Japanese army during World War II said yesterday they filed for an injunction with the Seoul District Court to prevent actress Lee Seung-yeon`s comfort-women themed nude pictures from being made public. (출처: The Korea Herald)
2차 세계대전 당시 일본군 ‘위안부’ 피해자를 위한 시민단체는 어제 탤런트 이승연씨의 `위안부` 누드에 대한 사진, 동영상 인터넷서비스 제공금지 가처분 신청을 서울 중앙지법에 냈다.
• In the suits, the Japanese company also sought an injunction against the import and sale of Samsung-made plasma panels in Japan. (출처: The Korea Herald)
소장에서 후지쓰는 삼성 PDP의 수입 및 판매금지 가처분 신청을 제기했다.
• The statement came a day after Matsushita, the maker of Panasonic products, filed an injunction with the Tokyo District Court on Monday. (출처: The Korea Herald)
이번 성명은 월요일 파나소닉 제품 제조업체인 일본 마쓰시타가 도쿄 법원에 LG전자 PDP 모듈에 대한 수입금지 가처분 신청을 낸 이후에 나온 것이다.
• It has applied for a court injunction, claiming unfair competition and consumer confusion caused by Maeil`s product. (출처: The Korea Herald)
남양유업은 매일유업 제품이 야기한 불공정 경쟁과 소비자 혼란을 사유로 법원에 ‘불가리아’ 판매 금지 가처분 신청을 냈다.
• The decision came 11 days after SK Telecom sought an injunction against the advertisement campaign in which the smallest of Korea`s three mobile operators claimed that its larger rival was poaching its subscribers by providing illegal handset subsidies. (출처: The Korea Herald)
이번 법원의 판결은 SK텔레콤이 불법 휴대전화 보조금을 지급해 자사 가입자들을 빼앗아갔다는 LG텔레콤의 주장에 대해 SK텔레콤이 제기한 LG텔레콤 광고금지 가처분 신청을 낸지 11일만에 내려진 것이다.
• The group cites rising safety concerns about the carmaker`s flagship sport utility vehicle as the reason behind their complaint. (출처: The Korea Herald)
이 단체는 기아차의 주력 제품인 SUV 차량에 대한 안전 문제를 가처분 신청의 사유로 들었다.
• An online-based consumer group said it will seek a court injunction this month to halt sales of the 2004 model of Kia Motors Corp.`s Sorento. (출처: The Korea Herald)
한 인터넷 소비자 단체는 이달 중 기아차의 2004년형 쏘렌토 모델에 대한 판매금지 가처분 신청을 내기로 했다고 밝혔다.
• But it`s noticeable that disposable income is high because the cost of living is traditionally low in the former communist nations, said Kang Seon-gu, a senior economist at LG Economic Research Institute. (출처: The Korea Herald)
그러나 전통적으로 낮은 생활비로 인해 가처분소득이 높은 점이 주목할만 합니다”라고 강선구 LG 경제연구원 연구원은 말했다.
• The move came a day after LG Electronics vowed to take firm counteraction against Matsushita, which ignited a patent war on Monday by filing an injunction with the Tokyo District Court requesting a halt of the sales of PDPs made by LG Electronics. (출처: The Korea Herald)
이번 조치는 월요일 도쿄 지법에 LG전자의 PDP 판매를 중단시켜 달라는 가처분 소송을 제기한 마쓰시타에 대해 LG전자가 강경 대처를 천명한 지 하루만에 나온 것이다.
• The two sides have been feuding since last year, when KAPP and 13 recording companies, including SM Entertainment and YBM Seoul Records, filed a provisional disposition against Bugs Music for the illegal reproduction of copyrighted music. (출처: The Korea Herald)
음제협과 SM 엔터테인먼트 및 YBM 서울음반을 비롯한 13개 음반회사가 지난 해에 저작권있는 음악에 대한 벅스뮤직의 불법재생에 대해 가처분 소송을 제기함에 따라 양측은 분쟁을 벌이고 있다.
• According to state-run Xinhua, last year average urban disposable incomes were 3.2 times those in rural areas. (출처: 세계일보 WT사설)
국영 신화통신에 따르면, 지난해 도시민들의 가처분소득은 농촌 지역의 3.2배였다.
• The No. 3 mobile service provider, in response to SK Telecom`s legal move against its ads, filed a separate lawsuit last week asking that SK Telecom be barred from offering illegal handset subsidies. (출처: The Korea Herald)
자사 광고에 대해 SK텔레콤이 가처분 신청을 제기하자 후발업체인 LG텔레콤은 지난 주 SK텔레콤의 불법 휴대전화 보조금 지급을 중단시켜 줄 것을 요청하는 별도의 소송을 제기했다.
• The Daejon District Court on Saturday ruled against Taihan`s application on Jan. 19 for a provisional injunction to halt Jinro-Cable`s restructuring plan. (출처: The Korea Herald)
대전고등법원은 1월 19일 대한전선이 신청한 진로산업 정리계획안 수행정지 가처분을 어제 기각했다.
• The Japanese electronics maker also filed an injunction with the Tokyo District Court to ban sales. (출처: The Korea Herald)
마쓰시타는 또 일본 법원에 대해서도 LG전자 PDP 판매를 금지시켜 달라는 가처분 소송을 제기했다.
• Then came Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.`s filing of an injunction to halt sales in Japan of LG Electronics Co.`s PDPs, claiming they infringed on the Japanese company`s patents on heat-radiation technology. (출처: The Korea Herald)
그 후 마쓰시타전기공업은 LG전자가 자사의 열복사 기술 특허권을 침해했다고 주장하며 LG전자 PDP의 일본 내 판매금지 가처분 소송을 제기했다.
• The citizens` move to bring the case to the court will be the strongest action so far in attempts to urge the government to revoke the plan. (출처: The Korea Herald)
행정수도 이전을 백지화시키켜는 시도로 시민들이 헌법소원을 제기한 것이 현재까지 가장 강력한 대응이다.
• Taking the controversy to the Constitutional Court is not a bad idea. (출처: The Korea Herald)
출자총액제한제도에 대한 헌법소원 제기가 나쁜 생각은 아니다.
• In June, a group of 222 legal experts, professors and citizens submitted petition to the court. (출처: The Korea Herald)
지난 6월 법률 전문가, 교수, 시민 222명이 헌재에 헌법소원을 제출했다.
• The private school law, which is to take effect on June 1, was further challenged by school owners resistant to it when they filed a petition with the Constitutional Court late last month, arguing that the measure hinders their right to own private property. (출처: The Korea Herald)
6월 1일부터 시행되는 사립학교법은 사유재산권을 저해한다는 주장으로 지난 달에 헌법재판소에 헌법소원을 제출하면서 학교 소유자들로부터의 반발이 거세졌다.
• The law brings about confusion on the value that human life cannot be used as a tool or be killed, the petition said. (출처: The Korea Herald)
이 법은 인명은 도구로 사용되거나 죽임을 당할 수 없다는 가치에 혼선을 일으켰다”고 헌법소원에서 말했다.
• The Constitutional Court had deliberated since February on a petition submitted exactly two years earlier seeking a ruling on whether the conscription law contravenes the constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience. (출처: The Korea Herald)
헌법재판소는 지난 2월부터 병역법이 헌법에 보장된 양심의 자유와 상반되는지 여부에 대한 판결을 요구하며 정확하게 2년 전에 신청된 헌법소원을 심의해 왔다.
• A group of construction companies submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court yesterday, seeking to thwart a law aimed at reducing their profits from rebuilding apartments in Gangnam, southern Seoul. (출처: The Korea Herald)
어제 일단의 건설회사들이 서울 남부지역인 강남의 아파트 재건축에서 발생하는 수익을 줄이고자 하는 법(개발이익환수제)을 막기 위해 헌법재판소에 헌법소원을 제출했다.
• But corruption problems in some schools can be addressed by imposing strict criminal and civil punishments, said attorney Lee Seok-yeon at a press conference shortly after filing the petition. (출처: The Korea Herald)
그러나 일부 학교의 부패 문제는 엄격한 형사, 민사상 처벌로 해결할 수 있다”고 이석연 변호사가 헌법소원을 제출한 직후 기자회견에서 말했다.
• The plaintiffs argued in the petition that the public were denied their right to vote on a vital issue because lawmakers had approved the capital relocation without a national referendum. (출처: The Korea Herald)
대리인단은 헌법소원 청구서에서 수도이전이 헌법상 국민투표에 부쳐야 할 중대 사안인데도 국민의 동의없이 강행돼 참정권을 침해했다고 주장했다.
• Law experts and ordinary people joining the petition will argue the capital relocation bill passed in parliament is unconstitutional because the public`s right to vote was ignored despite the importance of the plan, lawyer Lee Seog-yeon said yesterday. (출처: The Korea Herald)
헌법소원에 참여한 법률 전문가들과 일반 시민들은 동 계획의 중요성에도 불구하고 국민의 투표권이 무시되었기 때문에 국회에서 통과된 수도이전 법안은 위헌이라고 주장하고 있다.
• The petition is based on the belief that a national referendum should have been conducted, Kim said. (출처: The Korea Herald)
김교수는 “헌법소원은 국민투표가 실시되었어야 했다는 생각에 근거하고 있다”고 말했다.
• The government is making all-out efforts to defend its plan to build a new administrative capital, just as a group of citizens are set to file a petition to the Constitutional Court today in their attempt to thwart the controversial project. (출처: The Korea Herald)
일단의 시민들이 논란이 되고 있는 수도이전계획을 무산시키기 위한 조치로 헌법재판소에 헌법소원을 신청할 준비를 하고 있는 가운데 정부는 동 계획을 지키기 위해 모든 노력을 기울이고 있다.
• The announcement of a final candidate locale comes while the Constitutional Court is reviewing a petition filed by a group of Seoul citizens to suspend the capital move. (출처: The Korea Herald)
최종 입지 확정 발표는 헌법재판소가 수도이전 계획을 중단시켜 달라며 서울시민들이 제기한 헌법소원을 심의 중인 가운데 나온 것이다.
• The Constitutional Court on Thursday dismissed a petition challenging the project`s constitutionality, clearing a major hurdle in a key policy of President Roh Moo-hyun that aims to balance development in the nation. (출처: The Korea Herald)
목요일 헌법재판소는 행정 부처 이전의 합헌성에 대한 헌법소원을 각하하여 국가의 균형발전을 꾀하고자 하는 노무현 대통령의 핵심 정책에 최대 걸림돌을 제거했다.
• The Justice Ministry yesterday submitted an opinion to the Constitutional Court to fight a petition to throw out President Roh Moo-hyun`s special administrative city law. (출처: The Korea Herald)
법무부는 어제 행정중심 복합도시 헌법소원 사건과 관련해 헌법재판소에 의견서를 제출했다.
• A Jeongeup resident identified by his family name Seo lodged the petition through the post on March 4, two days after the assembly voted for the controversial Civil Law revision, Yonhap news agency said. (출처: The Korea Herald)
연합뉴스 보도에 따르면 국회가 호주제 폐지를 골자로 하는 민법개정안을 통과시킨지 불과 이틀만인 지난 4일 전북 정읍에 사는 서모씨가 민법개정안은 위헌이라며 우편으로 헌법소원을 냈다고 한다.
• To counter the citizens` move to thwart Roh`s No. 1 presidential election pledge, the government immediately formed an emergency taskforce led by Vice Construction and Transportation Minister Choi Jae-duck. (출처: The Korea Herald)
노 대통령의 최대 대선 공약을 무산시키려는 시민들의 움직임에 대응하기 위해 정부는 즉각 최재덕 건설교통부 차관이 이끄는 헌법소원 대책반을 구성했다.
• A group of private school owners filed a petition with the Constitutional Court yesterday, in a bid to have a controversial reform law granting teachers and parents the right to participate in school management thrown out. (출처: The Korea Herald)
사립학교 소유자들은 어제 교사와 학부모의 학교 경영 참가를 허용하는 개정 사학법을 무효로 돌리기 위해 헌법소원을 제출했다.
• Announcing the verdict on a petition filed by about 170 Seoul residents opposing the capital move, Court President Yun Young-chul said, That Seoul is the nation`s capital is considered as the de facto Constitution, meaning that in order to relocate the capital, a constitutional amendment process should have been followed. (출처: The Korea Herald)
수도이전에 반대하는 서울시민 170여명이 제출한 헌법소원에 대한 판결을 발표하면서 윤영철 헌법재판소장은 “서울이 한국의 수도라는 사실은 사실상의 헌법으로 간주되는바 그렇다면 수도를 이전하기 위해서는 헌법의 개정절차를 거쳤어야 했음을 의미한다.
• But construction companies argued in the petition that the regulation infringes on their right to private property and equality. (출처: The Korea Herald)
그러나 건설회사들은 헌법소원에서 이 법은 사유재산권과 평등권을 침해한다고 주장했다.
• The petitioners argued a special law on capital relocation passed by parliament last year was unconstitutional because the law failed to secure national consensus first. (출처: The Korea Herald)
헌법소원에 따르면 작년 국회에서 통과된 신행정수도건설 특별법이 무엇보다 국민 합의를 도출하는 데 실패했기 때문에 위헌이라고 주장했다.
• The petition claimed the capital relocation law infringed on Korean taxpayers` right by allowing a huge amount of the taxes they pay to be used for a wrong cause. (출처: The Korea Herald)
이번 헌법소원은 신행정수도 이전을 위한 특별법이 국민이 낸 막대한 세금이 “잘못된 용도로” 사용될 수 있어 납세자의 권리를 침해했다고 주장했다.
• And in the latest and possibly strongest attempt yet to thwart the relocation project, a total of 150 Seoul residents will submit a petition to the Constitutional Court Monday. (출처: The Korea Herald)
그리고 가장 최근에 수도이전 계획을 철회시키기 위한 가장 강력한 시도로 총 150여명의 서울 시민들이 월요일 헌법재판소에 헌법소원을 제출할 계획이다.
• In June, more than 200 citizens petitioned the Constitutional Court to review the special administrative city law, a downgraded version of President Roh Moo-hyun`s capital relocation project which was declared unconstitutional last year. (출처: The Korea Herald)
지난 6월 시민 200여명은 노무현 대통령의 행정수도 이전계획이 작년에 위헌으로 판정된 후 그 축소판 격인 행정도시특별법에 대해 헌법소원을 제출했다.
• The group of Seoul City officials, law experts and ordinary people also requested the court to order suspension of the project to relocate Korea`s capital from Seoul to South Chungcheong Province until it rules on the petition. (출처: The Korea Herald)
서울시 의원, 법률 전문가, 일반 시민으로 구성된 헌법소원의 청구인단은 헌법재판소의 결정시까지 신행정수도건설추진위원회 활동을 전면 중지시켜달라는 취지의 가처분 신청도 함께 제출했다.
• Coming amid increasing public opposition to the capital relocation, the petition is the biggest challenge to the Roh administration since the previous opposition-controlled parliament`s failed attempt to impeach him in March this year. (출처: The Korea Herald)
행정수도 이전에 대한 국민들의 반대 여론이 높아가고 있는 와중에 이번 헌법소원 제출은 작년 3월 대통령 탄핵안 가결 이후 노무현 정부에 대한 최대 도전이 되고 있다.
• A petition has been filed with the Constitutional Court against the National Assembly`s decision to scrap the time-old traditional system of hoju, or family headship, court officials said yesterday. (출처: The Korea Herald)
국회에서 호주제 폐지를 골자로 하는 민법개정안이 통과된 데 대해 개정 민법 조항에 대한 헌법소원이 제기되었다고 헌재 관계자가 어제 밝혔다.
• About 170 Seoul residents submitted a petition to the court yesterday, demanding repeal of a special law to build a new administrative capital passed in parliament last year. (출처: The Korea Herald)
약 170명의 서울 시민들이 어제 작년 국회에서 통과된 신행정수도 건설특별법의 백지화를 요구하는 헌법소원을 헌법재판소에 제출했다.
• We hope lawyer Lee`s move triggers serious efforts to curb this worrisome trend and put the national economy on the path toward a truly free market economy. (출처: The Korea Herald)
우리는 이 변호사의 헌법소원 제기 움직임이 이러한 우려스런 추세에 고삐를 죄는 진지한 노력을 촉발하고 우리 경제가 진정한 자유시장 경제를 향해 나아가게 만들기를 희망한다.
• Last month, more than 200 citizens petitioned the Constitutional Court to throw out the special administrative city law, using the term customary constitution as the basis of their argument. (출처: The Korea Herald)
지난달 200명이 넘는 시민들이 관습헌법을 사유로 들며 행정도시 특별법이 위헌이라며 헌재에 헌법소원을 제기했다.
• Little wonder their foundations are threatening to bring the case to the Constitutional Court if it passes the National Assembly in its entirety. (출처: The Korea Herald)
사립학교 개정안이 수정 없이 국회에서 통과될 경우 이 사안에 대해 헌법재판소에 헌법소원을 제기할 거라고 사립학교 재단들이 정부을 압박하는 건 당연한 일이다.
• The court dismissed a civic petition against a special law on the relocation 7-2, saying that the plan is not unconstitutional. (출처: The Korea Herald)
헌재는 행정도시특별법이 합헌이라며 이에 대한 시민단체의 헌법소원을 7-2로 각하했다.
• National universities yesterday pressed their case for autonomy as professors said they would file a petition in late August to the Constitutional Court contesting a law that allows the national election watchdog to intervene in university presidential elections. (출처: The Korea Herald)
어제 국공립대학들은 선거관리위원회가 대학총장 선출에 관여하도록 하는 법에 대해 교수회가 8월 말에 헌법재판소에 헌법소원을 제기하겠다고 함에 따라 자율성 확보에 나섰다.
• Despite the court`s review of the petition over the past three months, the government had continued work on the project, including selecting Yeongi-Gongju in South Chungcheong as the candidate site to replace Seoul as the capital. (출처: The Korea Herald)
3개월 전 제출된 헌법소원에 대한 헌재의 심리에도 불구하고 정부는 충남의 연기-공주 지역을 신행정수도 후보지로 선정하는 등 수도이전 계획을 지속 추진해 왔다.
• Reaching a conclusion, we assert that the present case arguing unconstitutionality of the new law should be dismissed for lack of legal basis, the ministry said. (출처: The Korea Herald)
법무부는 “결론적으로 이번 헌법소원 사건은 적법요건을 갖추지 못했기 때문에 각하되어야 한다”고 말했다.
• The petition came only a day after the National Assembly passed the law, the centerpiece of a government effort to curb rising housing prices in the Seoul metropolitan area. (출처: The Korea Herald)
이번 헌법소원은 수도권의 주택가격 상승을 막으려는 정부 노력의 핵심적인 법안이 국회를 통과한 지 불과 하루만의 일이다.
• Backed up by the GNP`s opposition to the new law, more than 100 citizens again appealed to the Constitutional Court last month. (출처: The Korea Herald)
새 법안에 대한 한나라당의 반대를 등에 엎고 지난달 100명이 넘는 시민들이 또 다시 헌법소원을 제기했다.
• It is also questionable whether the restrictions are realistic, said Lee, who spearheaded a campaign against capital relocation submitted to the Constitutional Court in July. (출처: The Korea Herald)
그리고 제한하는 것이 현실성이 있는지 여부도 의문”이라고 지난 7월 헌법재판소에 수도이전에 반대하는 헌법소원 제출에 앞장섰던 이 변호사는 말했다.
• The Constitutional Court tomorrow will announce its verdict on relocation of the capital, three months after a group of Seoul residents submitted a petition to thwart the controversial project. (출처: The Korea Herald)
청구인단이 수도이전 계획을 백지화 하기 위한 헌법소원을 제출한지 3개월만에 헌법재판소는 신행정수도건설 특별법에 대한 헌법소원 사건을 내일 선고한다.
• Lee Seog-yeon, a lawyer who led a petition against the government`s plan to relocate the capital out of Seoul last year, said yesterday that government-imposed limits on chaebol investment in affiliates and other companies are unconstitutional. (출처: The Korea Herald)
지난 해 정부가 수도를 서울에서 이전하려는 계획에 반대해 헌법소원에 앞장섰던 이석연 변호사는 어제 재벌의 계열사나 기타 회사에 대한 출자를 제한하는 정부의 조치는 위헌이라고 말했다.
Gov’t Revises History Textbooks
2008-12-17 13:58:46
The government will make hundreds of revisions to high school history textbooks, which the current administration considers left-leaning.
The Education Ministry said it approved 206 textbook revisions after receiving revision plans from publishers and consulting with a panel of history textbook experts.
The ministry will now prepare for the publication of the new textbooks and plans to begin distributing the revised editions to schools in mid-January.
But distribution could be disrupted if the court rules in favor of authors who have requested the revisions be halted.
Civic Groups Ask Gov't to Halt Textbook Revision
2008-10-09 15:17:37
A joint committee of some 40 education and civic groups has urged the government to stop trying to revise domestic middle and high school history textbooks.
The committee Thursday accused the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of pushing for textbook revisions without following proper legal procedures.
The committee also urged the ministry to maintain political neutrality. It denounced the ministry for allegedly listening to politically motivated interest groups who claim some of the current history textbooks are left-leaning.
Edu. Ministry to Revise History Textbook
2008-10-06 18:57:02
Minister of Education, Science and Technology Ahn Byeong-man says that some parts of textbooks on modern history undermine the legitimacy of the nation.
At the parliamentary inspection of the ministry, he said the ministry would urge the textbook authors to correct the books.
When questioned whether the government was rewriting textbooks under the premise that the existing ones are leftist, Ahn responded that the aim is to look into history accurately without leaning toward the right or the left.
He noted the nation's legitimacy should not be undermined and should serve as a yardstick in steering the middle course.
[화제의 법조인] 좌편향교과서 소송대리 김도형변호사
2008-12-21 17:03:29
교육과학기술부의 이른바 ‘좌편향 한국 근현대사 교과서’ 수정 논란이 기어코 법정 싸움으로 번졌다.
교과부 방침에 불복한 금성출판사의 검정교과서 ‘한국 근현대사 교과서’ 저자 5명이 지난 15일 출판사를 상대로 “동의 없이 교과서 내용을 수정하지 말라”는 저작권 침해금지 가처분 신청을 법원에 낸 것이다.
이틀 뒤인 지난 17일 교과부는 금성교과서를 포함한 6개 역사교과서 내용 중 206곳을 수정•보완하도록 최종 승인, 해당 출판사들을 압박했다.
이로써 역사교과서 논란은 법원의 판단을 지켜볼 수밖에 없게 됐다.
금성교과서 저자들의 소송을 대리한 법무법인 ‘한울’의 김도형 변호사는 가처분 결과가 어떻게 나오든 그 파장은 클 수밖에 없을 것으로 내다봤다.
김 변호사는 “법원이 저자들 저작권을 존중해 가처분 신청을 받아들이더라도 교과부는 출판사를 상대로 발행정지 또는 검정합격 취소 등 행정처분을 취할 것”이라며 “보수세력을 지지기반으로 둔 정권인 만큼 그들이 반대하는 교과서 발행을 끝까지 막으려 할 것”이라고 주장했다.
그는 “교과부가 이미 6년 전에 검정을 통과한 교과서를 정권이 바뀌자 바꾸려는 것은 스스로 만든 검•인정 제도를 부인하는 격”이라며 “교과부의 수정 지시는 명백히 위법인 만큼 법원이 올바른 판단을 하리라 기대하지만 최근 시국사건에 대한 사법부 판단을 보면 낙관만 할 수는 없다”고 말했다.
김 변호사는 이번 교과서 논란의 발단을 미국산 쇠고기 수입반대 ‘촛불시위’라고 단정했다.
그는 “정부가 그동안 보수세력의 좌편향 주장에 가만히 있다가 지금 와서 수정작업에 나선 것은 촛불시위를 어린 학생들이 주도하자 ‘좌편향 교과서’ 교육을 받은 탓으로 판단했기 때문이라는 게 개인적 견해”라고 말했다.
김 변호사는 “정권이 바뀔 때마다 교과서를 고칠 것인가”라며 “역사를 바라보는 다양한 시각부터 인정해야 한다”고도 말했다.
그는 가처분 결과를 지켜본 뒤 상황에 따라 저작권 침해금지 본안소송이나 헌법소원 등도 검토할 것이라고 덧붙였다.
근현대사 교과서 `이념 논란' 53건 수정.보완
단순문구 조정.집필진 자체수정까지 총 206건
(서울=연합뉴스) 박상돈 기자 = `좌편향' 논란을 일으켰던 한국 근현대사 교과서 6종 206곳이 수정ㆍ보완돼 내년 3월 신학기 교과서에 반영된다.
이중 남북 분단의 책임을 대한민국에 전가한 부분과 김일성 정권에 대한 우호적인 기술 등 정부가 출판사에 강제로 수정을 권고한 것은 53건이다.
교육과학기술부는 17일 교과서포럼 등이 문제를 제기했던 금성출판사 등 6개 한국 근현대사 교과서 내용 중 206곳을 수정ㆍ보완키로 최종 결정했다고 밝혔다.
수정ㆍ보완되는 내용은 교과부가 수정권고한 53건, 단순 문구 조정 등 추가로 수정한 내용이 51건, 집필진이 자체적으로 수정한 내용이 102건이다.
출판사별로는 금성이 교과부가 결정한 수정권고 내용 38건을 포함해 73건으로 가장 많고, 그다음이 중앙 40건, 두산과 천재교육 각 26건, 법문사 25건, 대한 16건 순이다.
교과부가 수정을 권고한 내용은 ▲미.소 군정과 관련해 서로 성격이 다른 사료비교 ▲8.15 광복과 연합군의 승리에 대한 부정적 기술 ▲김일성 정권에 대한 우호적인 기술 ▲분단의 책임을 대한민국에 전가한 부분 등이다.
집필진이 자율적으로 수정한 것은 ▲이승만 정부의 정통성을 폄하한 부분 ▲남북관계를 평화통일이라는 한가지 잣대로만 서술한 부분 등이며 추가수정된 것은 단순 문구결함이나 사진 설명 등이다.
덕수궁에서 열린 미.소공동위원회 개최 전 담소를 나누는 사진에서 `미국측 `점령군' 사령관 하지 중장'이 `미국측 `위원' 하지 중장'으로 바뀌는 식이다.
교과부는 "청소년의 바람직한 역사 인식 및 국가에 대한 올바른 가치관을 형성하기 위해 대한민국 정부 수립의 정통성과 우리 역사에 대한 자긍심을 교과서에 올바르게 기술할 필요가 있었다"고 설명했다.
교과부는 그간 교과서포럼과 대한상공회의소 등 6개 기관에서 교과서 내용 중 253개항에 대해 수정 요구를 받고 국사편찬위원회에 분석을 의뢰하는 등의 절차를 거쳐 교과서 수정작업을 진행해왔다.
그러나 최근 김태웅 서울대 교수 등 금성 교과서 저자 5명이 자신들의 동의 없이 교과서를 수정할 수 없도록 금성출판사를 상대로 서울중앙지법에 저작권 침해 금지 가처분신청을 제기하는 등 반발이 끊이지 않고 있다.
전국역사교사모임 윤종배 회장은 "이번 교과서 수정은 민주적인 절차를 무시한 채 진행돼 교육자의 한 사람으로서 너무 서글프다"며 "가처분신청 결과에 따라 교과부 등을 상대로 다음 단계의 법적 대응을 진행하겠다"고 말했다. 2008.12.17 (수) 오후 4:45
The U.S. War Against Asia
by William P. Meyers
Note: This is a work in progress, and one I am not likely to finish (short of receiving a grant or an offer from a larger publisher) for some time. Everything posted here should be considered a draft. [Main Page, U.S. War Against Asia]
Korea
Notes from Memoirs by Harry S. Truman
[Truman 1] Memoirs, Volume One, Year of Decisions by Harry S. Truman. Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City N.Y. 1955. Copyright 1955.
p. 316-317. In May 1945 Chinese Foreign Minister Soong, negotiating with Joseph Stalin, learned that Korea was to be a four-power (U.S., USSR, China, Great Britain) trusteeship. “Stalin stated there should be no foreign troops or foreign policy in Korea. Soong understands that the Russians have 2 Korean divisions trained in Siberia. He believes that these troops will be left in Korea and that there will be Soviet trained political personnel who will also be brought into the country.
433-433. Ambassador Pauley, from Moscow in mid-August wrote, “lead me to the belief that our forces should occupy quickly as much of the industrial areas of Korea and Manchuria as we can, starting at the southerly tip and progressing northward.” Harriman urged Truman that “landings be made to accept surrender of the Japanese troops at least on the Kwantung Peninsula and in Korea.
440. August 13th, General Order 1 transmitted, the 38th parallel would divide Japanese troops in Korea. To its north they were to surrender to the USSR; to its south, to General MacArthur.
444-445. Arbitrariness of 38th parallel except it gave U.S. Seoul. U.S. troops not able to occupy that far north, Russian troops could have occupied further south.
521. In October 1945 Truman became concerned about the Russian occupation of northern Korea, comparing it to other areas of Russian occupation such as eastern Europe.
[Truman 2] Memoirs, Volume Two, Years of Trial and Hope by Harry S. Truman. Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City N.Y. 1955. Copyright 1955.
p. 317. Korea was not discussed at Potsdam, but “The Potsdam Declaration clearly implied that Japan would not be allowed to retain Korea.” “It was agreed that following Russia’s entry into the Pacific war there should be a line of demarcation in the general area of Korea.” “The 38th parallel as a dividing line in Korea was never the subject of international discussions. It was proposed by us as a practicable solution when the sudden collapse of the Japanese war machine created a vacuum in Korea.” “We expected that the division of the country would be solely for the purpose of accepting the Japanese surrender and that joint control would then extend throughout the peninsula. The Russians, however, began at once to treat the 38th parallel as a permanent dividing line.” “Our commander in Korea, Lieutenant General John R. Hodge, tried to open talks with his Russian counterpart, but his efforts were regularly rebuffed.”
318. Hodge reported that [quoting Truman] “In South Korea the United States was being blamed for the partition, and resentment was growing against Americans in the area.” Koreans wanted independence, but Hodge did not believe they were ready for it. They did not like the idea of a trusteeship and he feared they would revolt. Yet Hodge recommended that “we give serious consideration to an agreement with Russia that both the U.S. and Russia withdraw forces from Korea simultaneously and leave Korea to its own devices.”
318-319. In December 1945 Secretary of State Byrnes went to Moscow for talks with Molotov, and Korea was part of the agenda. U.S. proposed a united Korea under a four-power trustee ship (3 capitalist powers, 1 communist) which of course was not acceptable to Molotov. Instead he proposed a unified Korean administration by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. The U.S. accepted this proposal [Moscow Agreement] and the U.S. and Russian military commanders in Korea met on January 16, 1946.
320. little came of the military talks or of the Joint Commission which started meeting in Seoul on March 20, 1946, then ended with little accomplished on May 8.
320-322. June 22, 1946 report by Edwin W. Pauley. He noted that the soviets sought to control north Korea, and that the Japanese “owned all of the railroads, all of the public utilities including power and light, as wall as all of the major industries and natural resources.” Turning those over to the Korean government, rather than to private interests, would be bad for the Korean people. He admitted the Soviets were not removing Korean assets and “are devoting considerable effort to rejuvenate economic activity.”
322. 1946, “That fall the Russians conducted elections in their zone for local “People’s Committees.”” But, “There was only one slate.”
322. Claims “Our military government allowed fullest freedom of speech.” “There were disorders and demonstrations in our zone in the fall of 1946, and in a few instances our troops had to fire on threatening mobs.” “Syngman Rhee, the veteran fighter for Korean independence, actually accused General Hodge and the military government of “trying to build up and foster the Korean Communist Party.”
322-323. In February 1947 Hodge reported on the economic distress in south Korea. Another agreement was reached with Moscow, but Syngman Rhee and other Koreans opposed the new Joint Commission.
323-324. U.S. proposed general elections (U.S. style) but Russia insisted on Moscow Agreement. Then in September Russia proposed both nations withdraw all troops.
325-326 The U.S. and Russia put competing proposals to the U.N. (US for elections, USSR for troop withdrawals) and each refused to support the others.
327. The U.N. adopted the U.S. proposal (the U.S. block had more votes, and it was not something that could be vetoed by Russia). On May 10, 1948 the U.N. held elections in south Korea only. The National Assembly met on May 31, 1948 and elected Syngman Rhee as chairman, then later as President of the Republic of Korea.
328. The U.S. transferred power from its military occupation government to the Republic of Korea government on August 15, 1948. In the north the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was “proclaimed” on September 9. The soviets set a deadline of December 31, 1948 for withdrawal of non-Korean troops.
328-329. Truman was reluctant to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea. However, under the advice of General MacArthur and others, except for military advisors U.S. troops were out of Korea by June 29, 1949.
329. A defense agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States was signed on January 26, 1950. Truman states he did not like Syngman Rhee, who was too undemocratic and right-wing. “I did not care for the methods used by Rhee’s police to break up political meetings and control political enemies … Yet we had no choice but to support Rhee.”
332. Learns North Korea invaded South Korea, June 24, 1950.
336-337. South Korea at a disadvantage because of north’s tanks and fighter planes, but also no “will to fight.” Truman gave MacArthur permission to use force to support the south. “I also approved recommendations for the strengthening of our forces in the Philippines and for increased aid to the French in Indo-China.”
341. Truman wanted to be alerted if the Soviets participated in the Korean fighting.
343. Consideration of Chiang’s offer to send Nationalist Chinese troops to Korea.
347. U.N. Resolution for united command approved July 11, U.S. troops still retreating, Truman says were fighting well [contradicted by other writers].
348-353, Harriman memorandum of August 1950: MacArthur believed “The Russians had organized and equipped the North Koreans, and had supplied some of the trained personnel from racial Koreans of the Soviet Union who had fought in the Red Army forces. The Chinese Communists had cooperated in the transfer of soldiers who had fought with the Chinese Communist forces in Manchuria… Their leadership was vigorous.
359. Truman approved a policy statement on September 11, 1950 that gave permission to invade North Korea. Inchon was invaded by the 1st Marine Division and Army 7th Infantry Division on September 15.
361. October 2, 1950: “Republic of Korea Army units were operating north of the 38th parallel.”
375. MacArthur on November 6, 1950 informed Truman that large Chinese units had entered Korea. He wanted to bomb the bridges.
377. MacArthur is concerned with Chinese planes attacking his troops.
385. Due to Chinese intervention, by November 28 “the bad news from Korea had changed from rumors of resistance into the certainty of defeat.”
386. Because of commitments in Europe, the U.S. had little in the way of further troops to send to Korea.
388-389. Truman November 30, 1950 statement: “because of the historic friendship between the people of the United States and China, it is particularly shocking to us to think that Chinese are being forced into battle against our troops.”
400-401. Truman memo offering cease fire at 38th parallel.
400-413 long discussion of general strategy for dealing with Russia, China, Korea and U.S. allies.
417. December 14, 1950. U.N. resolution for a cease fire. Chinese “were unwilling to consider truce talks except on their own terms.”
424-425. Discussion of recruiting Indian and Japanese soldiers to fight in Korea.
436-437. January 1951, Chinese advance ground to a halt in Korea.
440-443. MacArthur’s public threat against China and insubordination results in Truman firing him.
455. Ridgway (MacArthur’s replacement), in response to Rhee’s request for more weapons: “… since the beginning of the Korean campaign equipment losses in ROK Army have exceeded that necessary to equip 10 divisions; this without inflicting commensurate losses on the enemy and in some cases without the semblance of a battle…”
355-360 Discussion of armistice, with Chinese agreeing to talks on July 1, 1951.
[Main Page, U.S. War Against Asia]
The Syngman Rhee Era, 1946-60
South Korea Table of Contents
Even though Syngman Rhee had been handily elected president by the National Assembly in 1948--with 180 of the 196 votes cast in his favor--he quickly ran into difficulties. South Korean politics during Rhee's regime (1948-60) essentially revolved around Rhee's struggle to remain in power and the opposition's efforts to unseat him. Constitutional provisions concerning the presidency became the focal point.
Because Rhee's four-year term of office was to end in August 1952 under the 1948 constitution, and because he had no prospect of being reelected by the National Assembly, he supported a constitutional amendment, introduced in November 1951, to elect the president by popular vote. The proposal was resoundingly defeated by a vote of 143 to 19, prompting Rhee to marshal his supporters into the Liberal Party. Four months later, in April 1952, the opposition introduced another motion calling for a parliamentary form of government. Rhee declared martial law in May, rounded up the assembly members by force, and called for another vote. His constitutional amendment to elect the president by popular vote was railroaded through, passing with 163 votes of the 166 assembly members present. In the subsequent popular election in August, Rhee was reelected by 72 percent of the voters.
The constitution, however, limited the president to only two terms. Hence, when the end of Rhee's second term of office approached, the constitution again was amended (in November 1954) by the use of fraudulent tactics that allowed Rhee to succeed himself indefinitely.
In the meantime, South Korea's citizens, particularly the urban masses, had become more politically conscious. The press frequently exposed government ineptitude and corruption and attacked Rhee's authoritarian rule. The Democratic Party capitalized on these particulars; in the May 1956 presidential election, Rhee won only 55 percent of the votes, even though his principal opponent, Sin Ik-hui, had died of a heart attack ten days before the election. Rhee's running mate, Yi Ki-bung, fared much worse, losing to the Democratic Party candidate, Chang Myon (John M. Chang). Since Rhee was already eighty-one years old in 1956, Chang's victory caused a major tremor among Rhee's supporters.
Thereafter, the issue of Rhee's age and the goal of electing Yi Ki-bung became an obsession. The administration became increasingly repressive as Liberal Party leaders came to dominate the political arena, including government operations, around 1958. Formerly Rhee's personal secretary, Yi and his wife (Mrs. Rhee's confidant, and a power-behind-the-scenes) had convinced the childless Rhee to adopt their son as his legal heir. For fear that Rhee's health might be impaired, he was carefully shielded from all information that might upset him. Thus, the aged and secluded president became a captive of the system he had built, rather than its master.
In March 1960, the Liberal Party managed to reelect Rhee and to elect Yi Ki-bung vice president by the blatant use of force. Rhee was reelected by default because his principal opponent had died while receiving medical treatment in the United States just before the election. As for Yi, he was largely confined to his sickbed--a cause of public anger--but "won" 8.3 million votes as against 1.8 million votes for Chang Myon. The fraudulent election touched off civil disorders, known and celebrated as the April 19 Student Revolution, during which 142 students were killed by the police. As a result, Rhee resigned on April 26, 1960. The next day all four members of the Yi family died in a suicide pact. This account has been challenged by some who believed Yi's family was killed by his bodyguards in hopes of enabling Rhee to stay on.
Rhee, a self-righteous man convinced of his indispensability to Korea, loathed his critics and opponents and equated criticism with treason. Although his record as a national hero and his skill in handling United States-Korean relations won him admiration during the immediate years after the Korean War, Rhee became a captive of the people surrounding him. In the late 1950s, his policies were largely without results as rapid changes in the economy and society deeply affected South Korea's system.
Society under Rhee
The transformation of South Korean society during the Rhee era was of revolutionary proportions because of the convergence of a number of forces. A major impetus for social change was the greatly enhanced opportunity for education. Although Japan had introduced a modern education system to Korea, opportunities for Koreans were purposely limited, particularly at the secondary and university levels. Educational opportunities were greatly expanded immediately after the Japanese defeat, and the trend continued through the Korean War and afterwards. Higher education provided more opportunities for upward mobility to a large number of young people. This opening also meant greater political awakening among the young, particularly in view of the strong emphasis placed on democratic values and ideas by teachers and intellectuals. For the first time, Korean youths were provided open access to democratic ideas both at school and through the mass media. These Western ideas became the norm against which to judge the government in power when the exigencies of the war period were removed.
A land reform law enacted in June 1949 also had a leveling effect on Korean society. Under this law, nearly 1 million sharecroppers, or approximately 40 percent of total farm households, became small landowners. The reform also brought about the decline of the landlord class that had formed the backbone of traditional Korean society for centuries. Because big business and industrial groups did not emerge until the late 1950s and early 1960s, almost everyone in society was placed on an equal footing.
The Korean War had the most significant effect on the social system. The movement of large armies up and down the length of the peninsula was accompanied by civilian refugees. People of diverse backgrounds intermingled for prolonged periods, deeply affecting everyone's way of life. The indiscriminate destruction of property during the war also had the effect of homogenizing Korean society.
The war caused hundreds of thousands of young men from rural areas to enlist in the army, exposing them to modern organization, technologies, and a new world outlook. The war also gave rise to a large officer corps that later developed into an increasingly significant social group.
Better education and the government's postwar economic policies contributed to accelerated urbanization. Reconstruction projects created jobs in the cities, while the government's effort to control the prices of farm products made it unprofitable to till small farm plots. The urban population increased rapidly from 11.6 percent in 1940 to 24.4 percent in 1955 and 28.3 percent in 1960. These changes had a direct impact on politics because the better-educated and urbanized elements became increasingly vocal and more independent in their political judgments.
The Postwar Economy
The war had destroyed most of South Korea's production facilities. The South Korean government began rehabilitation as soon as the battle zone near the thirty-eighth parallel stabilized in 1952. The United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency and members of the UN, principally the United States, also provided badly needed financial assistance. Seoul depended heavily on foreign aid, not only for defense, but also for other expenditures. Foreign aid constituted a third of total budget in 1954, rose to 58.4 percent in 1956, and was approximately 38 percent of the budget in 1960. The first annual United States economic aid bill after the armistice was US$200 million; aid peaked at US$365 million in 1956 and was then maintained at the US$200 million level annually until the mid-1960s.
The scarcity of raw materials and the need to maintain a large army caused a high rate of inflation, but by 1958 prices had stabilized. The government also intensified its effort to increase industrial production, emphasizing power generation and textile and cement production. In order to reduce dependence on imports, such principal items as fertilizer and steel began to be produced domestically.
The average rise in the gross national product (GNP) was 5.5 percent from 1954 through 1958. Industrial production led the advance, growing by nearly 14 percent per year. The tightening of fiscal and monetary policies in 1958, coupled with the phasing out of the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency program and the reduction in direct aid from the United States in 1957, caused a shortage of raw materials for import-dependent industries and led to an overall economic decline. By 1958 Liberal Party leaders paid more attention to political survival than to economic development. The government adopted a comprehensive Seven-Year Economic Development Plan in January 1960, but before the plan could be implemented, the student revolution brought down the government.
The Korean War refers to a period of military conflict between North Korean and South Korean regimes, with major hostilities lasting from June 25, 1950 until the armistice signed on July 27, 1953. Both Koreas were attempting to re-unify Korea under their respective governments, with both sides supported by external powers. While some have referred to the conflict as a civil war, many other factors were at play.[17] The term has also been used to describe both the events preceding and following the main hostilities. After disputes arose regarding elections concerning the entirety of Korea[18], as well as escalating border conflicts at the 38th Parallel; the North Korean Army assaulted the South on June 25, 1950. The conflict was then expanded by the United States and the Soviet Union's involvement as part of a proxy war in the greater Cold War.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Etymology
• 2 Japanese occupation
• 3 Division of Korea
• 4 Prelude to war
• 5 Course
o 5.1 Invasion of South Korea
o 5.2 U.S. intervention
o 5.3 Escalation of the Korean war
o 5.4 South Korean and allied forces move north
o 5.5 Invasion of North Korea
o 5.6 Chinese intervention
o 5.7 Fighting across the 38th Parallel (early 1951)
o 5.8 Stalemate (July 1951 - July 1953)
• 6 Casualties
• 7 Characteristics
o 7.1 Armored warfare
o 7.2 Air warfare
o 7.3 Naval warfare
o 7.4 Proposed use of nuclear weapons
o 7.5 War crimes
7.5.1 Crimes against civilians
7.5.2 Crimes against POWs
• 8 Legacy
• 9 Depictions
o 9.1 Art
o 9.2 Film
• 10 See also
• 11 Notes
• 12 References
• 13 Further reading
o 13.1 Combat studies, soldiers
o 13.2 Origins, politics, diplomacy
o 13.3 Primary sources
• 14 External links
[edit] Etymology
In South Korea, the war is often called 6•25 or 6•25 War (Korean: 6•25 전쟁), from the date of the start of the conflict or, more formally, Hanguk jeonjaeng (Hangul: 한국전쟁; Hanja: 韓國戰爭, literally "Korean War"). In North Korea, while commonly known as the Korean War, it is formally called the Joguk haebang jeonjaeng or Fatherland Liberation War (Hangul: 조국해방전쟁; Hanja: 祖國解放戰爭). In the United States, the conflict was officially termed a police action — the Korean Conflict — rather than a war, largely in order to avoid the necessity of a declaration of war by the U.S. Congress. The war is sometimes called The Forgotten War or The Unknown War because it is a major conflict of the 20th century that gets far less attention than World War II, which preceded it, and the Vietnam War, which succeeded it.[19] The war was a unique combination of the techniques utilized in both World War I and World War II, beginning with swift, fast-paced infantry advances following well-choreographed bombing raids from the air by the American military and its UN allies. However, following both sides' failures at holding the land captured, battles quickly evolved into World War I-type trench warfare in January 1951, lasting until the essential border stalemate at the end. In China, the conflict was known as the War to Resist America and Aid Korea (抗美援朝), but is today commonly called the "Korean War" (朝鮮 戰爭 Chaoxian zhanzheng,[20] 韓國戰爭 Hanguo zhanzheng, or simply 韓戰 Hanzhan).
[edit] Japanese occupation
Korea had been a unified country since the 7th century. During the 19th century, imperialist nations threatened Korea's longstanding sovereignty. After defeating China in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, the Japanese forces remained in Korea, occupying strategically important parts of the country and exploiting the Korean people[citation needed]. Ten years later, the Japanese defeated the Russian navy in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), contributing to Japan's emergence as an imperial power.[21] The Japanese began a brutal colonial occupation of the Korean peninsula against the wishes of the Korean government and people, expanded their control over local institutions through force, and finally annexed Korea in August 1910.[22] From 1910 until 1945, the Japanese Governor General implemented a cruel and efficient set of policies aimed at eradicating the Korean national identity. The Japanese government also instituted a series of economic policies that deprived Koreans of food so as to feed Japan.[citation needed] As result of these policies a great many Korean starved to death or suffered from malnutrition.[citation needed] After liberation in 1945, many Koreans expected to regain control over their own country.[citation needed]
At the close of World War II, forces of both the Soviet Union and the United States occupied the peninsula in accordance with an agreement put forth by the United States government to divide the Korean peninsula. This decision, which was made without consultation of the Korean people, was made by then Colonel Dean Rusk and Army officer Charles Bonesteel, was made because the 38th parallel was already on most maps of Korea.[23] The Soviet forces entered the peninsula on August 10, 1945 and remained north of the 38th parallel waiting for the US forces to arrive. A few weeks later, the American forces entered through Inchon led by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. John R. Hodge and formally accepted the surrender of Japanese forces south of the 38th parallel on September 9, 1945 at Government House in Seoul.[24]
Many Korean people had organized politically prior to the arrival of American troops.[25][broken citation]
[edit] Division of Korea
Though the eventual division of Korea was considered at the Potsdam Conference,[24] the wishes of the Korean people to be free of foreign interference were not considered.[26][verification needed] British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Chinese Premier Chiang Kai-shek and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had stated a determination for Korean independence and freedom at the Cairo Conference. During the earlier Yalta Conference in February 1945, Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin called for “buffer zones” in both Asia and Europe.[27] Stalin believed that Russia should have preeminence in China, and after the US requested that the USSR join in the war against Japan “three months after the surrender of Germany.”[27] On August 6, 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on the Japanese Empire and, on August 8, it began the liberation on the northern part of the Korean peninsula. As agreed with the United States, the USSR halted its troops at the 38th parallel on August 26. However, on September 3, Lt. Gen. John R. Hodge, commander of XXIV Corps and designated U.S. Commander in Korea, received a radio message from Lt. Gen. Yoshio Kozuki, commander of the Japanese 17th Area Army in Korea, reporting that Soviet forces had advanced south of the 38th parallel only in the Kaesong area.[24] Hodge decided to trust the Japanese reports of events in Korea. U.S. troops arrived in the southern part of the peninsula in early September 1945.
On August 10, 1945, with the Japanese surrender imminent, the American government was unsure whether the Soviets would adhere to the proposal arranged by the U.S. government. A month earlier, Colonels Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel, after deciding in their 1/2 hour session[unreliable source?] that at least two major ports should be included in the U.S. zone, had drawn the dividing line at the 38th parallel in less than one-half an hour using a National Geographic map for reference.[24][28][29][30] Rusk, later U.S. Secretary of State, commented that the American military was “faced with the scarcity of U.S. forces immediately available and time and space factors which would make it difficult to reach very far north before Soviet troops could enter the area.”[27]
The USSR agreed to the 38th parallel being the demarcation between occupation zones in the Korean peninsula, partly to better their position in the negotiations with the Allies over eastern Europe. It was agreed that the USSR would receive surrendering Japanese troops on the northern part of Korea; the U.S., on the southern side. The Soviet forces entered and liberated the northern part of the peninsula weeks prior to the entry of American forces. In accordance with the arrangements made with the American government, the Soviet forces halted their advance at the 38th parallel.
The American forces arrived in Korea in early September. One of Hodge's first directives was to restore many Japanese colonial administrators and collaborators to their previous positions of power within Korea. This policy was understandably very unpopular among Koreans who had suffered horribly under Japanese colonial rule for 35 years, and would prove to have enormous consequences for the American occupation.[18]
A second policy set forth by Hodge was to refuse to recognize the existing political organizations that had been established by the Korean people. Hodge sought to establish firm U.S. control over events throughout the southern half of the peninsula.[21] These policies would help give rise to the later insurrections and guerrilla warfare that preceded the outbreak of the civil war.[21][26][verification needed]
In December 1945, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to administer the country under the U.S.-Soviet Joint Commission, as termed by the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers. It was agreed by the US and the USSR, but not the Koreans, that Korea would govern itself independently after four years of international oversight. However, both the U.S. and the USSR approved Korean-led governments in their respective halves, each of which were favorable to the occupying power's political ideology. Some elements of the population responded with violent insurrections and protests in the South.[21] The USAMGIK tried to contain civil violence by banning strikes on December 8 and outlawing the revolutionary government and the people's committees on December 12. Events spiraled quickly out of US control, however, when Koreans[26][verification needed] staged a massive strike on September 23, 1946 by 8,000 railway workers in Busan which quickly spread to other cities in the South. The Daegu uprising occurred on October 1, in which police attempts to control rioters caused the death of three student demonstrators and injuries to many others, sparking a mass counter-attack killing 38 policemen. It should be noted that at this time, the vast majority of members of the South Korean police force officers had been members of the Japanese police force during the colonial period.[26][verification needed] When the US forces sided with these former collaborators, it discredited the US in the eyes of many Koreans.[26][verification needed] Over in Yeongcheon, a police station came under attack by a 10,000-strong crowd on October 3, killing over 40 policemen and the county chief. Other attacks killed about 20 landlords and pro-Japanese officials. The US administration responded by declaring martial law, firing into crowds of demonstrators and killing an unknown number of people.[31]
In South Korea, an anti-trusteeship right wing group known as the Representative Democratic Council emerged, this group came to oppose these U.S. sponsored agreements.[citation needed] Because Koreans had suffered under Japanese colonization for 35 years, most Koreans opposed another period of foreign control. This opposition caused the U.S. to abandon the Soviet-supported Moscow Accords.[citation needed] The Americans did not want a communist government in South Korea, so they called for elections in all of Korea. Since the population of the South was double that of the North, the Soviets knew that Kim Il-sung would lose the election.[citation needed]
The government that emerged was led by anti-communist U.S.-educated strongman Syngman Rhee, a Korean who had been imprisoned by the Japanese as a young man and later fled to the United States.[32] The Soviets, in turn, approved and furthered the rise of a Communist government in the North. Bolstered by his history as an anti-Japanese fighter, his political skills, and his connections with the Soviet Union, Kim Il-sung rose to become leader of this new government and crushed any opposition to his rule by the summer of 1947.[17] In the south, those who supported Communism were driven into hiding in the hills, where they prepared for a guerrilla war against the American-supported government.[17]
History of Korea
Prehistory
Jeulmun period
Mumun period
Gojoseon 2333-108 BC
Jin state
Proto-Three Kingdoms: 108-57 BC
Buyeo, Okjeo, Dongye
Samhan: Ma, Byeon, Jin
Three Kingdoms: 57 BC - 668 AD
Goguryeo 37 BC - 668 AD
Sui wars
Baekje 18 BC - 660 AD
Silla 57 BC - 935 AD
Gaya699-820
North-South States: 698-935
Unified Silla 668-935
Balhae 698-926
Later Three Kingdoms 668-935
Later Goguryeo, Later Baekje, Silla
Goryeo 918-1392
Khitan wars
Mongol invasions
Joseon 1392-1897
Japanese invasions 1592-1598
Manchu invasions
Korean Empire 1897–1910
Japanese rule 1910-1945
Provisional Gov't 1919-1948
Division of Korea 1945–1948
North, South Korea 1948–present
Korean War 1950–1953
• List of monarchs
• Timeline
• Military history
• Naval history
Korea Portal
This box: view • talk • edit
South Korean President Syngman Rhee and North Korean General Secretary Kim Il-Sung were each intent on reuniting the peninsula under his own system. Partly because of numbers of Soviet tanks and heavy arms, the North Koreans were able to escalate ongoing border clashes and go on the offensive, while South Korea, with only limited American backing, had far fewer options. The American government believed at the time that the Communist bloc was a unified monolith, and that North Korea acted within this monolith as a pawn of the Soviet Union.
[edit] Prelude to war
Rhee and Kim competed to reunite the peninsula which had been divided by foreign powers. Each regime used military attacks along the border throughout 1949 and early 1950.[33][34] Although Kim and his close associates believed in unifying Korea by force, Stalin was reluctant to embark on a course that might provoke a war with the United States.[35]
On January 12, 1950, United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a speech declaring that America's Pacific defense perimeter was made up of the Aleutians, Ryukyu, Japan, and the Philippines, implying that America might not fight over Korea. Acheson said Korea's defense would be the responsibility of the United Nations.[36]
In mid-1949, Kim Il-Sung pressed his case with Joseph Stalin that the time had come for a reunification of the Korean peninsula.[citation needed] Kim needed Soviet support to successfully execute an offensive far across a rugged, mountainous peninsula. Stalin, however, refused support, concerned with the relative lack of preparedness of the North Korean armed forces and with possible U.S. involvement.
Over the next year, the North Korean leadership molded its army into a relatively formidable offensive war machine modeled partly on a Soviet mechanized force but strengthened primarily by an influx of Korean veterans who had served with the Chinese People's Liberation Army since the 1930s.[citation needed] By early 1950 the possibility of reunification through insurgency seemed closed, and Rhee's regime was gaining in strength if not popularity. Kim was left with the sole option of conventional invasion if he wished to unify Korea and remove foreign control.[35] By 1950, the North Korean military was equipped with modern Soviet weaponry, and it enjoyed substantial advantages over the Southern forces in virtually every category of equipment. On January 30, 1950, Stalin, via telegram, informed Kim Il-Sung that he was willing to help Kim in his plan to unify Korea. In the discussions with Kim that followed, Stalin suggested that he wanted lead and said that a yearly minimum of 25,000 tons would help. After another visit by Kim to Moscow in March and April 1950, Stalin approved an attack.[32][37] On March 9, 1950, North Korea had agreed to send to the Soviet Union 9 tons of gold, 40 tons of silver, and 15,000 tons of monazite concentrate as payment for additional Soviet arms, ammunition and military technical equipment.[38]
[edit] Course
[edit] Invasion of South Korea
This article or section appears to contain speculation and unjustified claims.
Information must be verifiable and based on reliable published sources, speculation and discussion should be removed from the article. Please see the discussion on this article's talk page.
Under the guise of a counter-attack, the North Korean Army struck in the pre-dawn hours of Sunday, June 25, 1950, crossing the 38th parallel behind a firestorm of artillery. The North claimed Republic of Korea Army (ROK) troops under the “bandit traitor Syngman Rhee" had crossed the border first, and that Rhee would be arrested and executed.[24] While certainly true that both Southern and Northern militaries had for the past year exchanged gunfire and crossed over the 38th parallel, the attack on June 25 was considered by some nations to be an extension of the North's plan to unify the country and not a direct result of a particular attack from the South.
The United Nations Security Council was convened in a few hours and passed the UNSC Resolution 82 condemning the North Korean aggression unanimously. The resolution was adopted mainly because the Soviet Union, a veto-wielding power, had been boycotting proceedings since January, in protest that the Republic of China (Taiwan) and not the People's Republic of China held a permanent seat on the council.[39] President Truman had made a statement on June 27, 1950 ordering the United States air and sea forces to give the South Korean regime support. While the United Nations Security Council was convened and had been debating the issue from the invasion forward it only issued Resolution 83 on July 27 which definitively recommended member-states militarily assist the Republic of Korea. The Soviet Union's foreign minister accused the United States of starting armed intervention on behalf of the Republic of Korea before the Security Council was summoned to meet on June 27, and confronting the UN with a fait accompli. [40]
Critics charged that the information on this resolution was based on U.S. sources referring to reports of the South Korean army. The DPRK was not invited to sit as a temporary member in the UN which some say violated Article 32 of the UN Charter. It was argued that the situation in Korea did not fall within the scope of the UN Charter since the initial clashes between North and South Korean forces would have to be classified as a civil war. Since the USSR representative decided to boycott the United Nations with the announced purpose of preventing action by the Security Council, the legality of UN action was challenged; legal scholars argued that unanimity among the five permanent members was required to take action on important matters. [41] [42]
At the outbreak of war, the North Korean Army was equipped with 150 Soviet-made tanks, about 40 YAK fighters, 70 attack bombers, 60 YAK trainers and 10 reconnaissance planes.[24] These aircraft were assigned to the invasion while 114 more planes were serving in North Korea. Their navy had several small warships, and launched attacks on the South Korean Navy. North Korea's most serious weakness was its lack of a reliable logistics system for moving supplies south as the army advanced, but the South Korean forces were weak and ill-equipped compared to the North Koreans. Thousands of Korean civilians running south were forced to hand-carry supplies, many of whom later died in North Korean air attacks.[citation needed]
The South Korean Army had 150,000 soldiers armed, trained, and equipped by the U.S. military, and as a force was deficient in armor and artillery. The South Korean military had only 40 tanks, 14 attack planes, and few anti-tank weapons. There were no large foreign combat units in the country when the war began, but there were large American forces stationed in nearby Japan.[24]
The North's well-planned attack with about 415,000 troops achieved surprise and quick successes.[24] North Korea attacked a number of key places including Kaesŏng, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu and Ongjin.
Within days, South Korean forces – outnumbered, outgunned, and often of dubious loyalty to the Southern regime – were in full retreat or defecting en masse to the North. As the ground attack continued, the North Korean Air Force conducted bombing of Kimpo Airport near Seoul. North Korean forces occupied Seoul on the afternoon of June 28.[citation needed]
However, North Korea's hope for a quick surrender by the Rhee government and the reunification of the peninsula evaporated when the United States and other foreign powers intervened with UN approval.[citation needed]
[edit] U.S. intervention
This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (September 2008)
Despite the post-World War II demobilization of U.S. and allied forces, which caused serious supply problems for American troops in the region, the United States still had substantial forces in Japan to oppose the North Korean military. These American forces were under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Apart from British Commonwealth units, no other nation could supply sizable manpower.
On being told of the outbreak of large-scale hostilities in Korea, U.S. President Harry S. Truman ordered MacArthur to transfer munitions to the ROK Army, while using air cover to protect the evacuation of U.S. citizens. Truman did not agree with his advisors, who called for unilateral U.S. airstrikes against the North Korean forces, but did order the Seventh Fleet to protect Chiang Kai-Shek's Taiwan. The Nationalist government (confined to the island of Taiwan) asked to participate in the war. Their request was denied by the Americans, who felt that it would only encourage intervention by the People's Republic of China (PRC).[43]
American soldiers in Korea
The first significant foreign military intervention was the American Task Force Smith, part of the U.S. Army's 24th Infantry Division based in Japan. On July 5, it fought for the first time at Osan and was immediately defeated with heavy losses. The victorious North Korean forces advanced southwards, and the half-strength 24th Division was forced to retreat to Taejeon, which also fell to the Northern forces. Major General William F. Dean, commander of the division, was taken prisoner.
By August, the South Korean forces and the U.S. Eighth Army under General Walton Walker had been driven back into a small area in the southeast corner of the Korean peninsula around the city of Pusan. As the North Koreans advanced, they rounded up and killed civil servants. On August 20, MacArthur sent a message warning Kim Il Sung that he would be held responsible for further atrocities committed against UN troops.[32]
By September, only the area around Pusan — about 10 percent of the Korean peninsula — was still in coalition hands. With the aid of massive American supplies, naval and air support, as well as ground reinforcements, the UN forces managed to stabilize a line along the Nakdong River. This desperate holding action became known in the United States as the Pusan Perimeter.
[edit] Escalation of the Korean war
U.S. forces target rail cars south of Wonsan, North Korea, an east coast port city.
In the face of fierce North Korean attacks, the allied defense became a desperate battle called the Battle of Pusan Perimeter by Americans. However, the North Koreans failed to capture Pusan.
American air power arrived in force, flying 40 sorties per day in ground support actions[citation needed] Strategic bombers (mostly B-29s based in Japan) closed most rail and road traffic by day, and destroyed 32 critical bridges necessary for the conduct of warfare. Trains used by military and civilians alike waited out the daylight hours in tunnels.
Throughout all parts of Korea, the American bombers knocked out the main supply dumps and eliminated oil refineries and seaports that handled imports. The bombing was designed to starve North Korean forces of ammunition and other martial supplies. Naval air power also attacked transportation choke points. The North Korean forces were already strung out over the peninsula, and the destruction caused by American bombers prevented needed supplies from reaching North Korean forces in the south.
Meanwhile, supply bases in Japan were pouring weapons and soldiers into Pusan. American tank battalions were rushed in from San Francisco; by late August, America had over 500 medium tanks in the Pusan perimeter. By early September, UN-ROK forces were decidedly more powerful and outnumbered the North Koreans by 180,000 to 100,000. At that point, they began a counterattack.[24]
[edit] South Korean and allied forces move north
Main article: Battle of Incheon
In the face of these overwhelming reinforcements, the North Korean forces found themselves undermanned and with weak logistical support. They also lacked the substantial naval and air support of the Americans. In order to alleviate pressure on the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur, as UN commander-in-chief for Korea, argued for an amphibious landing far behind the North Korean lines at Incheon.
The violent tides and strong enemy presence made this an extremely risky operation. MacArthur had started planning a few days after the war began, but he had been strongly opposed by the Pentagon. When he finally received permission, MacArthur activated the X Corps under General Edward Almond (comprising 70,000 troops of the 1st Marine Division and the Army's 7th Infantry Division and augmented by 8,600 Korean troops) and ordered them to land at Incheon in Operation Chromite. By the time of the attack on September 15, thanks to reconnaissance by guerrillas, misinformation and extensive shelling prior to the invasion, the North Korean military had few soldiers stationed in Incheon, so the U.S. forces met only light resistance when they landed, though extensive shelling and bombing destroyed much of the city.[citation needed]
The landing was a decisive victory, as X Corps rolled over the few defenders and threatened to trap the main North Korean army. MacArthur quickly recaptured Seoul. The North Koreans, almost cut off, rapidly retreated northwards; about 25,000 to 30,000 made it back.[44][45]
[edit] Invasion of North Korea
Main article: UN Offensive, 1950
The United Nations troops drove the North Koreans back past the 38th parallel.
Urban combat in Seoul, 1950, as U.S. Marines fight North Koreans holding the city
The UN forces crossed into North Korea in early October 1950. The U.S. X Corps made amphibious landings at Wonsan and Iwon, which had already been captured by South Korean forces advancing by land. The Eighth U.S. Army, along with the South Koreans, drove up the western side of Korea and captured Pyongyang on October 19. By the end of October, the North Korean Army was rapidly disintegrating, and the UN took 135,000 prisoners.
The UN offensive greatly concerned the Chinese, who worried that the UN forces would not stop at the Yalu River, the border between North Korea and China, and might extend their rollback policy into China.[citation needed] Many in the West, including General MacArthur, thought that spreading the war to China would be necessary and that since North Korean troops were being supplied by bases in China, those supply depots should be bombed. However, Truman and the other leaders disagreed, and MacArthur was ordered to be very cautious when approaching the Chinese border.
[edit] Chinese intervention
On June 27, 1950, before China entered the conflict, President Truman ordered the 7th Fleet to enter the Taiwan Straits, in order to protect Taiwan from Chinese Communist forces.[46] The PRC warned American leaders through neutral diplomats that it would intervene to protect its national security. Truman regarded the warnings as “a bald attempt to blackmail the U.N.” and did not take it seriously.[47] The PRC Government argued that in making Japan its main war base in the Far East, launching an invasion against Korea and the Chinese province of Taiwan, and carrying out active intervention in other countries in Asia, the United States was building up a military encirclement of China. [48] The PRC Government reported that prior to China's entry in the Korean conflict, the United States violated Chinese airspace, bombing peaceful towns and villages.[49]
On October 15, 1950, Truman went to Wake Island for a short, highly publicized meeting with MacArthur. MacArthur, saying he was speculating, saw little risk.[citation needed] MacArthur explained that the Chinese had lost their window of opportunity to help North Korea's invasion. He estimated the Chinese had 300,000 soldiers in Manchuria, with between 100,000-125,000 men along the Yalu; half could be brought across the Yalu. But the Chinese had no air force; hence, “if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter.”[44][50] MacArthur assumed that Chinese wished to avoid heavy casualties.[citation needed]
U.S. soldiers fire a 105 mm howitzer in an indirect fire mission on the Korean battle line, near Uirson in August 1950.
On October 8, 1950, the day after American troops crossed the 38th parallel, Chairman Mao Zedong issued the order to assemble the Chinese People's Volunteer Army. Seventy percent of the members of the PVA were Chinese regulars from the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Mao ordered the army to move to the Yalu River, ready to cross.[citation needed] Mao sought Soviet aid and saw intervention as defensive of the broader revolutionary situation in Asia: “If we allow the United States to occupy all of Korea, Korean revolutionary power will suffer a fundamental defeat, and the American invaders will run more rampant, and have negative effects for the entire Far East.” he told Stalin. Premier Zhou Enlai was sent to Moscow to add force to Mao's cabled arguments. Mao delayed while waiting for substantial Soviet help, postponing the planned attack from October 13 to October 19. However, Soviet assistance was limited to providing air support no nearer than sixty miles (100 km) from the battlefront. The Soviet MiG-15s in PRC colors did pose a serious challenge to UN pilots. In one area nicknamed “MiG Alley” by UN forces, they held local air superiority against the American-made Lockheed F-80 Shooting Stars until the newer North American F-86 Sabres were deployed. The Chinese were angry at the limited extent of Soviet involvement, having assumed that they had been promised full scale air support.[citation needed]
The Chinese made contact with American troops on November 1, 1950. Thousands of Chinese had attacked from the north, northwest, and west against scattered U.S. and South Korean (Republic of Korea or ROK) units moving deep into North Korea. The Chinese seemed to come out of nowhere as they swarmed around the flanks and over the defensive positions of the surprised United Nations (UN) troops.[51]
The Chinese march and bivouac discipline also minimized any possible detection. In a well-documented instance, a Chinese army of three divisions marched on foot from An-tung in Manchuria, on the north side of the Yalu River, 286 miles (460 km) to its assembly area in North Korea, in the combat zone, in a period ranging from 16 to 19 days. One division of this army, marching at night over circuitous mountain roads, averaged 18 miles (29 km) per day for 18 days. The day's march began after dark at 19:00 and ended at 03:00 the next morning. Defense measures against aircraft were to be completed before 05:30. Every man, animal, and piece of equipment were to be concealed and camouflaged. During daylight, bivouac scouting parties moved ahead to select the next day's bivouac area. When Chinese units were compelled for any reason to march by day, they were under standing orders for every man to stop in his tracks and remain motionless if aircraft appeared overhead. Officers were empowered to shoot any man who violated this order.[24]
Map of the Battle of Chosin Reservoir
In late November, the Chinese struck in the west, along the Chongchon River, and completely overran several South Korean divisions and successfully landed a heavy blow to the flank of the remaining UN forces. The ensuing defeat of the U.S. Eighth Army resulted in the longest retreat of any American military unit in history.[52] Mostly due to the successful but very costly rear-guard action by the Turkish Brigade at Kunuri during November 26 to 30th, which slowed the Chinese onslaught by 3-4 days, the U.S. 8th Army escaped complete anhiliation by the Chinese. In the east, at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, a 30,000 man unit from the U.S. 7th Infantry Division and U.S. Marine Corps was also unprepared for the Chinese tactics and was soon surrounded, though they eventually managed to escape the encirclement, albeit with over 15,000 casualties, after inflicting heavy[specify] casualties on six Chinese divisions.[53]
While the Chinese soldiers initially lacked heavy fire support and light infantry weapons, their tactics quickly adapted to this disadvantage, as explained by Bevin Alexander in his book How Wars Are Won:
"The usual method was to infiltrate small units, from a platoon of fifty men to a company of 200, split into separate detachments. While one team cut off the escape route of the Americans, the others struck both the front and the flanks in concerted assaults. The attacks continued on all sides until the defenders were destroyed or forced to withdraw. The Chinese then crept forward to the open flank of the next platoon position, and repeated the tactics."
Roy Appleman further clarified the initial Chinese tactics as:
"In the First Phase Offensive, highly skilled enemy light infantry troops had carried out the Chinese attacks, generally unaided by any weapons larger than mortars. Their attacks had demonstrated that the Chinese were well-trained disciplined fire fighters, and particularly adept at night fighting. They were masters of the art of camouflage. Their patrols were remarkably successful in locating the positions of the UN forces. They planned their attacks to get in the rear of these forces, cut them off from their escape and supply roads, and then send in frontal and flanking attacks to precipitate the battle. They also employed a tactic which they termed Hachi Shiki, which was a V-formation into which they allowed enemy forces to move; the sides of the V then closed around their enemy while another force moved below the mouth of the V to engage any forces attempting to relieve the trapped unit. Such were the tactics the Chinese used with great success at Onjong, Unsan, and Ch'osan but with only partial success at Pakch'on and the Ch'ongch'on bridgehead."[24]
The U.S. forces in northeast Korea, who had rushed forward with great speed only a few months earlier, were forced to race southwards with even greater speed and form a defensive perimeter around the port city of Hungnam, where a major evacuation was carried out in late December 1950. Facing complete defeat and surrender, 193 shiploads of American men and material were evacuated from Hungnam Harbor, and about 105,000 soldiers, 98,000 civilians, 17,500 vehicles, and 350,000 tons of supplies were shipped to Pusan in orderly fashion. As they left, the American forces blew up large portions of the city to deny its use to the communists, depriving many Korean civilians of shelter during the winter.[44][54]
[edit] Fighting across the 38th Parallel (early 1951)
B-26 Invaders bomb supply warehouses in Wonsan, North Korea, 1951.
In January 1951, the Chinese and North Korean forces struck again in their 3rd Phase Offensive (also known as the Chinese Winter Offensive). The Chinese repeated their previous tactics of mostly night attacks, with a stealthy approach from positions some distance from the front, followed by a rush with overwhelming numbers, and using trumpets or gongs both for communication and to disorient their foes. Against this the UN forces had no remedy, and their resistance crumbled; they retreated rapidly to the south (referred to by UN forces as the “bug-out”). Seoul was abandoned and was captured by communist forces on January 4, 1951.
To add to the Eighth Army's difficulties, General Walker was killed in an accident. He was replaced by a World War II airborne veteran, Lieutenant-General Matthew Ridgway, who took immediate steps to raise the morale and fighting spirit of the battered Eighth Army, which had fallen to low levels during its retreat. Nevertheless, the situation was so grim that MacArthur mentioned the use of atomic weapons against China, much to the alarm of America's allies.[citation needed]
UN forces continued to retreat until they had reached a line south of Suwon in the west and Wonju in the center, and north of Samchok in the east, where the front stabilized. The People's Volunteer Army had outrun its supply line and was forced to recoil. The Chinese could not go beyond Seoul because they were at the end of their logistics supply line[citation needed] — all food and ammunition had to be carried at night on foot or bicycle from the Yalu River.
In late January, finding the lines in front of his forces deserted, Ridgway ordered reconnaissance in force, which developed into a full-scale offensive, Operation Roundup. The operation was planned to proceed gradually, to make full use of the UN's superiority in firepower on the ground and in the air; by the time Roundup was completed in early February, UN forces had reached the Han River and re-captured Wonju.
The Chinese struck back in mid-February with their Fourth Phase Offensive, from Hoengsong in the center against IX Corps positions around Chipyong-ni. A short but desperate siege there fought by units of the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division, including the French Battalion, broke up the offensive; in this action, the UN learned how to deal with Chinese offensive tactics and be able to stand their ground.
Roundup was followed in the last two weeks of February 1951, with Operation Killer, by a revitalized Eighth Army, restored by Ridgway to fighting trim. This was a full-scale offensive across the front, again staged to maximize firepower and with the aim of destroying as much of the Chinese and North Korean armies as possible. By the end of Killer, I Corps had re-occupied all territory south of the Han, while IX Corps had captured Hoengsong.
On March 7, 1951, the Eighth Army pushed forward again, in Operation Ripper, and on March 14 they expelled the North Korean and Chinese troops from Seoul, the fourth time in a year the city had changed hands. Seoul was in utter ruins; its prewar population of 1.5 million had dropped to 200,000, with severe food shortages.[45]
MacArthur was removed from command by President Truman on April 11, 1951 for insubordination, setting off a firestorm of protest back in the U.S. The new supreme commander was Ridgway, who had managed to regroup UN forces for the series of effective counter-offensives. Command of Eighth Army passed to General James Van Fleet.
A Chinese soldier killed by U.S. Marines of 1st Marine Division during an attack on Hill 105 in 1951
A further series of attacks slowly drove back the communist forces, such as Operations Courageous and Tomahawk, a combined ground- and air-assault to trap communist forces between Kaesong and Seoul. UN forces continued to advance until they reached Line Kansas, some miles north of the 38th parallel.
The Chinese were far from beaten, however; In April 1951 they launched their Fifth Phase Offensive (also called the Chinese Spring Offensive). This was a major effort, involving three field armies (up to 700,000 men). The main blow fell on I Corps, but fierce resistance in battles at the Imjin River and Kapyong, blunted its impetus, and the Chinese were halted at a defensive line north of Seoul (referred to as the No-Name Line).
A further Communist offensive in the east against ROK and X Corps on May 15 also made initial gains, but by May 20 the attack had ground to a halt. Eighth Army counterattacked and by the end of May had regained Line Kansas.
The decision by UN forces to halt at Line Kansas, just north of the 38th Parallel, and not to persist in offensive action into North Korea, ushered in the period of stalemate which typified the remainder of the conflict.
[edit] Stalemate (July 1951 - July 1953)
The rest of the war involved little territory change, large-scale bombing of the north, and lengthy peace negotiations, which began on July 10, 1951 at Kaesong. Even during the peace negotiations, combat continued. For the South Korean and allied forces, the goal was to recapture all of South Korea before an agreement was reached in order to avoid loss of any territory. The Chinese and North Koreans attempted similar operations, and later in the war they undertook operations designed to test the resolve of the UN to continue the conflict. Principal military engagements in this period were the actions around the Punchbowl, in the east, such as Bloody Ridge and Heartbreak Ridge in 1951, the battles for Old Baldy, in the center, and the Hook, in the west, during 1952–53, Battle of Hill Eerie in 1952, and the battle for Pork Chop Hill in 1953.
Territory changed hands in the early part of the war until the front stabilized.
The peace negotiations went on for two years, first at Kaesong, and later at Panmunjon. A major issue of the negotiations was repatriation of POWs. The Communists agreed to voluntary repatriation but only if the majority would return to China or North Korea, something that did not occur. Since many refused to be repatriated to the communist North Korea and China, the war continued until the Communists eventually dropped this issue.[citation needed]
In October 1951, U.S. forces performed Operation Hudson Harbor intending to establish the capability to use nuclear weapons. Several B-29s conducted individual simulated bomb runs from Okinawa to North Korea, delivering “dummy” nuclear bombs or heavy conventional bombs; the operation was coordinated from Yokota Air Base in Japan. The battle exercise was intended to test “actual functioning of all activities which would be involved in an atomic strike, including weapons assembly and testing, leading, ground control of bomb aiming,” and so on. The results indicated that nuclear bombs would be less effective than anticipated, because “timely identification of large masses of enemy troops was extremely rare.”[55][56][57][58][59]
On November 29, 1952, U.S. President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower fulfilled a campaign promise by going to Korea to find out what could be done to end the conflict. With the UN's acceptance of India's proposal for a Korean armistice, a cease-fire was established on July 27, 1953, by which time the front line was back around the proximity of the 38th parallel, and so a demilitarized zone (DMZ) was established around it, presently defended by North Korean troops on one side and by South Korean, American and UN troops on the other. The DMZ runs north of the parallel towards the east, and to the south as it travels west. The site of the peace talks, Kaesong, the old capital of Korea, was part of the South before hostilities broke out but is currently a special city of the North. North Korea and the United States signed the Armistice Agreement, with Syngman Rhee refusing to sign.[60]
[edit] Casualties
Memorials to those who died can be found in many countries such as this one in Pretoria for South African casualties.
The total numbers of casualties suffered by all parties involved may never be known. Each country's self-reported casualties were largely based upon troop movements, unit rosters, battle casualty reports, and medical records.
The Western numbers of Chinese and/or North Korean casulties are based primarily on battle reports of estimated casualties, interrogation of POWs and captured documents.
The Chinese estimation of UN casualties states that the joint declaration of the Chinese People's Volunteers and the Korean People's Army said their forces "eliminated 1.09 million enemy forces, including 390,000 from the United States, 660,000 from South Korean, and 29,000 from other countries." The vague "eliminated" number gave no details to that of dead, wounded and captured. Regarding their own casualties, the same source said that "the Chinese People's Volunteers suffered 148,000 deaths altogether (among which 114,000 died in combat, incidents, and winterkill, 21,000 died after being hospitalized and 13,000 died from diseases); 380,000 were wounded and 29,000 missing, including 21,400 POWs (of whom 14,000 were sent to Taiwan, 7,110 were repatriated)." This same source concluded with these numbers for North Korean casualties, "the Korean People's Army had 290,000 casualties and 90,000 POWs; there was a large number of civilian deaths in the northern part of Korea, but no accurate figures were available."[61]
The casulties of the various UN forces are listed in the infobox, along with their estimates of Chinese and North Korean forces.
[edit] Characteristics
[edit] Armored warfare
A Sherman tank fires its 76 mm gun at enemy bunkers on “Napalm Ridge,” in support of the 8th ROK Division May 11, 1952.
In the initial invasion stage of the war, North Korean armor was able to establish dominance using their Soviet-supplied T-34-85 medium tanks. The WW2-vintage North Korean tanks were facing a South Korean force with no tanks of their own and few modern anti-tank weapons.[citation needed]
Comparing the earlier M9 bazooka to the later, larger M20 model
The South Korean army had anti-tank rockets but these were World War II vintage 2.36 inch (60 mm) M9 bazookas. The bazooka rocket could easily penetrate the 45 mm side armor of the T-34-85s at any range, but the bazooka was nonetheless found to be ineffective.[citation needed]
As U.S. forces arrived in Korea, they were accompanied only by light M24 Chaffee tanks which had been left in Japan for post-WWII occupation duties (heavier tanks would have torn up Japanese roads).[citation needed] These light tanks were ineffective against the larger North Korean T-34-85 tanks.[citation needed] U.S. 105 mm howitzers were used on at least one occasion to fire HEAT ammunition over open sights.[citation needed]
As the U.S. buildup continued, shipments of heavier American tanks such as the M4 Sherman, the M26 Pershing, the M46 Patton, and the British Centurion as well as American and Allied ground attack aircraft were able to reverse the Communists' tank advantage.[citation needed]
However, in contrast to World War II's heavy emphasis on armor, few open tank battles actually occurred over the course of the Korean War. The country's heavily forested and mountainous terrain, as well as the poor road network, meant that tanks were able to operate only in small groups.
[edit] Air warfare
Further information: MiG Alley and United States Air Force Aircraft of the Korean War
MiG-15 shot down by an F-86 over MiG Alley
Over the course of the war, at least 16 B-29 bombers were shot down by communist aircraft.
The Korean War was the last major war where propeller-powered fighters such as the P-51 Mustang, F4U Corsair and aircraft carrier-based Hawker Sea Fury and Supermarine Seafire were used. Turbojet fighter aircraft such as F-80s and F9F Panthers came to dominate the skies, overwhelming North Korea’s propeller-driven Yakovlev Yak-9s and Lavochkin La-9s.
From 1950, North Koreans began flying the Soviet-made MiG-15 jet fighters, some of which were piloted by experienced Soviet Air Force pilots, a casus belli deliberately overlooked by the UN allied forces who were reluctant to engage in open war with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. At first, UN jet fighters, which also included Royal Australian Air Force Gloster Meteors, had some success, but the superior quality of the MiGs soon held sway over the first-generation jets used by the UN early in the war.[62]
In December 1950, the U.S. Air Force began using the F-86 Sabre. The MiG could fly higher, 50,000 vs. 42,000 feet (12,800 m), offering a distinct advantage at the start of combat. In level flight, their maximum speeds were comparable — about 660 mph (1,060 km/h). The MiG could climb better, while the Sabre could turn and dive better. For weapons, the MiG carried two 23 mm and one 37 mm cannon, compared to the Sabre’s six .50 (12.7 mm) caliber machine guns. The American .50 caliber machine guns, while not packing the same punch, carried many more rounds and were aimed with a superior radar-ranging gunsight. The U.S. pilots also had the advantage of G-suits, which were used for the first time in this war. However, maintenance was an issue with the Sabre, and a large proportion of the UN air strength was grounded because of repairs during the war.[citation needed]
Even after the Air Force introduced the advanced F-86, its pilots often struggled against the jets piloted by Soviet pilots.[citation needed] The UN gradually gained air superiority over most of Korea that lasted until the end of the war — a decisive factor in helping the UN first advance into the north, and then resist the Chinese invasion of South Korea. The Chinese and North Koreans also had jet power, but their training and experience were limited. With the introduction of the F-86F in late 1952, the Soviet and American aircraft had virtually identical performance characteristics.
After the war, the USAF claimed 792 MiG-15s and 108 additional aircraft shot down by Sabres for the loss of 78 Sabres, a ratio in excess of 10:1.[citation needed] Some post-war research has been able to confirm only 379 victories, although the USAF continues to maintain its official credits and the debate is possibly irreconcilable.
The Soviets claimed about 1,100 air-to-air victories and 335 combat MiG losses at that time. China's official losses were 231 planes shot down in air-to-air combat (mostly MiG-15) and 168 other losses. The number of losses of the North Korean Air Force was not revealed. It is estimated that it lost about 200 aircraft in the first stage of the war, and another 70 aircraft after Chinese intervention. Soviet claims of 650 victories over the Sabres, and China's claims of another 211 F-86s, are considered to be exaggerated by the USAF. According to a recent U.S. publication, the number of F-86s ever present in the Korean peninsula during the war totaled only 674[citation needed] and the total F-86 losses from all causes were about 230.[63]
Direct comparison of Sabre and MiG losses seem irrelevant, since primary targets for MiGs were heavy B-29 Superfortress bombers and ground-attack aircraft, while the primary targets for Sabres were MiG-15s.
By early 1951, the battle lines hardened and did not change much for the rest of the conflict. Throughout the summer and early fall of 1951, the outnumbered Sabres (as few as 44 at one point) of the 4th FIW continued to seek battle in MiG Alley near the Yalu against an enemy fielding as many as 500 planes, although only a fraction of these were operational and active. Following Colonel Harrison Thyng's famous message to the Pentagon, the 51st FIW reinforced the beleaguered 4th in December 1951.[64] For the next year and a half, the combat continued in generally the same fashion.
Helicopters like this H-19 were used in the Korean war.[65][66]
The Korean war was the first time the helicopter was used exstensively in a conflict.[67] While helicopters such as the YR-4 were used in World War Two,[68] their use was rare, and Jeeps like the Willys MB were the main method of removing an injured soldier. In the Korean war helicopters like the H-19 partially took over in the non combat Medevac area.[69]
The helicopter proved to be a valuable military asset for the United States in Korea. Improvments made to helicopters since World War Two were tested in combat. The need for close air support helicopters was seen, and by the time of the Vietnam conflict gunships like the AH-1 Cobra had been produced. Helicopters like those used in the Korean war for Medevac missions and troop movment were also seen to work well in combat, and designs were also improved apon. This "combat test" for helicopters was important to the development of the military helicopter.[70]
[edit] Naval warfare
As North Korea had no significant naval presence, naval battles were infrequent. The only significant "battle" took place on July 2, 1950, between the U.S. cruiser Juneau, the British cruiser Jamaica, and the British frigate Black Swan, against four North Korean torpedo boats and two North Korean mortar gunboats. The torpedo boats attempted to attack but they were quickly destroyed by the Anglo-American fleet.[71] Numerous other communist ships were sunk during the war. Supply and ammunition ships were sunk by U.N. forces, denying use of the sea to the North Koreans. Juneau sunk several ammunition ships that had been present in her previous battle. The last instance of ship-to-ship battle in the war occurred at Inchon a few days before the battle, when the ROK ship PC 703 sank an enemy mine-laying craft and three other vessels in waters off the Yellow Sea port. For the remainder of the war, the role of the navies was to provide shore bombardment.[71]
[edit] Proposed use of nuclear weapons
Historian Bruce Cumings believes that Truman's allusions to the possibility of nuclear weapons use at a press conference on November 30, 1950 "was a threat based on contingency planning to use the bomb, rather than the faux pas so many assumed it to be."[26][verification needed] Cumings argues that Truman sought MacArthur's removal primarily because he felt that MacArthur would not be reliable enough in a situation in which Washington had decided to use atomic weapons. Cumings notes that the same day as the press conference, orders were sent between top Air Forces generals for the Strategic Air Command to "augment its capacities and that this should include “atomic capabilities."[26] According to Cumings, the U.S. reached its closest point of using nuclear weapons during the war in April 1951. At the end of March, after the Chinese had moved large amounts of new forces near the Korean border, U.S. bomb loading pits at Kadena air base in Okinawa were made operational, and bombs were assembled there "lacking only the essential nuclear cores." On April 5, the Joint Chiefs of Staff released orders for immediate retaliatory attacks using atomic weapons against Manchurian bases in the event that large numbers of new Chinese troops entered into the fights or bombing attacks originated from those bases. On the same day, Truman gave his approval for transfer of nine Mark IV nuclear capsules "to the air force's Ninth Bomb Group, the designated carrier of the weapons" and "the president signed an order to use them against Chinese and Korean targets." Remarking that the signed order was never sent, Cumings offers two reasons why this was the case. Firstly, Truman had used the crisis to convince the Joint Chiefs of the necessity of MacArthur's removal (announced April 10) and secondly, since the war was not thereafter escalated by the Chinese and Soviets, no necessity of using them presented itself.[26]
This viewpoint is contradicted however by the facts, as on November 30, 1950, President Truman at a press conference, remarked – no doubt extemporaneously – that the use of the atomic bomb was under active consideration, unintentionally implying to some observers that its use would be left to the discretion of General MacArthur. Even though subsequently he attempted to subdue the storm of protest and consternation which followed by pointing out that only he could authorize use of the atomic bomb and that he had not given such authorization, he could not avoid the real issue that any decision to use the bomb would be a United States, not a United Nations, decision. This led to a meeting December 4 with British Prime Minister Clement Attlee (who also represented the leaders of the other Commonwealth nations) and with French Premier René Pleven and Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, to discuss their concerns over the possible use of the atomic bomb. Indian Ambassador Pannikkar recalls, "that Truman announced that he was thinking of using the atom bomb in Korea. But the Chinese seemed totally unmoved by this threat.... The propaganda against American aggression was stepped up. The 'Aid Korea to resist America' campaign was made the slogan for increased production, greater national integration, and more rigid control over anti-national activities. One could not help feeling that Truman's threat came in very useful to the leaders of the revolution to enable them to keep up the tempo of their activities."[44][72][73]
Six days later, on December 6, 1950, after the Chinese intervention had forced the UN forces into a retreat from northern North Korea, General J. Lawton Collins (Army Chief of Staff), General MacArthur, Admiral C. Turner Joy and General George E. Stratemeyer, with key staff officers Hickey, Willoughby and Wright, met in Tokyo for a full discussion of what moves to take against the Chinese. They projected three hypothetical scenarios covering the next few weeks or months.[44]
In the first, they theorized that if the Chinese continued their all-out attack but with the UN Command forbidden to mount air attacks against China, no blockade of China set up, no reinforcements sent to Korea by Chiang Kai-shek, and that there would be no substantial increase in MacArthur's U.S. forces until April 1951 when four National Guard divisions might be sent, then the atomic bomb might be used in North Korea.[44]
Under the second scenario, the conferees assumed a situation in which the Chinese attack would continue but with an effective naval blockade of China put in effect, air reconnaissance and bombing of the Chinese mainland allowed, Chinese Nationalist forces exploited to the maximum, and the atomic bomb to be used if tactically appropriate. Given these conditions, General MacArthur said he should be directed to hold positions in Korea as far north as possible.[44]
Under the third scenario, in which the Chinese would agree not to cross south of the 38th parallel, MacArthur felt the United Nations should accept an armistice. The conditions of the armistice should preclude movement of North Korean and Chinese forces below the parallel. North Korean guerrillas should withdraw into their own territory with the Eighth Army remaining in positions covering the Seoul-Inch'on area, while X Corps pulled back to Pusan. An United Nations commission should supervise the implementation of armistice terms.[44]
So, while the U.S. had contemplated using the atomic bomb in Korea, Truman did not publicly threaten to use the bomb immediately after the Chinese intervention, but instead remarked about the consideration of using the bomb around 45 days later and only after UN forces were in retreat and had suffered some serious losses. MacArthur and other military leaders did not work on scenarios for using the bomb until after Truman's inadvertent remark during a press conference 6 days earlier. The decision not to use the atomic bomb also was not due to "a disinclination by the USSR and PRC to escalate" but rather due to pressure from UN allies, notably Britain, the British Commonwealth, and France, who were concerned that if the United States became involved in a war with Communist China, American commitments to NATO would, through sheer necessity, go by the board. China then might have little difficulty in persuading the Soviets to move into western Europe, and without U.S. resistance to this aggression, they could take all of Europe at little cost.[44][74]
[edit] War crimes
[edit] Crimes against civilians
Main article: No Gun Ri massacre
Declassified U.S. document says:
“It is reported that large groups of civilians, either composed of or controlled by North Korean soldiers, are infiltrating U.S. positions. The army has requested we strafe all civilian refugee parties approaching our positions. To date, we have complied with the army request in this respect.”
The document goes on to recommend establishing a policy revising the practice.
Prisoners massacred by retreating North Koreans in Daejeon, South Korea, October 1950
When parts of South Korea were under North Korean control, political killings, reportedly into the tens of thousands, took place in the cities and villages. The communists systematically killed former South Korean government officials and others deemed hostile to the communists, and such killing was intensified as North Koreans retreated from the South.[75]
South Korean military, police and paramilitary forces, often with U.S. military knowledge and without trial, executed in turn tens of thousands of leftist inmates and alleged communist sympathizers in the incidents such as the massacre of the political prisoners from the Daejeon Prison and the bloody crackdown on the Cheju Uprising.[76] Gregory Henderson, a U.S. diplomat in Korea at the time, put the total figure at 100,000, and the bodies of those killed were often dumped into mass graves. Recently, the South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission has received reports of more than 7,800 cases of civilian killings in 150 locations across the country where mass killings of civilians took place before and during the war.
Korean forces on both sides routinely rounded up and forcibly conscripted both males and females in their area of operations; thousands of them never returned home. According to the estimate by R. J. Rummel, a professor at the University of Hawaii, some 400,000 South Korean citizens were conscripted into the North Korean Army.[75] Before the September 1950 liberation of Seoul by the U.S. forces, an estimated 83,000 citizens of the city were taken away by retreating North Korean forces and disappeared, according to the South Korean government; their fate remains unknown.[77] North Korea insists the South Koreans defected voluntarily and were not held against their will.[78]
For a time, American troops were under orders to consider any Korean civilians on the battlefield approaching their position as hostile, and were instructed to "neutralize" them because of fears of infiltration. This led to the indiscriminate killings of hundreds of South Korean civilians by the U.S. military at places such as No Gun Ri, where many defenseless refugees — most of whom were women, children and old men — were shot at by the U.S. Army and may have been strafed by the U.S. Air Force. Recently, the U.S. admitted having a policy of strafing civilians in other places and times.[79][80]
[edit] Crimes against POWs
The neutrality of this section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page. (September 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
An executed US prisoner
The North Koreans were alleged by a U.S. Government report to have mistreated prisoners of war.[81] Some made allegations of frequent communist-imposed beatings, starvation, forced labor, summary executions, and death marches on UN prisoners.[82] North Korean forces allegedly committed several massacres of captured U.S. troops at places such as Hill 312 and Hill 303[83] on the Pusan Perimeter, and in and around Daejeon; this occurred during early "mopping-up" actions. A U.S. Congressional report alleges "two-thirds of all American prisoners of war in Korea died due to war crimes."[84][85]
North Korean forces claimed to have captured more than 70,000 South Korean soldiers, repatriating 8,000. (In contrast, South Korea repatriated 76,000 North Korean POWs.)[86] In addition to some 12,000 deaths in captivity, some 50,000 South Korean POWs might have been press-ganged into the North Korean military.[75] According to the South Korean Ministry of Defense, by 2003 there were at least 300 POWs were still alive being held captive in North Korea. More than 30 South Korean prisoners managed to escape the North between 1994 and 2003, including a soldier captured in the war who escaped in 2003.[87] Pyongyang denied holding any POWs.
The state controlled Korean Central News Agency claims that the United States and its allies killed at least 33,600 POWs of the Korean People's Army, and that tens of thousands more were wounded or crippled. On May 27, 1952 it was alleged that at least 800 POWs were killed by flame throwers at the 77th camp on Koje Island for rejecting "voluntary repatriation" and insisting on their repatriation to the North Korea. According to the North Korean Central News Agency, some 1,400 prisoners of war had been secretly sent to the United States to be subjected to experiments with atomic weapons. It has also been alleged that on July 19, 1951, a total of 100 prisoners of war had been shot by machine-gun fire in the prisoner-of-war camp No. 62, in order to give the machine-gunners training in shooting at moving targets. [88] [89]
[edit] Legacy
Main article: Legacy of the Korean War
The Korean War was the first armed confrontation of the Cold War and set the standard for many later conflicts. It created the idea of a limited war, where the two superpowers would fight in another country, forcing the people in that nation to suffer the bulk of the destruction and death involved in a war between such large nations. The superpowers avoided descending into an all-out war with one another, as well as the mutual use of nuclear weapons. It also expanded the Cold War, which to that point had mostly been concerned with Europe.
The Korean War damaged both Koreas heavily. Although South Korea stagnated economically in the decade following the war, it was later able to modernize and industrialize. In contrast, the North Korean economy recovered quickly after the war and until around 1975 surpassed that of South Korea.[citation needed] However, North Korea's economy eventually slowed. Today, the North Korean economy is virtually nonexistent while the South Korean economy is expanding. The CIA World Factbook estimates North Korea's GDP (PPP) to be $40 billion, which is a mere 3.34% of South Korea's $1.196 trillion GDP (PPP). The North's per capita income is $1,800, which is 7.35% of South Korea's $24,500 per capita income.
A heavily guarded demilitarized zone (DMZ) on the 38th parallel continues to divide the peninsula today. Anti-Communist and anti-North Korea sentiment still remain in South Korea today, and most South Koreans are against the North Korean government. However, a "Sunshine Policy" is used by the controlling party, the Uri Party. The Uri Party and President Roh, the South Korean president, have often disagreed with the United States in talks about North Korea. The Grand National Party (GNP), the Uri Party's main opposing party, maintains an anti-North Korea policy today.
The war affected other nations as well. Turkey's participation in the war helped it become a NATO member.[90]
According to a September 7, 2007 NPR report, U.S. President George W. Bush stated that it is his administration's position that a formal peace treaty with North Korea would be possible only when the North abandoned its nuclear weapons programs.[91] According to Bush, "We look forward to the day when we can end the Korean War. That will end — will happen when Kim verifiably gets rid of his weapons programs and his weapons."[92] Some have characterized this as a reversal of Bush's stated policy of regime change with respect to North Korea.[93]
At the second Inter-Korean Summit in October 2007, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il signed a joint declaration calling for international talks towards a peace treaty formally ending the war.[94]
[edit] Depictions
[edit] Art
Artist Pablo Picasso's painting Massacre in Korea (1951) depicted violence against civilians during the Korean War. By some accounts, killing of civilians by U.S. forces in Shinchun, Hwanghae Province was the motive of the painting.[citation needed] Ha Jin's War Trash contains a vivid description of the beginning of the war from the point of view of a Chinese soldier and of the fear of retribution Chinese POWs felt from other Chinese prisoners if they were suspected of being unsympathetic to communism or to the war.
[edit] Film
Unlike World War II, there are relatively few Western feature films depicting the Korean War.
• Battle Hymn (1957) stars Rock Hudson as Colonel Dean Hess, who became a preacher after bombing a German orphanage during World War II. He later volunteered as a USAF fighter pilot instructor in Korea.
• The Bridges at Toko-Ri (1955) stars William Holden as a Naval Aviator assigned to destroy the bridges at Toko Ri, while battling doubts; it is based on an eponymous James Michener novel.
• The Hunters (1958), adapted from the novel The Hunters by James Salter, stars Robert Mitchum and Robert Wagner as two very different United States Air Force fighter pilots in the midst of the Korean War.
• Inchon (1982) portrays the Battle of Inchon, a turning point in the war. Controversially, the film was partially financed by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Movement. It became a notorious financial and critical failure, losing an estimated $40 million of its $46 million budget, and remains the last mainstream Hollywood film to use the war as its backdrop. The film was directed by Terence Young, and starred an elderly Laurence Olivier as General Douglas MacArthur. According to press materials from the film, psychics hired by Moon's church contacted MacArthur in heaven and secured his posthumous approval of the casting.
• The Manchurian Candidate, a 1959 thriller novel, was cinematically adapted to The Manchurian Candidate (1962), directed by John Frankenheimer, and featuring Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury. It is about brainwashed POWs of the U.S. Army, and an officer's investigation to learn what happened to him and his platoon in the war.
• M*A*S*H: A Novel About Three Army Doctors, by Richard Hooker (pseudonym for H. Richard Hornberger), was later adapted into a successful film and a television series; the TV series had a total of 251 episodes, lasted 11 years, and won awards, and its concluding episode was a most-watched program.[95] Yet the sensibilities they presented were more of the 1970s than of the 1950s; the Korean War setting was an oblique and uncontroversial treatment of the then-current American war in Vietnam.[citation needed]
• Pork Chop Hill (1959) is a Lewis Milestone-directed film with Gregory Peck as an infantry lieutenant fighting the bitterly fierce first Battle of Pork Chop Hill, between the U.S. Army's 7th Infantry Division, and Chicom (Chinese Communist) forces at war's end in April 1953. The movie is lampooned by the Firesign Theatre album Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers in the story of Lieutenant Tirebiter.
There were several South Korean films, including:
• Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War (2004), directed by Kang Je-gyu, became extremely popular in South Korea and at the 50th Asia Pacific Film Festival, Taegukgi won the "Best Film", while Kang Je-gyu was awarded the "Best Director". Taegukgi saw a limited released in the United States.
• Welcome to Dongmakgol (2005) shows the effect of the warring sides on a remote village. The titular village soon becomes home to surviving North Korean and South Korean soldiers, who in time lose their suspicion and hatred for each other and work together to help save the village after the Americans mistakenly identify it as an enemy camp.
North Korea has made many films about the war, mostly by the government supporting forceful, armed reunification of the North and South of Korea. These have been highly propagandized to portray potential war crimes by American or South Korean soldiers while glorifying members of the North Korean military as well as North Korean ideals.[96][97]
Shangganling Battle (Shanggan Ling, Chinese: 上甘岭) is a depiction of the Korean War from the Chinese point of view, made in 1956. The movie is about a group of Chinese soldiers blocked in Shangganling mountain area for several days and survive until they are relieved.
[edit] See also
• List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity
• Military history of Australia during the Korean War
• UNCMAC - the UN Command Military Armistice Commission operating from 1953 to the present
• UNCOK - the 1950 United Nations Commission on Korea
• UNCURK - the 1951 UN Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea
[edit] Notes
1. ^ "On This Day 29 August 1950". BBC. Retrieved on 2007-08-15.
2. ^ "Veterans Affairs Canada — The Korean War". Veterans Affairs Canada. Retrieved on 2007-08-15.
3. ^ a b "Filipino Soldiers in the Korean War (video documentary)". Retrieved on 2008-03-24.
4. ^ Walker, Jack D. "A brief account of the Korean War". Retrieved on 2007-08-15.
5. ^ "French Participation in the Korean War". Embassy of France. Retrieved on 2007-08-15.
6. ^ "South Korean POWs". Retrieved on 2007-08-15.
7. ^ "All POW-MIA Korean War Casualties". Retrieved on 2007-08-15.
8. ^ "The UK & Korea, Defence Relations". Office of the Defence Attache, British Embassy, Seoul. Retrieved on 2007-08-15.
9. ^ a b c Hickey, Michael. "The Korean War: An Overview". Retrieved on 2007-08-16.
10. ^ "The Turks in the Korean War". Retrieved on 2007-08-15.
11. ^ "Canadians in Korea: Epilogue". Veterans Affairs Canada (1998-10-06). Retrieved on 2007-10-27.
12. ^ "Korean War 1950–53: Epilogue". Australian War Memorial (2007-10-16). Retrieved on 2007-11-12.
13. ^ "Departure of the French batallion". French newsreels archives (Les Actualités Françaises) (2003-11-05). Retrieved on 2007-08-16.
14. ^ "South Africa in the Korean War". korean-war.com (November 20, 2006).
15. ^ Xu, Yan. "Korean War: In the View of Cost-effectiveness". Consulate-General of the People's Republic of China in New York. Retrieved on 2007-08-16.
16. ^ BBC News | ASIA-PACIFIC | US cuts Korean war deaths
17. ^ a b c "The Korean War, 1950-1953, (an extract from American Military History, Volume 2 - revised 2005)". Retrieved on 2007-08-20.
18. ^ a b Hermes, Jr., Walter (1966). Truce Tent and Fighting Front. Center of Military History, 2,6,9.
19. ^ "Remembering the Forgotten War: Korea, 1950-1953". Naval Historical Center. Retrieved on 2007-08-16.
20. ^ "War to Resist US Aggression And Aid Korea Marked in DPRK". (China's) Peoples Daily (English version). Retrieved on 2007-08-16.
21. ^ a b c d James F, Schnabel. "United States Army in the Korean War, Policy and Direction: The First Year" p. 3, 18. Retrieved on 2007-08-19.
22. ^ "Treaty of Annexation (Annexation of Korea by Japan)". USC-UCLA Joint East Asian Studies Center. Retrieved on 2007-08-19.
23. ^ McCullough, David (1992). Truman. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, p. 785, 786. ISBN 0671869205.
24. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Appleman, Roy E (1998). South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu. Dept. of the Army, p. 3, p. 15, pp 381, 545, 771, 719. ISBN 0160019184.
25. ^ Rustow, Dankwart A. "The Changing Global Order and Its Implications for Korea's Reunification, Sino-Soviet Affairs, Vol. XVII, No. 4, Winter 1994/5]". The Institute for Sino-Soviet Studies, Hanyang University. Retrieved on 2007-08-19.
26. ^ a b c d e f g h Cumings, Bruce (1981). Origins of the Korean War. Princeton University Press, chapter 4. ISBN 89-7696-612-0.
27. ^ a b c Goulden, Joseph C (1983). Korea: The Untold Story of the War. McGraw-Hill, p. 17. ISBN 0070235805.
28. ^ McCune, Shannon C (1946-05), "Physical Basis for Korean Boundaries", Far Eastern Quarterly May 1946(No. 5): 286-287
29. ^ Grajdanzev, Andrew (1945-10), "Korean Divided", Far Eastern Survey XIV: 282
30. ^ Grajdanzev, Andrew, History of Occupation of Korea, I, pp. 16
31. ^ Green Left - Features: HISTORICAL FEATURE: The Korean War - a war of counter-revolution
32. ^ a b c "The Korean War, The U.S. and Soviet Union in Korea". MacroHistory. Retrieved on 2007-08-19.
33. ^ Henderson, Gregory (1968). Korea: The Politics of the Vortex. Harvard University Press.
34. ^ Lee Chong-sik (1978). Korean Workers' Party. Hoover Institute Press.
35. ^ a b Concharov, Sergei N; Lewis, John W. and Xue Litai (1995). Uncertain Partners: Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804725217.
36. ^ Acheson, Dean (1969). Present at the Creation: My Years at the State Department. W.W. Norton, Inc., 355-358.
37. ^ "Message from Stalin to Kim Il Sung, via Shtykov, Affirmative response to Kim Il Sung's previous requests of lead and ammunitions from the Soviet Union". Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Cold War International History Project (1950-03-18). Retrieved on 2008-02-15.
38. ^ "Telegram from Shtykov to Vyshinsky, Receipt of goods and payments expected of North Korea from the Soviet Union". Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Cold War International History Project (1950-03-09). Retrieved on 2008-02-15.
39. ^ Malkasian, Carter (2001). The Korean War: Essential Histories. Osprey Publishing, p.16.
40. ^ by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, July 4, 1950
41. ^ Leo Gross, "Voting in the Security Council: Abstention from Voting and Absence from Meetings", The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Feb., 1951), pp. 209-257
42. ^ F. B. Schick, "Videant Consules", The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Sep., 1950), pp. 311-325
43. ^ Korea: The Limited War|Rees|David |1964|MacMillan|London|p.27
44. ^ a b c d e f g h i Schnabel, James F (1992). United States Army In The Korean War: Policy And Direction: The First Year. Center of Military History, pp. 155-192, p.212, pp. 283-284, pp. 288-289, p.304. ISBN 0-16-035955-4.
45. ^ a b Korea Institute of Military History. The Korean War: Korea Institute of Military History 3 Volume Set. Bison Books, University of Nebraska Press, vol. 1, p.730, vol. 2, pp. 512-529. ISBN 0803277946.
46. ^ http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/20th/korea.html
47. ^ Another Such Victory: President Truman and the Cold War, 1945-1953, Page 390, Published 2002 Stanford University Press, ISBN 0804747741
48. ^ Yearbook of the United Nations, 1950
49. ^ Communist China's Changing Attitudes Toward the United Nations, International Organization, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Autumn, 1966), pp. 677-704
50. ^ Donovan, Robert J (1996). Tumultuous Years: The Presidency of Harry S. Truman 1949-1953. University of Missouri Press, p 285. ISBN 0826210856.
51. ^ The Korean War: The Chinese Intervention
52. ^ Cohen, Eliot A; Gooch, John (2005). Military Misfortunes: The Anatomy of Failure in War. Free Press, pp 165-195. ISBN 0743280822.
53. ^ Hopkins, William (1986). One Bugle No Drums: The Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Algonquin.
54. ^ Rear Admiral Doyle, James H & Mayer, Arthur J (April 1979), "December 1950 at Hungnam", U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings vol. 105(no. 4): pp. 44-65
55. ^ Hasbrouck, S. V (1951), memo to file (November 7, 1951), G-3 Operations file, box 38-A, Library of Congress
56. ^ Army Chief of Staff (1951), memo to file (November 20, 1951), G-3 Operations file, box 38-A, Library of Congress
57. ^ Watson, Robert J; Schnabel, James F. (1998). The Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Policy, 1950-1951, The Korean War and 1951-1953, The Korean War (History of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Volume III, Parts I and II). Office of Joint History, Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, part 1, p. v; part 2, p. 614.
58. ^ Commanding General, Far East Air Force (1951), Memo to 98th Bomb Wing Commander, Okinawa
59. ^ Far East Command G-2 Theater Intelligence (1951), Resumé of Operation, Record Group 349, box 752
60. ^ "Syngman Rhee Biography: Rhee Attacks Peace Proceedings". Korean War Commemoration Biographies. Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
61. ^ Xu, Yan (2003-07-29). "Korean War: In the View of Cost-effectiveness". Consulate General of the People's Republic of China in New York. Retrieved on 2007-08-12.
62. ^ CW2 Sewell, Stephen L. "FEAF/U.N. Aircraft Used in Korea and Losses by Type". Korean-War.com. Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
63. ^ "Korean War Aces, USAF F-86 Sabre jet pilots". AcePilots.com. Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
64. ^ "Harrison R. Thyng". Sabre Jet Classics. Retrieved on December 24, 2006.
65. ^ http://www.historynet.com/the-rise-of-the-helicopter-during-the-korean-war.htm
66. ^ http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/aahist.htm
67. ^ http://www.historynet.com/the-rise-of-the-helicopter-during-the-korean-war.htm
68. ^ http://www.olive-drab.com/od_medical_evac_helio_ww2.php
69. ^ http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Rotary/MASH/HE12.htm
70. ^ http://www.historynet.com/the-rise-of-the-helicopter-during-the-korean-war.htm
71. ^ a b http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ext.php?ref=http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/korea/navalbattles.htm
72. ^ Knightley, Phillip (1982). The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist and Myth-maker. Quartet, p 334. ISBN 080186951X.
73. ^ Panikkar, Kavalam Madhava (1981). In Two Chinas: Memoirs of a Diplomat. Hyperion Press. ISBN 0830500138.
74. ^ Truman, Harry S (1955-1956). Memoirs (2 volumes). Doubleday, vol. II, p. 394-395. ISBN 156852062X.
75. ^ a b c Rummel, R.J. Statistics of Democide, Chapter 10, Statistics Of North Korean Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources.
76. ^ AP IMPACT: Thousands killed in 1950 by US's Korean ally - Yahoo! News
77. ^ Choe, Sang-Hun (2007-06-25). "A half-century wait for a husband abducted by North Korea", International Herald Tribune:Asia Pacific. Retrieved on 2007-08-22 l.
78. ^ "S Korea 'regrets' refugee mix-up", British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) (2007-01-18). Retrieved on 2008-08-22.
79. ^ Hanley, Charles J.; Martha Mendoza (2006-05-29). "U.S. Policy Was to Shoot Korean Refugees", The Washington Post, Associated Press. Retrieved on 2007-04-15.
80. ^ Hanley, Charles J.; Martha Mendoza (2007-04-13). "Letter reveals U.S. intent at No Gun Ri", New Orleans Times-Picayune, Associated Press. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
81. ^ Potter, Charles (December 3, 1953). "Korean War Atrocities" (PDF, online), United States Senate Subcommittee on Korean War Atrocities of the Permanent Subcommittee of the Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations., US GPO. Retrieved on 2008-01-18. "We marched 2 days. The first night we got some hay and we slept in the hay cuddling together to keep warm. The second night we slept in pigpens, about six inches space between the logs. That night I froze my feet. Starting out again the next morning, after bypassing the convoy, I picked up two rubber boots, what we call "snow packs". They was both for the left foot; I put those on. After starting out the second morning, I didn't have time to massage my feet to get them thawed out. I got marching the next sixteen days after that. During that march all the meat had worn off my feet, all the skin had dropped off, nothing but the bones showing. After arriving in Kanggye they put us up, there, in mud huts, Korean mud huts. We stayed there — all sick and wounded, most of us was — stayed there, in the first part of January 1951. Then the Chinese come around in the night, about twelve o'clock, and told us those who was sick and wounded they was going to move us out to the hospital, which we knew better. There could have been such a thing, but we didn't think so. —— Sgt. Wendell Treffery, RA- 115660."
82. ^ Carlson, Lewis H (2003). Remembered Prisoners of a Forgotten War: An Oral History of Korean War POWs. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0312310072.
83. ^ Lakshmanan, Indira A.R (1999). "Hill 303 Massacre". Boston Globe. Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
84. ^ Van Zandt, James E (February 2003). "`You are about to die a horrible death' - Korean War — the atrocities committed by the North Koreans during the Korean War". VFW Magazine. Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
85. ^ American Ex-Prisoners of War (PDF), Department of Veterans Affairs.
86. ^ Lee, Sookyung (2007). "Hardly Known, Not Yet Forgotten, South Korean POWs Tell Their Story". AII POW-MIA InterNetwork. Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
87. ^ "S Korea POW celebrates escape", British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) (2004-01-19). Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
88. ^ Korean Central News Agency, DPRK Foreign Ministry memorandum on GI mass killings, Pyongyang, March 22, 2003
89. ^ United Nations Yearbook, 1950, 1951, 1952
90. ^ M. Galip Baysan,"Turkish Brigade in Korean War- Kunuri Battles, Turkish Weekly, 09 January 2007
91. ^ Gonyea, Don (2007-08-07). "U.S., South Korea Differ over North Korea", National Public Radio (NPR). Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
92. ^ "N. Korea Agrees to Allow Nuclear Inspectors", National Public Radio (NPR) (2007-08-07). Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
93. ^ Goldenberg, Suzanne (2007-08-05). "Policy Shift Offers US Hope of N Korea Success", Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
94. ^ "Korean leaders issue peace call", BBC News (2007-10-04). Retrieved on 2007-10-04.
95. ^ "What is M*A*S*H". Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
96. ^ pgs 63, 146, 173 Delisle, Guy Pyongyang: A Journey Into North Korea Drawn & Quarterly Books
97. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2982213.stm South Korea's tunnel hunters
[edit] References
• Brune, Lester and Robin Higham, eds., The Korean War: Handbook of the Literature and Research (Greenwood Press, 1994)
• Edwards, Paul M. Korean War Almanac (2006)
• Foot, Rosemary, "Making Known the Unknown War: Policy Analysis of the Korean Conflict in the Last Decade," Diplomatic History 15 (Summer 1991): 411-31, in JSTOR
• Goulden, Joseph C., Korea: The Untold Story of the War, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982.
• Hickey, Michael, The Korean War: The West Confronts Communism, 1950-1953 (London: John Murray, 1999) ISBN 0719555590 9780719555596
• Ho, Kang, Pak (Pyongyang 1993). "The US Imperialists Started the Korean War", Foreign Languages Publishing House.
• Kaufman, Burton I. The Korean Conflict (Greenwood Press, 1999).
• Knightley, P. The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist and Myth-maker (Quartet, 1982)
• Korea Institute of Military History, The Korean War (1998) (English edition 2001), 3 vol, 2600 pp; highly detailed history from South Korean perspective, U of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0-8032-7802-0
• Leitich, Keith. Shapers of the Great Debate on the Korean War: A Biographical Dictionary (2006) covers Americans only
• James I. Matray, ed., Historical Dictionary of the Korean War (Greenwood Press, 1991)
• Millett, Allan R, “A Reader's Guide To The Korean War” Journal of Military History (1997) Vol. 61 No. 3; p. 583+ full text in JSTOR; free online revised version
• Millett, Allan R. "The Korean War: A 50 Year Critical Historiography," Journal of Strategic Studies 24 (March 2001), pp. 188-224. full text in Ingenta and Ebsco; discusses major works by British, American, Korean, Chinese, and Russian authors
• Summers, Harry G. Korean War Almanac (1990)
• Sandler, Stanley ed., The Korean War: An Encyclopedia (Garland, 1995)
• Masatake, Terauchi (1910-08-27). "Treaty of Annexation", USC-UCLA Joint East Asian Studies Center. Retrieved on 2007-01-16.
[edit] Further reading
Victims of a massacre with their hands bound in burial
Syngman Rhee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2007)
This is a Korean name; the family name is Rhee.
Syngman Rhee
이승만
李承晩
Syng-man Lee at 34 years old, in 1909
________________________________________
1st President of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea
In office
April 10, 1948 – 1960
Vice President Ahn Chang-ho (Provisional Government)
Yi Si-yeong
Preceded by The first President
Succeeded by Park Chung-hee
________________________________________
1st, 2nd and 3rd President of South Korea
In office
July 20, 1948 – May 3, 1960
Preceded by Kim Gu (the last President of the Provisional Government),
John Reed Hodge (military governor)
Succeeded by Yun Po-sun
________________________________________
Born March 26, 1875
Haeju, Hwanghae, Korea
Died July 19, 1965 (aged 90)
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Nationality Korean
Political party Liberal
Spouse Francesca Donner
Religion Protestant (Methodist)[1]
Korean name
Hangul
이승만 (South Korean) 리승만 (North Korean)
Hanja
李承晩
Revised
Romanization
I Seungman or Ri Seungman
McCune-
Reischauer
I Sŭngman
Pen name
Hangul
운남
Hanja
雩南
Revised
Romanization
Unnam
McCune-
Reischauer
Unnam
Syngman Rhee or Yi Seungman (March 26, 1875 – July 19, 1965) was the first president of South Korea. His presidency, from August 1948 to April 1960, remains controversial, affected by Cold War tensions on the Korean peninsula and elsewhere. Rhee was regarded as an anti-Communist and a strongman, and led South Korea through the Korean War. His presidency ended in resignation following popular protests against a disputed election. He died in exile in Hawaii.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Early life
• 2 Presidency
• 3 Resignation and Escape
• 4 Legacy
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 External links
[edit] Early life
Syngman Rhee was born in Hwanghae Province to Yi Gyeong-seon, a member of an aristocratic Yangban family.[2] Rhee was descended from Prince Yangnyeong (name; Yi Je), the eldest son of King Taejong of Joseon.[3][4] He attended Pai Chai Hak Dang but he soon became active in Korea's struggle against Japanese hegemony. He was arrested in 1897 for demonstrating against the Japanese monarchy, being subsequently released in 1904 and going to the United States. He obtained several degrees (including an A.B. from George Washington University and a Ph.D. from Princeton University) and became so Westernized that he began writing his name in the Western manner, with the personal name preceding the family name.
In 1910, he returned to Korea, which had by this time been annexed by Japan. His political activism attracted unwelcome attention from the occupying army. In 1919, all of the major pro-independence factions formed the Provisional Government in Shanghai. Rhee was elected the president, a post he held for six years, until 1925 when he was impeached by the Provisional Assembly for the misuse of his authority.
[edit] Presidency
Main article: First Republic of South Korea
After Japanese rule ended in Korea, Rhee returned to Seoul before the other independence leaders, since he was the only one well known to the Allies. In 1945, he was chosen as head of the Korean government. With the tacit consent of the occupation authorities, Rhee conducted a campaign to "remove Communism" that was actually a veiled drive to remove all potential opposition[citation needed].
President Rhee taking the oath of office in Seoul on July 24, 1948
Syngman Rhee awarding a medal to U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Ralph A. Ofstie during the Korean War in 1952
Rhee won a seat at the First Assembly of South Korea on 10 May 1948 by a parliamentary vote after left-wing parties boycotted the election. After being elected as the Speaker of the Constituent Assembly on May 31, Rhee was elected the first president of South Korea defeating Kim Koo, the last president of the Provisional Government by a count of 182-13 on 20 July 1948. It should be noted that Kim Koo was not aware of his nomination for presidency; the nomination was likely an attempt to discredit him as a nationalist. On 15 August 1948, he formally took over power from the US military and de jure sovereignty of Korean people from the Provisional Government.
As president, Rhee assumed dictatorial powers even before the Korean War broke out in 1950. He allowed the internal security force (headed by his right-hand man, Kim Chang-ryong) to detain and torture suspected Communists and North Korean agents. His government also oversaw several massacres, the most notable one being on the island of Jeju island in response to an uprising by leftist factions.
Rhee further damaged his reputation by encouraging the citizens of Seoul, the nation's capital, to remain in the city while he himself was already on his way to refuge as war broke out. His decision to cut the bridges on the Han River prevented thousands of citizens from escaping Communist rule. When UN and South Korean forces fought back and drove the North Koreans north towards the Yalu River (only to retreat to a line around the current DMZ because of Chinese counterattack), Rhee became unpopular with his allies for refusing to agree to a number of ceasefire proposals that would have left Korea divided. Hoping to become the leader of a united Korea, with U.N. assistance, he tried to veto any peace plan that failed to eliminate the northern government completely. He also argued for stronger methods to be used against China and often expressed annoyance at the reluctance of the U.S. to bomb it.
Following the Korean War and for the remainder of his rule, he kept imprisoned the Dowager Queen Yun Empress Sunjeong of the Korean Empire in Suin Hall, a narrow and unsuitable cottage in Jeongneung, Seoul for fear of the respect the people held for her, and he attempted to claim he was related to the royal Yi family.
[edit] Resignation and Escape
In 1960, Rhee assured his fourth term in office as President with a resounding 90% of the vote. The landslide victory came after the main opposition candidate, Cho Byeong-ok, died shortly before the March 15 elections.
Nevertheless Rhee was determined to see his protégé Lee Gibung elected as the independent Vice President - a separate office under Korean law at that time. But when Lee, who was running against Chang Myon, former ambassador to the United States during the Korean War, won the vote with an abnormally wide margin the opposition claimed the election was rigged. This triggered anger among segments of the Korean populace. When police shot demonstrators in Masan, the student-led April 19 Movement forced Rhee to resign on April 26.
On April 28, a DC-4 belonging to the United States Central Intelligence Agency - operated by Civil Air Transport - whisked Rhee out of South Korea as protestors converged on the Blue House.
It was later revealed by Kim Yong Kap, Deputy Minister of Finance, that Rhee had embezzled more than $20 million in government funds.
The former president, his Austrian-born wife, Franziska Donner, and adopted son then lived in exile in Honolulu, Hawaii.
On July 19, 1965, Rhee died of a stroke. His body was returned to Seoul and buried in the National Cemetery on July 27 that same year.
[edit] Legacy
Rhee on a 1959 issued 100 hwan coin
Rhee's legacy has been in considerable dispute. In general, some conservative circles regard Rhee as the patriarch of the nation, while liberals tend to be critical of him.
Rhee's former residence in Seoul, Ihwajang, is currently used for the presidential memorial museum, and Woo-Nam Presidential Preservation Foundation has been set up to honour his legacy.
[edit] See also
• List of Korea-related topics
• President of South Korea
[edit] References
1. ^ The Walnut
2. ^ "Who Was Rhee Syngman?". Retrieved on 2007-12-01.
3. ^ Korea
4. ^ Gyeongbokgong
[edit] External links
• Syngman Rhee
• Syngman Rhee at Find A Grave
Preceded by
Establishment of the Republic
(Emperor Sunjong)
Presidents of Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea
1919-1925 Succeeded by
Park Eunsik
Preceded by
Kim Kyu Sik
Chairmen of the Interim Legislative Assembly
1948 Succeeded by
Dissolved
(Speaker of the Constituent Assembly)
Preceded by
New Creation
(Chairmen of the Interim Legislative Assembly) Speaker of the National Constituent Assembly
1948 Succeeded by
Shin Ik-hee
Preceded by
Kim Gu
(President of the Provisional Government)
Syngman Rhee
(Speaker of the Constituent Assembly) President of South Korea
1948-1960 Succeeded by
Yun Boseon
[단독] 교과부 ‘빨간펜 첨삭지도’ 어색해진 역사책
금성교과서 수정지시안 뜯어보니
이것 빼고 저것 넣으니 문맥 안맞고 어긋나
‘이른바’ ‘결국’ ‘곧바로’ 등 단어도 수정 지시
김소연 기자
» 확대가능
교육과학기술부가 지난 26일 금성출판사에 보낸 33건의 수정지시안에는 수정권고 때와는 달리 항목별로 구체적인 수정문구까지 적혀 있다.
1일 <한겨레>가 입수한 교과부의 ‘금성출판사 교과서 수정지시안’을 보면, 금성출판사의 한국근•현대사 교과서 저자들은 교과부가 10월30일 출판사에 보낸 38건의 수정권고안 가운데 10건에 대해 수정안을 냈으나 교과부는 수정하지 않은 28건과 수정이 미흡하다고 여긴 5건 등 모두 33건에 대해 수정지시를 내렸다.
교과부는 뉴라이트 단체인 교과서포럼이 수정을 요구한 “우리 민족 스스로 원하는 방향으로 새로운 국가를 건설하는 데 장애가 되었다”(253쪽)는 부분은 “우리의 힘으로 일본을 물리치지 못한 것은 통일민족국가를 건설하는 데 주도권을 행사하지 못하는 원인이 되었다”로 바꾸도록 지시했다.
‘분단의 책임에 대한 오해가 있다’며 수정을 요구한 “이승만은 제1차 미•소 공동위원회가 중단되자, 곧바로 남한만의 단독 정부 수립을 주장하였다”(261쪽)는 부분에 대해서는 “남북분단의 책임이 이승만 정부 수립 때문이라는 오해가 있어 ‘곧바로’라는 단어를 빼고, ‘하지만 북한은 이미 사실상의 단독정부를 먼저 출범시켰다’를 추가로 넣을 것”을 지시했다. 이 부분에 대해 집필자들은 “1946년 북조선 임시인민위원회가 성립됐다는 내용을 교과서 다른 부분에 이미 언급한 만큼, 뜬금없이 이 부분에 넣는 것은 문맥상 전혀 맞지 않는다”며 수정을 거부한 바 있다.
윤종배 전국역사교사모임 회장은 “수정문구까지 구체적으로 적어 출판사에 넘기고 수정하라고 압력을 넣었는데, 이게 직권수정이 아니라는 것은 어불성설”이라고 말했다.
교과부의 무리한 ‘첨삭지도식’ 수정 강요도 빈축을 사고 있다. 교과부는 국방부가 요구한 “북한은 1946년 2월부터 ‘민주개혁’이라는 이름 아래…”(265쪽) 부분에서 ‘민주개혁’ 앞에 ‘이른바’를 넣으라고 권고했다. 이에 집필자들은 “민주개혁에 붙은 따옴표가 ‘이른바’라는 의미이므로, 문장 표현만 어색해진다”고 거부했다. 하지만 교과부는 수정지시안에서 “민주개혁에 붙은 따옴표의 의미는 ‘이른바’라는 의미이나, 학습자들의 이해를 돕기 위해 이른바 ‘민주개혁’으로 수정이 필요하다”고 지시했다. 교과부 지시대로라면 결국 ‘이른바 이른바 민주개혁’이 되는 웃지못할 상황이 벌어지게 된 셈이다.
교과부는 또 “결국, 북한은 남한 정부가 남북 대화를 정치적으로 이용한다는 구실로 회담을 일방적으로 중단하고 말았다”(309쪽)라는 부분에 대해서는 “‘결국’이라는 단어로 인해 남한 정부가 남북대화를 정치적으로 이용하였기에 북한이 일방적으로 중단하였다고 학습자가 오해할 소지가 있다”며 ‘결국’을 삭제하거나 수정하라고 지시했다.
금성출판사 대표필자인 김한종 한국교원대 교수(역사교육)는 “‘이른바’, ‘결국’ 등은 내용과 별 상관도 없는 단어지만 수정하면 문장이 어색해져 그냥 두자고 의견을 냈는데 이마저도 수정하라고 했다”며 “교과부는 내용보다 몇 개 항목을 수정했는지가 더 중요했던 것 같다”고 꼬집었다.김소연 기자 dandy@hani.co.kr
Headed the Korean Provisional Government in exile for twenty years. With American backing Rhee was elected first President of Korea, which he ruled with a strong hand for twelve critical years. He was forced to resign on 26th April 1960 over the results of the disputed Vice Presidential election, which was fraudulent in favor of Rhee's apparent successor, with 90% of the vote claimed. The National Assembly voted for his resignation, after which the American CIA spirited him away to a life in exile, where he died in 1965.
[Column] Practiced distortion: The resurrection of Syngman Rhee’s legacy
Kim Sam-woong, former president of the Independence Hall of Korea
» Kim Sam-woong.
Some of the people who used to delight in resurrecting the legacy of former President Park Chung-hee are now waging an all-out war to save that of Syngman Rhee with the publication of a series of books glorifying him as the “father of the nation.” The same kind of people who would call call Rhee the “father of the nation” in the South are the same as those who would call Kim Il-sung the “great leader” in the North. The history of the Korean Peninsula is taking another step backward in time.
It is desirable for Rhee, the first president of South Korea, to be the subject of academic research. The problem is with political maneuvers and historical distortion by scholars of the new right and conservative newspapers. They are trying to revise history textbooks by emphasizing what they say have been the positive effects of Japanese colonial rule, the establishment of a separate government in the South by Rhee and Park’s idea of modernization.
The two entities denounce people who criticize Rhee and Park as having a self-deprecating view of history. That view is in line with those held by ultra-conservatives in Japan who have played a leading role in distorting their textbooks by condemning trials against war criminals and the abolishment of warlords.
In his early years as a politician, Rhee was a liberal and reform-minded forerunner. He earned this reputation by joining the Independence Club’s enlightenment movement; becoming involved in the “105-people case”; operating a private school for ethnic Koreans in Hawaii; launching the publication “Taepyeongyang” (“Pacific Ocean”); and engaging in acts of diplomacy. He also attended at a meeting of the League of Nations in Geneva to appeal for help with securing the Korean Peninsula’s independence and defeated the communist North during the Korean War with the help of the allied forces of the United Nations.
Generally, however, his mistakes are enough to damage his reputation.
> In Hawaii, Rhee prompted a divide in the Korean community when he expelled Park Yong-man, an independence activist, by organizing a Korean assembly and establishing a military school for young Koreans.
> Rhee refused to serve as a translator at the criminal trial of two independence activists in San Francisco. The two activists, Jang In-hwan and Jeon Myeong-woon, were charged with assassinating former American diplomat Durham Stevens and a Japanese lobbyist. Rhee refused to serve on the basis of his religion, Christianity.
> When he was elected as the president of the Provisional Government in Shanghai, Rhee stayed on in the United States. He later went against the principles of the Provisional Government, causing him to be impeached by the Provisional Assembly.
> After Korea was liberated from Japan, Rhee sought to establish a separate government in the South, rather then reunify with the North. He refused to cooperate with either left or right, rejected the idea of participating in a committee formed by the United States and the Soviet Union and snubbed Kim Koo’s call for renegotiation with the North.
> In the wake of the Jeju Uprising, which began on April 3, 1948, Rhee ordered his Cabinet to punish people sternly. Many people were killed when he invoked martial law to control the situation.
> Rhee was accused of setting the stage for pro-Japanese collaborators to rise again when he forcefully dismantled a committee responsible for investigating pro-Japanese, anti-South Korea activities.
> When the Korean War broke out, Rhee was criticized for escaping Seoul as a recorded message using his voice and calling for people to “defend the capital” played in his absence. Many people were killed when the South Korean troops were ordered to cut the bridges on the Han River. He is also thought to be responsible for the massacres of some one million civilians nationwide such as members of the National Defense Army and the Federation of Protecting and Guiding the Public.
> Rhee brutally removed his political rivals. Rhee is suspected of involvement in the murder of Choi Neung-jin, who was murdered during the first National Assembly election; the assassination of independence activist Kim Koo; the execution the progressive party leader Jo Bong-am; and the attempted assassination of Chang Myon, who was his vice president.
> Rhee tried to extend his presidential term by enacting controversial constitutional revisions, instituting sweeping anti-communist rules and rigging the election of May 15, 1960.
> After the 1960 election, police were ordered to shoot students and citizens protesting against the results of an election they said had been rigged. The April 19 Revolution left 186 people dead, 6,026 injured and eventually forced Rhee to resign.
In a survey by the Kyunghyang Shinmun to mark the 60th anniversary of the government’s foundation, only 3.3 percent of respondents picked Rhee as their most respected person, compared to the 28.3 percent who chose Kim Koo.
The most important reason for supporting Rhee cited by Rhee’s supporters is that he established democracy and a free market economy when he founded the nation. However, I think that he trampled all over democracy and failed to establish a market economy that was truly free. During Rhee’s reign, the South Korean economy lagged behind the North’s.
Of the 460 organizations established under the banner of the independence movement at home and abroad during the period of Japanese colonial rule, 53 percent, or 244 organizations, were in favor of having a democratic republic and 34 percent, or 156 organizations, were in favor of Socialism, according to the scholar Lee Dal-soon. In addition, eight percent, or 37 organizations, wanted to return to a form of dynastic rule and the remaining five percent, or 23 organizations, hoped for a military regime. This shows that the majority of the leaders of the independence movement wanted to build a democratic republic with a free market economy.
Therefore, the resurrection of Syngman Rhee’s legacy will not be tolerated. It should be treated as a kind of nostalgia for the kind of authoritarian rule practiced by both Rhee and Park Chung-hee.
The views presented in this column are the writer’s own, and do not necessarily reflect those of The Hankyoreh.
English Education Under US Military Government
This is the 18th in a series of articles about history of English education in Korea _ ED.
By Kim Eun-gyong
Contributing Writer
Japan’s sudden surrender in August 1945 brought World War II to a close. In September United States forces began to arrive in Korea for the control of the territory of Korea south of 38th north latitude, while Soviet Union troops had already begun to occupy northern Korea.
During its three-year occupation of the South, the American military government attempted to transform every aspect of the Korean life according to its concept of democracy. The occupation signaled the beginning of the U.S.'s direct involvement in Korean politics, and wide-spread American influence on Korean society has persisted to date. Thus, one might say that it is impossible to talk about contemporary Korea without an understanding of this occupational period.
More pertinently, the status of the English language was elevated and solidified as the language of the ruling class during this period and has since retained its prominent status in South Korean society. Therefore, a close look at this critical period is necessary and will be offered in the next several articles.
The American military government ruled over southern Korea from U.S. forces' arrival in Incheon on September 9, 1945 to the establishment of the South Korean government on August 15, 1948.
There existed a few international agreements on Korea before the forces' landing in Korea: the Cairo Declaration, a joint statement by American President Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Churchill, and Chinese Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek released on December 1, 1943, and an informal agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union at the Yalta Conference in February 1945.
The Cairo Declaration simply stated that "The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the People of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent," where "in due course" signified the implementation of a trusteeship. At Yalta there was a verbal agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union on the trusteeship of Korea.
President Roosevelt was preoccupied with Japan, rather than Korea, which he did not consider strategically important. By creating a trusteeship for Korea, shared with other powers, the U.S. government intended to free up its forces so that it could focus on the occupation of Japan.
The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan on August 6 and 9, 1945; Moscow declared war against Japan on August 8. A week later on August 15, Japan surrendered. As the Soviet troops began to make their ways into Korea, the U.S. government hastily drew the 38th parallel as the dividing line between the two occupational forces and proposed it to the Soviet Union, which readily accepted it. It is not logical or sensible that Korea, a colony, was treated as if it had been an aggressor in the war and occupied by the Allies divided.
Three weeks after Japan's surrender, U.S. armed forces landed at Incheon, led by Lieutenant General John R. Hodge, who had been appointed as Commanding General of the United States Army Forces in Korea (USAFIK) by General Douglas MacArthur.
He delivered General MacArthur's Proclamation No. 1, "To the People of Korea," part of which read, "Having in mind the long enslavement of the people of Korea and the determination that in due course Korea shall become free and independent, the Korean people are assured that the purpose of the occupation is to them in their personal and religious rights. In giving effect to these purposes, your active aid and compliance is required…. All power of government over the territory of Korea south of 38th north latitude and the people thereof, will be for the present exercised under my authority."
General Hodge immediately extracted the official surrender from the Japanese Governor-General and began to govern southern Korea. In December 1945, at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers of the U. S., the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, the ministers discussed the problems of the Korean occupation, along with other Asia-related issues. They agreed on "working out of an agreement concerning a four-power trusteeship of Korea for a period up to five years." The agreement was made under the pervasive, erroneous belief that "Korea is incapable of self-rule" among the international society.
As soon as the news spread to Korea, the whole nation erupted in protests and strikes. Korean people had been anxiously waiting for their assumed independence. However, now it looked like they were going to be governed by multiple foreign rulers, instead of one, for several more years, and the word "trusteeship" sounded all too familiar, reminding them of the Japanese protectorate.
South Koreans were first united in their resolute cry for instant independence, but later became embroiled in chaotic discord between the anti-trusteeship movement and the pro-trusteeship campaign by the left-wing parties.
The U.S. Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) was officially established as a unit of the 24th Corps, under the command of the military governor of Korea, in January 1946 even though it actually began to rule over the southern part of Korea in September 1945.
On October 12, 1946, the Military Government announced the institution of the South Korean Interim Legislative Assembly (SKILA), a legislative organ that was entirely composed of Koreans. On 17 May, 1947, the Korean components of the Military Government were renamed the South Korean Interim Government (SKIG). Formal administrative authority was handed over to the Koreans, leaving the American Military Government personnel in advisory capacity. In reality, however, the American personnel continued to exert influence and act as final authority.
General Hodge's visit to Washington in February 1947 was "a turning point in the U.S. Korea policy-away from cooperation with Moscow." Hodge argued for discarding U.S.'s efforts to collaborate with the Soviet Union and creating a separate government in the South, which gained approval from the Truman administration.
As the 1947 U.S.-Soviet Union Joint Commission adjourned with little hope for solving the Korean problem soon, Washington decided to set up a democratic Korean government in the South alone and pull out the U.S. troops.
The State Department had been at odds with the War Department, which kept arguing for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, saying that Korea lacked strategic importance. General Hodge also supported the removal of the troops.
In November 1947, the U.S.-dominated United Nations approved a resolution calling for an election in Korea. Under the observation of the UN Temporary Commission on Korea or UNTCOK), the elections were held in the southern part only in May 1948, as the Soviet Union objected to UNTCOK and repudiated such elections.
On August 15, 1948, exactly three years after Korea's liberation from Japan, the Republic of Korea was declared, with its first president Syngman Rhee, one of the most known conservative figures at the time.
The American forces finally withdrew from the Korean peninsula on June 30, 1949; the months-long delay was due to the State Department's concerns over the security of South Korea, neighboring the communistic North Korea.
Kim Eun-gyong is an associate professor of applied linguistics and Associate Dean of the Center for International Affairs, Information and Communications University (ICU) in Daejeon. She can be reached at egkimrivera@icu.ac.kr
태그 : 교육과학기술부
2008/11/30 교육부가 고치라고 한 것은 무엇인가? [72]
2008/11/29 금성 출판사의 굴복 선언을 보며 [42]
교육과학기술부 태그와 관련된 다른 이글루의 글 보기
| ▲ Top
교육부가 고치라고 한 것은 무엇인가?
의외로 대체 교육부가 뭘 고치라고 했는지 찾기가 어려웠다. 교육부 홈페이지에 자료가 없음은 물론(수정합니다. 소시민님의 댓글로 자료를 찾았습니다. 링크를 이 단락 밑에 걸어둡니다), 출판사와 전교조 홈페이지에도 자료가 없었다. 간신히 찾아낸 곳은 광남일보라는 신문이었다. 이곳에서는 5회에 걸쳐 수정권고안을 실어놓았다. 55개 항목이라고 했는데, 왜 50개 항목만 올려놓았는지 알 수는 없다. - 찾아보니 교육부에서 올려놓은 것 자체가 50개 항목이었다. 대체 55항목이라고 광고하는 이유가 뭔지 역시 알 수 없다. 그럼 한 번 살펴보자. 붉은색 표시 부분이 교육부의 수정권고안이다. 저 중 33개 항목이 금성교과서에 해당된 것이라 하는데, 원 자료에는 해당 교과서별로 체크가 되었던 모양이나 그 자료는 극히 일부만 발견할 수 있어서 옮기지 않았다. 좀더 자세한 자료가 있는 분은 전해주면 좋겠다. 내용을 읽어보면 금성교과서 집필진이 첨삭지도 수준이라고 반발한 이유를 쉬 알 수 있다. (자료는 http://www.mest.go.kr/ms_kor/news/notice/broadcast/1256377_8083.jsp 에서 받아볼 수 있음)
한국근현대사교과서 수정권고 내용
1.다음 남한과 북한의 헌법을 비고, 그 속에 담겨진 이념적 차이를 비교해보자
→북한의 사회주의 헌법은 북한의 실제 사회 상황을 반영하지 못함. 대한민국 헌법의 전문과 북한 사회주의 헌법의 서문을 제시 비교하는 것이 바람직.
2.하지만 수출위주의 경제 발전은 대외 의존도를 크게 높였고, 지나친 서구 중심의 정치, 외교 활동은 제3 세계 국가들과 대립을 불러 일으켰다
→1960년대 한국은 군사적으로는 한, 미, 일 안보 군사블록을 갖추고 경제적으로는 한, 미, 일 분업체제를 구추했음. 그러나 제3세계의 관계를 대립일변도로 서술하는 것은 지나친 표현.
3.프랑스 함대 1차 진로
프랑스 함대 2차 진로
미국 함대 침입로
→출판사 자체수정(안)에서는 진로로 통일해 서술했으나 병인양요, 신미양요는 프랑스와 미국이 강화도를 침입해 발생한 전쟁이므로 프랑스 함대 1차 침입로, 프랑스 함대 2차 침입로, 미국함대 침입로로 서술할 필요있음.
4.조미수호통상 조약도 강화도 조약과 같이 불평등한 조약이었다. 영사 재판권에 의한 치외법권은 최혜국 대우까지 규정돼 있어 미국은 장차 더 큰 이익을 챙길 수 있었다.
→최혜국 대우 조항과 '미국은 장차 더 큰 이익을 챙길 수 있었다' 부분은 내용적으로 중복된 서술이므로 삭제.
5.그러나 급진 개화파는 일본의 침략 의도를 인식하지 못하고 무력 지원을 받아 정변을 일으킴으로써 대다수 관료와 일반민의 지지를 끌어내지 못한 채 오히려 외세의 조선침략을 촉진하는 결과를 가져왔다. 또한 토지 문제에 그다지 관심을 보이지 않는 등 농민들의 바람을 적극적으로 받아들이려고 하지 않았다
→밑줄 친 부분을 학습자들이 이해하기 쉽도록 문장을 평이하게 기술하는 것이 바람직, 농민들의 바람인 토지개혁에 적극적으로 나서지 않았다로 수정
6.한편, 1917년에 일어난 러시아 혁명은 세계사의 새로운 이정표가 되었다. 러시아 혁명은 자본주의 체제에 대한 도전인 동시에 국제 공산주의 운동의 새로운 출발점이었다
→이정표는 일정한 대상과의 거리, 방향을 의미하는 가치내재(지향)적 표현으로 비쳐질 수 있으므로 가치중립적인 표현인 전환점과 같은 용어로 대체하는 것이 바람직.
7.(1)무기 없는 전쟁에서 무력 충돌로(이하 본문 생략)
(2)중화인민공화국의 성립과 변천(이하 본문 생략)
(3)제3세계의 형성(이하 본문 생략)
→근현대사 교육과정(냉전체제의 형성, 제3세계, 중국공산당)에 맞춰 서술하고 있음. 다만 250쪽 지도의 일본을 제3세계로 오해할 수 있으므로 확인해 수정.
8."연합군이 승리한 결과로 광복이 이뤄진 것은 우리 민족 스스로 원하는 방향으로 새로운 국가를 건설하는 데 장애가 되었다." <역사의 현장> "일장기 대신 올라간 것은 태극기가 아니었다. 일장기가 걸려 있던 그 자리에 펄럭이는 것은 이제 성조기였다. 광복을 공식적으로 확인하는 역사적 순간은 자주 독립을 위한 시련의 출발점이기도 하였다"
→8.15 광복은 연합군의 승리과 우리 민족이 줄기차게 전개한 독립 운동의 결실로 이뤄진 결과(교육과정에 근거한 서술)이므로, 분단의 원인을 외인론으로만 해석한 서술은 오해의 소지가 있음. 밑줄친 부분으 삭제 혹은 수정이 바람직.
9.제 1조 북위 38도선 이남의 조선 영토와 조선 인민에 대한 통치의 모든 권한은 당분간 본관의 권한 하에 시행한다(미군 포고령 1호)
"조선 인민들이여! 기억하라! 행복은 여러분들 수중에 있다..."(소련군 포고문)
→구체적인 방침인 포고령과 추상적인 원칙인 포고문을 통해 미국과 소련의 정책을 이해하는 것은 형평성에 문제가 있고, 학습자 수준에 비해 난이도가 지나치게 높으므로 자료 교체가 바람직.
10.(1946년) 10월 1일 대구에서 시작된 봉기는 경상도 일대로, 다시 전국으로 확대됐다. 수십만명의 민중들은 쌀 공출의 폐지, 토지 개혁의 실시, 식민지 교육 철폐, 미 군정 퇴지 등을 요구하며 시위에 돌입했다. 이러한 봉기는 경찰이나 우익 청년 단체들에 의해 무력으로 진압됐다.
→남로당이 10월 농민봉기를 어떻게 사전에 계획, 유도, 조종했는지의 문제가 학문적으로 완전히 규명되지 않았음. 단 공출이라는 용어는 당시 사용했던 미곡수집으로 수정하는 것이 바람직.
11.이승만은 제1차 미•소 공동 위원회가 중단되자 곧바로 남한 만의 단독 정부 수립을 주장하였다.
→1946년 2월 북조선 임시위원회 성립과 1946년 6월 이승만의 정읍발언의 순서를 학습자가 오해할 수 있으므로 밑줄 친 부분은 수정.
12.남한에서 정부가 세워진다면 이는 북한 정부의 수립으로 이어질 것이 확실하였다. 이제 남과 북은 분단의 길로 치닫게 되었다.
→1946년 2월 북조선 임시위원회가 먼저 성립된 이후 6월에 이승만의 정읍발언이 있었으므로 대한민국의 건국과 분단상황을 연계 서술하는 것은 학생들에게 대한민국의 건국으로 인해 분단된 것이라는 오해와 혼동을 줄 우려가 있음.
13."남한만의 단독 정부 수립에 대해 정치 세력들은 서로 다른 견해를 보였다. 이승만과 한국민주당은 이에 찬성한 반면, 좌익세력은 남한 정부의 수립을 저지하기 위한 투쟁을 곳곳에서 벌였다. 김구, 김규식 등 민족주의자들과 좌우익 사이에서 중도적 입장을 취하던 정치세력들은 단독선거가 민족을 분열시킨다며 반대하였고, 북한과 협상을 통해 남북분단을 막으려고 하였다.
단독정부냐,통일정부냐
<자료1> 이승만의 정읍 발언(1946년 6월 3일) (내용생략).
<자료2> 김구의 ‘삼천만 동포에게 읍고함’ (내용생략).
<과제1> 당시 단독정부의 구성에 찬성한 세력과 반대한 세력을 조사해 보자.
<과제2> 자료1과 자료2를 읽고 이승만과 김구의 입장 중 하나를 택하여 당시 단독정부 구성이 필요했는지, 또는 통일정부 구성이 가능했는지를 토론해 보자.
→단독정부 수립 국면과 관련하여 정치세력별 의견을 나열 서술함으로 인해 분단의 책임에 대한 학습자의 오해가 우려됨으로 보완서술이 필요함. 북한에서는 1946년 2월 소군정의 지원으로 사실상의 공산체제의 국가 건설이 시작되었음
14.통일 정부의 건설을 바라는 국민적 열망과 여러 정치세력들의 반대 속에 1948년 5월 남한만의 단독 정부를 세우기 위한 총선거가 실시되었다(5ㆍ10선거). 총선거에는 김구와 김규식을 비롯한 남북협상 참가세력과 많은 중도계 인사들이 참가를 거부함으로써 이승만과 한국민주당, 그리고 일부 중도세력만 출마하였다.친일파를 숙청하는 한편, 주요 산업을 국유화하였다. 또한 대지주의 땅을 몰수하여 농민에게 나누어 주는 토지개혁을 실시하였다. (중략) 이렇게 명분을 쌓아 가던 북한은 남쪽에 정부가 들어서자 그 다음 달인 9월 초 곧바로 남한의 국회에 해당하는 최고인민회의 대의원 선거를 거쳐 조선민주주의인민공화국의 수립을 선언하였다. 바야흐로 남과 북에는 이념과 체제를 달리하는 두 개의 정부가 들어선 것이다.
→분단의 책임소재에 대한 학습자의 이해를 돕기 위하여 ①264쪽과 265쪽의 순서를 변경하고 ②대한민국 정부 수립의 의의 및 정통성에 대한 보충 서술이 필요
15.북한은 1946년 2월부터 ‘민주개혁’이라는 이름 아래 일제의 식민 지배를 청산하고 사회체제를 바꾸는 일련의 정책을 시행하였다.
→따옴표( ' ' )의 의미는 '이른바'라는 의미이나 학습자들의 이해를 돕기 위해 "이른바 '민주개혁"으로 수정하는 것이 바람직함.
16.(북한은) 친일파를 숙청하는 한편, 주요 산업을 국유화하였다. <좌절된 친일파 청산>"우여곡절 끝에 태어난 대한민국 정부가 가장 먼저 처리해야 할 것은 사회에 남아 있는 일제 지배의 자취를 없애는 일이었다.그 중에서도 일제 통치에 협력하여 민족을 배신하고 자신의 이익만을 누리던 친일파를 단죄하는 일은 무엇보다도 시급한 문제였다. 친일파를 처단하자는 움직임은 광복 직후부터 거세게 일어났다. <중략>그러나 행정부나 경찰 곳곳의 주요 자리에 친일 행위를 한 인물들을 등용하고 있던 이승만 정부는 친일파의 처벌에 소극적이었다. 더 나아가 반민 특위의 활동이 활발해지자 이를 비난하는 한편, 노골적인 방해에 나섰다. 경찰을 동원하여 반민특위를 습격하고 직원들을 연행하였다.
그리고 반민족 행위자의 범위를 크게 좁히고, 친일파 처벌의 기한을 줄임으로써 반민특위의 활동을 사실상 막아버렸다. 이로 인해 친일파 처벌은 거의 이루어지지 못하였으며, 민족정신에 토대를 둔 새로운 나라의 출발은 수포로 돌아갔다."
<프랑스의 나치 협력자 대숙청과 한국의 반민족 행위자 처벌> 제2차 세계대전 후 프랑스에서는 나치 협력자로 150-200만 명이 조사를 받았다. 이 중 3-4만 명이 재판을 받고 구금되었고, 1만 명이 사형 선고를 받았으며, 수천 명이 실제로 사형에 처해졌다. 이 작업을 지휘했던 드골은 반나치 세력에 속하는 인물이라면 공산주의자라도 손을 잡았다. 이 '반나치 연합'이 오늘날 프랑스 민주주의 통합의 기초가 되었다. 반면에 대한민국에서는 1949년 9월 반민특위가 해산할 때까지 취급한 사건은 682건에 지나지 않는다. 이중 체포 305명, 미체포 173명, 자수 61명이었으며, 559명이 특별검찰에 송치되어 221명이 기소되었다. 재판이 종결된 38명 중 사형 1명과 무기징역 1명을 포함해 징역형이 12명, 공민권 정지 18명, 무죄 6명, 형 면죄 2명이었다. 그러나 이들조차 1950년까지는 재심 청구나 감형, 그리고 형 집행정지 등으로 모두 자유의 몸이 되었다. 이처럼 광복 이후, 친일파를 제대로 청산하지 못한 과오는 우리 현대사를 옥죄는 굴레가 되었다.
→친일파 청산이 철저하지 못했던 것은 안타까운 현실이지만 밑줄친 '민족정신에 토대를 둔 새로운 나라의 출발은 수포로 돌아갔다'라는 표현은 지나친 표현임. 친일파를 프랑스처럼 대량으로 처형하지 못했던 것에 대하여 "우리 현대사를 옥죄는 굴레가 되었다"라는 표현은 지나치게 주관적인 견해이므로 수정이 필요
17.남과 북에 들어선 두 정부는 이념과 체제를 달리하면서도 표면적으로는 계속해서 통일을 강조하였다. 그러나 남북 정부 사이의 갈등은 갈수록 심해져 갔다. (중략) 미국과 소련은 1948년 말에서 1949년 초에 걸쳐 일단 한반도에 주둔하고 있던 군대를 철수시켰다. 그러나 남과 북에 대한 군사적, 경제적지원을 계속하였으며, 전쟁이 일어날 경우 원조를 아끼지 않을 것을 약속하였다. (중략) 남북 사이의 무력 충돌도 적지 않았다. 지리산을 비롯한 남한 곳곳에서도 북한을 지지하는 무장 유격대의 활동이 계속되었다. 38도선 곳곳에는 국군과 북한군 간에 크고 작은 충돌이 쉴 새 없이 일어났다. 이러한 충돌은 1950년에 줄어들었으나 불안정한 정세는 계속되었다.
→학습자의 이해를 돕기 위해 밑줄 친 '무장 유격대'를 '좌익 무장 유격대'로 수정 서술하는 것이 바람직함
18.<멀고 먼 휴전의 길>마침내 1951년 6월 소련이 유엔에서 휴전을 제의하자, 미국이 이를 받아들여 유엔군과 공산군 사이에 휴전 회담이 시작되었다. 이에 대해 남한 정부는 휴전에 반대하면서 북진통일을 주장하였으나, 협상은 계속되었다. <휴전을 지연시킨 포로송환문제> 그러나 휴전협상이 마무리되고 휴전선이 최종 결정된 1953년 6월 18일 휴전을 반대해 오던 이승만은 반공포로 석방을 단행했다. 군과 경찰을 동원해 27,000여 명의 포로를 풀어준 것이다. 휴전 협정 자체를 무산시킬 수도 있는 엄청난 사건이었지만, 더 이상 전쟁을 지속시키기 어려웠던 북한과 미군은 반공포로 석방을 인정할 수밖에 없었다.
→반공포로 석방과 관련된 설명 중 밑줄친 '휴전자체를 무산시킬수 있는 엄청난 사건이었지만'이라는 서술은 지나치게 주관적인 서술이므로 삭제가 바람직
19.민간인 학살도 곳곳에서 일어났다. 전쟁이 일어난 직후 남한에서는 보도연맹원들에 대한 대대적 처형이 있었고, 경남 거창과 충북 영동의 노근리 등 여러 곳에서 주민들이 적으로 몰려 죽임을 당했다. 후퇴하는 북한군도 대전 등지에서 많은 주민을 죽였다. 남과 북 사이에는 씻을 수 없는 적대감이 쌓여 갔다.
→보도연맹의 정식 명칭은 ‘국민 보도 연맹(國民保導聯盟)’이며, ‘보도연맹(保導聯盟)이 보도연맹(報道聯盟)과 혼동될 수 있음. 민간인 학살과 같은 부정적인 사례는 동등한 사례수로 서술하는 것이 바람직함.
20.<봇물처럼 쏟아진 각 사회들의 주장> 이승만 정권이 무너지자 그 동안 억눌렸던 사람들이 자기 목소리를 내기 시작했다. 다음은 각 단체의 강령을 기초로 그들의 요구를 재구성한 것이다. 그 당시 각계 각층 사람들이 원한 것은 무엇이었는지 자료를 통해 알아보자.
(1) 청년 및 학생들의 요구 : "아직도 돈이 없어서 학교를 못 다니거나 중도에 포기하는 학생들이 있습니다. (하략)"
(2) 노동자들의 요구 : "물가는 하늘 높은 줄 모르고 치솟는데, 임금은 3년이나 오르지 않고 있습니다. (하략)"
(3) 교사들의 요구 : "학교가 언제까지 정권의 시녀 노릇을 해야 합니까? (하략)"
(4) 농민들의 요구 : 농지개혁법이 실시되었지만 아직도 지주들이 토지를 차지하고 있습니다. (하략)"
(5) 피학살자 유족들의 요구 : "6.25 전쟁 중에 거창 주민들이 억울하게 학살당했습니다. (하략)"
→재구성한 자료의 사용은 최소화하는 것이 바람직하고 사용시 출처를 밝히는 것이 바람직함.
21.2000년 10월 대통령 직속으로 만들어진 의문사진상규명위원회는 1975년에 일어났던 한 사람의 죽음을 조사의 대상으로 삼았다. 그 주인공은 장준하였다. (중략) 박정희 정부 아래에서도 독재정치에 맞선 장준하의 민주화 운동은 계속되었다. (중략) 그 결과 1970년대에는 ‘재야 대통령’이라는 이름을 얻기도 하였다.
→밑줄친 부분은 객관적 근거가 불충분하므로 삭제가 바람직
22.5ㆍ18민주화 운동은 1980년대 민족민주운동의 토대가 되었다. 1980년대 초 잠시 주춤하던 민족 민주 운동은 얼마 되지 않아 다시 활기를 띠게 되었다. (중략) 학생운동은 점차 사회 변혁을 지향하면서 민중 운동과 결합하였다. (전두환 정부의 4ㆍ13호헌조치)에 대한 국민적 저항은 6월에 접어들어 더욱 거세고 끈질기게 계속되었다(6월민주항쟁). " 마침내 정부와 집권 여당은 굴복을 하고, 대통령 직선제 개헌과 구속자 인사 석방, 정치 활동 규제의 철폐를 약속하였다(6ㆍ29민주화선언).
→학습자들이 이해하기 쉽게 '민족민주운동'을 '민주화 운동'으로 수정하는 것이 바람직함.
23.<자료3> 북한 청소년의 희망(북한의 생활에 대해 쓴 책을 참고로 북한 청소년의 희망을 재구성)
캐릭터 1: “저는 대학에 가고 싶었으나 집안 사정이 여의치 않아서 전문학교에 진학해 기계 계통을 배웠습니다. 그러나 졸업 후 전공을 살리기 어려워 군대에 가서 당원이 되려고 합니다.”
캐릭터2: “저는 스물 한 살로, 중학교를 졸업하고 나라의 손님을 접대하는 초대소에서 일하고 있어요. 기회가 있으면 교원 대학에 진학하여 선생님이 되고 싶어요.”
캐릭터3: "저는 개성의 중학교 고등반 1학년 여학생입니다. 제 꿈은 휘파람을 부른 전혜영과 같은 인기가수가 되는 것입니다."
캐릭터4: "저는 함흥의 한 중학교 최우등 학급의 학생입니다. 김일성종합대학에 진학하여 당이나 국가기관의 간부가 되고 싶습니다."
<과제2> 에 나타난 북한 학생들의 장래 희망은 남한 청소년들과 어떤 차이점이 있는지 말해 보자.
→북한의 실제 상황 재구성 자료를 활용하는 것이 바람직하므로 내용수정이 필요함. (예시 : 김일성대학은 출신성분이 좋은 사람만 진학 가능)
24.생각열기 : “북한의 (중략) 기본 사상이다.”(통일교육원, 북한이해)
→자료 출처를 명확히 하기 위해 '발췌요약'을 명시하는 것이 바람직함.
25.대내적으로는 주체사상에 토대를 둔 '우리식 사회주의'를 강조하였다. 당면한 문제를 스스로 책임지고 자체의 힘으로 해결하자는 것이었다. 이를 뒷받침해주는 근본적인 힘으로 '조선 민족 제일주의'를 내세우고 있다.
→북한이 주장하는 '우리식 사회주의'의 실체에 대한 학습자의 이해를 돕기 위해 '우리식 사회주의'가 북한 사람들에게 미친 영향을 서술할 필요가 있음.
26.결국, 북한은 남한 정부가
→학습자의 이해를 돕기 위해 '결국, 북한은'을 '이후, 북한은' 으로 서술하여 의미를 명확히 할 필요가 있음.
27.1990년대 전반 막대한 군사비를 감당하기 어려운 북한이 핵무기를 개발하고 있다는 의혹이 국제 사회에 제기되었다.
→북한 핵무기 개발은 단순한 의혹이 아니라 사실이었음을 적시한 서술이 필요함
28.근래 통일에 대한 기대감은 어느 때보다 높아지고 있다. 이러한 기대감은 남북 교류의 확대와 북한 체제의 변화 가능성에 토대를 두고 있다. (중략) 그러한 통일을 어렵게 하는 요인들도 적지 않다. 우선 남한에서 높아지고 있는 통일의 기대감은 상당 부분 북한이 붕괴하거나 체제 변화로 남한에 통합되는 형태를 그리고 있다는 점이다. 그러나 북한은 남한의 이러한 흡수 통일에 대해 강한 경계심을 가지고 있다. (중략) 남한 안에서도 북한을 보는 시각이나 통일의 방향에 대해 상당한 의견 차이가 존재한다. 북한을 화해와 협력의 대상보다는 무너뜨려야 할 적으로 보는 시각도 사회의 한편에서는 여전히 강하게 남아 있다. 이러한 의견 대립으로 정부의 대북 정책이나 남북 교류를 둘러싼 사회적 갈등도 적지 않다. 민족 구성원들은 이러한 갈등을 민주적 대화와 타협을 통하여 해소시키고, 남북 통합을 평화적으로 이루어낼 수 있는 우리 사회의 자율적 역량을 키워내는 것이 중요하다.”
→북한의 실상과 현저한 차이를 보이는 서술은 보완이 필요함
29.그러나 개혁이 시간을 끄는 사이에 일부 지주들은 땅을 팔아치워 농지 대상이 되는 토지는 크게 줄었다. 더구나 전쟁 등으로 인플레이션이 심했던 당시, 토지 대금을 생산물로 납부해야 하는 제도는 농민들의 부담을 크게 하였다. (중략) 결국 이를 감당하기 어려운 농민들은 분배 받은 농지를 다시 팔고 소작을 하거나 도시로 떠나는 경우도 있었다.
<자료2> 농지개혁을 둘러싼 농민과 지주의 입장 : 저는 조상 대대로 소작을 부쳐온 농민입니다. 일제 치하에서는 이래저래 고생도 많이 했지요. 이제 광복도 되고 우리 정부도 세워졌으니 우리 같은 농민들도 살맛나게 살아봐야 되지 않겠습니까? 듣자하니 북에서는 농민들에게 땅을 나누어 주었다고 합니다. 그런데 우리는 제 값을 다 주고 사야 한다지요. 그렇게 비싼 돈을 주고 농토를 살 수 있으면 아직까지 소작농으로 살아왔겠느냐 이 말입니다.(하략)
→북한의 토지개혁은 소유권의 제한(매매, 소작 등의 금지), 현물세의 존재 등 한계가 있었으므로 이러한 내용을 서술하여 남북한 토지개혁에 대한 학습자들의 올바른 이해에 도움을 줄 필요가 있음. 또한 북한의 경우, 집단농장제를 전제로한 토지 개혁이란 점을 서술하는 것이 바람직함
30.농지개혁을 둘러싼 농민과 지주의 입장 (전략) 듣자하니 북에서는 농민들에게 농사지을 땅을 나누어 주었다고 합니다. 그런데 우리는 제 값을 다 주고 사야 한다지요. (중략) 우리에게도 땅을 무상으로 나누어주시오. (후략)
→북한의 토지개혁은 소유권의 제한(매매, 소작 등의 금지), 현물세의 존재 등 한계가 있으므로 재구성한 자료의 내용중 무상분배만을 기술한 것은 학습자에게 자료 해석상의 오해를 불러 일으킬 소지가 있음. 그러므로 자료를 재구성할 경우 문장 서술과 삽화에 신중을 기할 필요가 있음.
31.미국에서 원조 받은 농산물을 판매한 돈은 흔히 ‘미공법(公法, public law) 480호’라고 불리는 미국의 ‘농산물 무역 촉진 원조법’에 따라 대충자금(代充資金)으로 적립되었다. 대충자금이란 미국의 원조를 받는 나라가 원조액에 해당하는 자기나라 돈을 별도의 특별계정을 만들어 적립한 것을 말한다. 이 대충자금은 미국과 협의에 따라 사용되었다. 대충자금은 국내 미군의 유지에 필요한 비용으로도 사용되었으며, 절반 가까이는 미국의 무기를 사들이는 데 소비되었다. “미국의 원조는 주로 식료품과 의복, 의료품과 같은 생활 필수품과 면방직, 설탕, 밀가루와 같은 소비재 산업의 원료에 집중되었다. 원조 물자 중 가장 많은 부분을 차지하는 것은 농산물이었다. (중략) 이승만 정부는 부족한 재정을 메우고 정치 자금을 확보하기 위해 미국의 잉여농산물을 필요 이상으로 들여왔다.
→ ‘대충자금’(對充資金, counterpart fund) 한자 표기가 잘못되었으므로 수정이 필요함. 또한 고등학교 수준에서 미공법 480호와 같은 사료를 다루는 것이 적절한지 여부에 대해 재검토가 필요함
32.그러나 이것이 제대로 도지 않자 외국에서 자본을 끌어들이는 것으로 방향을 바꾸었다. 자유무역지역을 만들어 외국자본을 직접 끌어들이는 방향으로 정책을 바꾸었다." 정부는 미국 등의 개방 압력과 우루과이라운드에 따라 시장과 자본의 전면적 개방을 서둘렀다. 그 결과 외국의 상품과 초국적 자본이 아무런 제약 없이 밀려들어 왔다.
→개방과 세계화가 선진국만 배불린다는 <만평>과 <과제1>의 내용에 대하여 시장과 자본의 개방이 가져온 문제점과 경제적 이익을 균형적으로 서술할 필요가 있음. <만평>은 삭제가 바람직
33.새마을 운동은 겉으로는 민간의 자발적인 운동이었으나, 실제로는 정부가 주도하였다. 그 결과 박정희 정부의 독재와 유신 체제를 정당화하는 데 이용되기도 하다.
→밑줄 친 '그 결과'는 불필요한 수식어이므로 삭제.
34.한편, 국내에서는 좌•우 대립을 해소하고 건국 동맹을 설립하는 등 건국 준비 활동이 전개되었다.
→밑줄 친 부분은 과장된 표현이므로 삭제
35.그러나 이는 외국인들의 필요와 기술 및 자본에 의하여 이루어졌기 때문에 외국의 건축 문화가 무분별하게 들여오는 부작용을 낳았다.
→외국의 건축 문화 수용에 따른 부작용 및 부정적 측면의 논거가 부족하므로 밑줄 친 부분 수정(삭제)필요.
36.아프리카의 신생 국가들은 미국과 소련을 중심으로 한 동서 냉전의 소용돌이 속에서 정치적 독립을 지키며 경제적 사회적 발전을 위하여 비동맹 중립노선의 제3세계를 형성하기도 하였다.
→아시아•아프리카의 신생국가들 모두가 비동맹 중립 노선의 제3세계를 형성한 것으로 오해를 할 수 있으므로 '일부'를 첨가하는 것이 바람직할 것임
37.6•25 전쟁은 이후 남북한 정치 상황에도 막대한 영향을 미쳤다. 이승만 정부는 반공을 국시로 삼고 야당을 탄압하면서 독재 정치를 꾀하였다. 북한에서는 김일성이 반대파를 제거하고 반미 감정으로 주민들을 결속하면서 유일 지도 체제로 나아갔다.
→김일성 '유일지도체제'도 독재정치임을 반영하여 서술.
38.한편 국내에서는 여운형을 중심으로 조선 건국 동맹이 결성되었다. 조선 건국 동맹은 건국을 준비하기 위하여 기초적인 정부 조직과 무장조직을 갖추고자 노력하였다. 여기에는 사회주의자뿐만 아니라 우익 계열의 인사들도 적극 참여하였다.
→ 조선 건국 동맹에는 일부 우익계열의 인사들이 참여하였으므로 밑줄 친 부분은 부정확한 서술임.
39.처음에 신탁 통치 반대 운동의 입장을 표명하였던 좌익 정치 세력들은 1946년 1월 모스크바 3상 협정에 대한 지지로 자신들의 입장을 바꾸었다. 일부 민족주의 세력들도 3상 협정에 대한 지지의 입장으로 선회하였는데, 이는 3상 협정의 내용 안에 신탁 통치에 대한 내용뿐만 아니라 우리 민족에게 유리한 내용도 포함되어 있었다고 생각했기 때문이었다.
→교과서는 교육과정에서 제시된 학습내용을 중심으로 정설화된 것을 서술하되, 학습자의 수준을 유의하여 기술해야 하므로 밑줄친 부분은 내용을 줄이거나 삭제하는 것이 바람직함
40.1947년 7월에는 좌우 합작 운동의 구심점이었던 여운형이 암살당하였다. 결국 미국은 미ㆍ소 공동 위원회의 결렬을 선언하고 한국 문제를 유엔으로 이관하였다(1947.9). 이제 소련이 유엔의 한국 문제 처리를 반대하는 가운데, 38도선 이남과 이북에서는 서로 다른 체제의 분단 정권이 수립되는 길로 나아가게 되었다.
→여운형 암살이 미소공동위원회의 결렬 이유인 것으로 오해할 소지가 있으므로 밑줄친 부분은 삭제
41.1994년에는 우루과이 라운드 협정이 타결되었다. 보호 무역주의의 철폐를 골자로 하는 이 협정으로 인해 대한민국은 그 동안 국내 산업의 보호를 위해 개방을 미루었던 분야에 대해서도 개방을 하게 되었다. 특히 농민들의 거센 저항에도 불구하고 농산물 시장이 개방되면서 농업 분야는 커다란 타격을 입게 되었다.
→우루과이 라운드 협정 타결에 따른 득실을 균형적 서술 필요함
42.19세기는 소수의 선진 자본주의 국가들이 아시아, 아프리카 지역을 식민지로 강제 편입시키는 제국주의 시대였다.
→정확한 사실을 기술할 필요가 있음(19세기 -> 19세기 후반)
43.그리고 국내에서는 좌•우 대립을 해소하면서 조선 건국 동맹이 성립되어 건국 준비 활동을 전개하였다.
→좌우대립을 해소하면서 부분은 사실오류이므로 삭제
44.그리하여 북한은 금강산 관광 개방에 이어 남한의 김대중 정부와 2000년 6월 15일 남북 정상회담을 개최하여 남북 화해•협력 시대를 본격적으로 열었다.
→급변하는 남북한 관계의 변화를 고려하여 최근의 상황을 반영하여 서술
45.(둘째 단락) 1999년에는 미사일 재 발사 유보 등의 조치로 미국과의 관계를 정상화하고자 노력하였다.
→급변하는 남북한 관계의 변화를 고려하여 최근의 상황을 반영하여 서술
46.(마지막 단락) 2000년 6월에 개최된(중략) 남북 공동 선언을 발표하게 되었다.
→급변하는 남북한 관계의 변화를 고려하여 최근의 상황을 반영하여 서술
47.한반도 안에서 탈냉전과 평화 분위기가 고조되어 경의선 복구 사업, 개성 공단 건설 등과 같은 남북한 경제 협력을 축으로 사회, 문화, 체육, 보건, 환경 등 다방면에서 남북 교류ㆍ협력이 더욱 활성화되었다.
→급변하는 남북한 관계의 변화를 고려하여 최근의 상황을 반영하여 서술
48.2000년 남북정상회담 관련 내용
→급변하는 남북한 관계의 변화를 고려하여 최근까지의 상황을 반영하여 서술
49.북미관계 설명 내용
→급변하는 남북한 관계의 변화를 고려하여 최근까지의 상황을 반영하여 서술
50.3번 도표(남북한 통일 관련 주요 내용)
→급변하는 남북한 관계의 변화를 고려하여 최근까지의 상황을 반영하여 서술
이제 위 내용을 다 보았다면 얼마나 자질구레하고 찌질한 부분들이 많은지 쉬 알 수 있다. 일일이 코멘트 하지는 않겠지만 44번부터 50번까지의 항목을 보면 구체적인 내용도 없이 "지적질"만 해놓았다는 것을 알 수 있다. 그러니 이런 성명이 안 나올 수 있었을까? (강조 부분 표시는 내가 했음.)
교육과학기술부의 한국근현대사 교과서 수정 방침에 대한 역사학계의 성명
현행 ‘고등학교 『한국근현대사』 교과서’(이하 교과서)의 검인정화는 1998년 김영삼 정부에서 제정한 교육과정 개정안에 따른 것이었다. 이로써 우리 정부는 역사교과서 국정제도를 극복하고 세계 대부분의 나라에서 보편적으로 채택하고 있는 검인정제도로 전환하게 되었다. 역사학계나 역사교육계는 이를 역사학 연구와 교육의 발전에 중요한 전기로 받아들였다. 그 후 검인정 교과서에 대해 일부 논란도 있었으나 교육부나 국사편찬위원회는 정해진 교육과정과 엄격한 검인정 기준에 따르고 있으므로 문제가 없다고 거듭 확인한 바 있다.
그런데 최근 정부 당국은 역사학과 무관한 일부 단체들의 주장을 받아들여 현행 교과서의 좌편향성과 그에 대한 직권수정까지 논하면서 공개해서는 안 되는 검정보고서까지 유출시키고, 한 여당의원은 심지어 북한교과서를 베꼈다는 폭언까지 하기에 이르렀다. 교과서의 객관성을 보호해야 할 정부당국이 앞장 서 헌법에 보장된 교육의 정치적 중립성을 부정하고 있는 것이 작금의 현실이다.
더욱이 교과서의 편향성을 주장하는 일부 단체의 입장은 역사학자는 물론 국민들이 납득하기 어려운 한국사정체성론과 식민지근대화론, 친일과 독재를 정당화하는 문제점을 안고 있다. 하지만 정부 당국은 단 한 번도 교과서 집필자들이나 학계와 교사들의 목소리를 들어보려고 진지하게 노력한 적이 없다. 이는 역사교육과 역사학의 전문성에 대한 부정이며, 교과서 검정제도와 관련된 실정법을 위배하는 행위가 아닐 수 없다.
우리는 교과서의 집필자들이 완성도를 높이기 위해 끊임없이 노력하고 있음을 알고 있다. 현행 역사교과서에 문제가 있다면 그 수정작업은 필자들이나 역사학계의 엄밀한 검토를 통해서 진행되어야 한다. 교과서 검인정제도는 국민적 합의에 따라 진행되고 있는 학계와 교육현장의 목소리를 최대한 반영하며, 다양한 견해의 교과서에 대한 교사와 학생들의 선택권을 보장하는 것이다. 그러나 최근의 교과서 수정 시도는 검인정제도를 사실상 부정하고 국정화하려는 행위이며, 역사교육의 자율성에 대한 심각한 도전이라 하지 않을 수 없다.
역사교육은 정권과 관계없이 백년대계 속에서 이뤄져야 한다. 교육의 정치적 중립성은 우리 사회가 이룩한 소중한 가치이다. 역사교육이 위기에 처하게 된 상황에 즈음하여 우리 역사학계는 뜻을 모아 대한민국의 미래를 위해 정부 여당에게 다음과 같이 요구한다.
1. 정부 및 여당은 역사학계와 교사들의 명예를 훼손하는 언행을 삼가고 소모적 이념논쟁을 중지하라.
1. 역사학의 전문성 및 교육의 정치적 중립성을 보장하라.
1. 교과서 검인정제도의 정신을 훼손하려는 시도를 철회하라.
1. 교과서 집필자들에게 가하고 있는 부당한 외압을 즉각 중단하라.
1. 교과서의 집필과 수정작업은 역사학계에 맡기라.
1. 교과서 개악에 앞장서고 있는 교육관료에게 엄중히 책임을 물으라.
2008년 10월 8일
고려사학회, 대구사학회, 동양사학회, 부산경남사학회, 서양중세사학회, 역사교육연구회, 역사교육학회, 전북사학회, 조선시대사학회, 한국고대사학회, 한국근현대사학회, 한국민족운동사학회, 한국사연구회, 한국사상사학회, 한국사회사학회, 한국서양사학회, 한국역사교육학회, 한국역사연구회, 한국중세사학회, 호남사학회, 호서사학회 (가나다순)
나는 우파가 주장하는 내용의 서술이 담긴 교과서의 발간을 반대하지 않는다. 교과서에 대해서 갖는 나의 근본적인 생각은 다음 책과 같다. (중요하다고 생각하고 동의하는 구절이 몽땅 다라서 강조 표시 같은 걸 넣을 수가 없다.)
...가능하다면 문부성의 학습지도요령은 폐지하는 편이 좋다고 생각합니다. 만일 존속시킨다 하더라도 한층 간소하게, 즉 헌법이나 교육기본법의 이념을 가볍게 도입하는 정도로 유연한 기준을 세워야 할 것입니다. 문부성 행정은 단순한 사실 오기를 수정하고 체크하는 정도에서 그쳐야 합니다. 요컨대, 출판과 교과서 선정에 자유를 주는 것입니다. 교과서 출판사와 집필자는 국내뿐만 아니라 국제적으로도 인정받을 수 있는, 한층 뛰어난 역사교과서를 만드는 데 온 힘을 기울여야 합니다. 채택도 자유로워야 합니다. 문부과학성의 사주를 받고 있는 지방자치제 교육위원회에게만 주어지는 채택권은 폐지되어야 합니다. 교과서에 대한 평가는 학교와 학회, 사회의 몫이 되어야 합니다. 적어도 정부의 행정에서 이탈할 필요가 있습니다. (세계의 역사교과서 중에서)
세계의 역사 교과서 -
이시와타 노부오.고시다 타카시 엮음, 양억관 옮김/작가정신
교과서, 역사, 한국사, 교육과학기술부, 금성출판사
# by 초록불 | 2008/11/30 10:34 | *..역........사..* | 트랙백(4) | 핑백(2) | 덧글(72) | ▲ Top
금성 출판사의 굴복 선언을 보며
[동아일보] 금성출판사 김인호 대표 “혼란-오해 커지지 않도록 결단” [클릭]
“교육과학기술부가 26일 출판사에 보낸 수정 지시안이 법적 명령에 해당한다고 해석했다”
“교과부가 발행자인 출판사 측에 수정을 지시한 만큼 출판사의 전권으로 이를 100% 수용하게 된 것”
“발행자의 권한으로 수정 지시를 받아들인 만큼 집필진의 저작권 등 법률적인 문제는 출판사가 전적으로 책임을 지겠다”
“역사교과서 논란이 길어지면서 최선의 해결책은 수정 발행, 차선의 해결책은 발행 정지라는 생각을 해왔다”
이 안에 역사는 없다. 자본과 권력의 문제만 있을 뿐. 역사 교과서 1위 판매라 해봐야 연간 수입 3천만 원. 영어, 수학 교과서의 손실을 어찌 감당할 것인가. 못 고치겠다고? 그럼 그 필자는 내쫓으면 그만이다.
2005년 일본 문부성의 역사교과서 검정을 보며 우리나라 언론은 무슨 이야기들을 했던가? 정부가 민간에게 이리저리 수정하라고 지시하는 것은 잘못된 일이라고 연일 나발을 불지 않았던가? 그에 대해서 일본은 뭐라고 했던가? 정부의 입장을 이야기하는 것은 당연한 일이라고 말하지 않았던가.
동아일보는 2005년 4월 6일자 기사를 통해 이런 주장을 했다.
[동아일보] [日왜곡교과서 검정 통과]“日정부가 교과서검정 이용 우경화 주도” [클릭]
교과서운동본부 권혁태(權赫泰•성공회대 일본학과 교수) 홍보위원장은 “지금까지 일본 문부성은 ‘검정을 통해 명백한 오류만을 바로잡을 뿐 역사인식에는 관여하지 않는다’고 말해 왔으나 검정 결과를 볼 때 잘못된 정부 입장을 반영할 것을 요구하고 있다”고 말했다. 이에 따라 교과서운동본부 등 시민단체들은 6일과 9일 각각 서울 주한 일본대사관과 광화문 등에서 일본의 역사왜곡 규탄 집회를 열 예정이다.
아니, 이렇게 옛날 일을 들먹일 필요도 없다. 동아일보는 지난 7월에도 긴급좌담회를 열어서 일본 정부의 태도를 비판하는 기사를 실었다.
[동아일보] “日 자국이익 지속적 확대… 장기전 대비 국제공조 연구를” [클릭]
▽정=그렇다. 일본은 전쟁 이후 줄곧 ‘패전의 역사’에서 벗어나고자 했다. 그래서 일본 정부는 국민의 내셔널리즘을 자극하는 역사인식을 자주 표명했다. 보통의 일본인들을 고무시키려는 의도였다. 독도 문제만 하더라도 시마네 현을 비롯한 일부 지역민을 제외하면 대다수 일본인들은 별 관심이 없던 사안이었지만 이제는 사정이 달라질지 모른다.
▽허=문제는 일본 우익 세력의 힘이 갈수록 커진다는 점이다. 우익은 자국의 교과서 기술 태도를 계속 공격해 왔는데 2001년, 2006년에는 직접 교과서를 쓰기도 했다. 후소샤판 교과서다. 그런데 이것이 시민사회의 반대에 부닥치자 문부성이 개입하기 시작했다. 교과서 집필자나 출판사는 더욱 압박을 느낄 것이고 이번 해설서는 상당한 구속력을 발휘할 것이다.
교과서 문제에 문부성이 개입해서는 안 된다는 주장을 하는 민주당 하토야마 간사장의 인터뷰도 실은 바 있다.
[동아일보] 日민주 하토야마 “이수현씨 같은 마음으로 韓日관계도…” [클릭]
일본 문부과학성이 고교 교과서 출판사에 ‘독도는 일본 땅’으로 명기할 것을 요구한 것에 대해 그는 “독도 영유권에 대한 기술은 출판사가 알아서 결정할 문제이지 문부성이 일방적으로 요구할 수는 없다”면서 “근본적으로 문부성의 교과서 검증 절차가 필요 없다고 생각한다”고 말했다.
일본의 시민단체는 후쇼샤 교과서와 같은 극우 교과서의 채택을 적극적으로 저지하는데 성공하기도 했다. 그들에게는 십여 종이 넘는 교과서가 있었다. 우리는 이제 하나의 목소리만 내어야 하는 것인가?
우파의 교과서가, 아니 극우의 교과서도 있을 수야 있겠다. 그 반대편의 목소리도 나올 수 있다면. 이제 우리는 입을 틀어막아야 하는, 그래서 아이들에게 역사의 진실이란 하나밖에 없다고 가르쳐야 하는 그런 시대를 살아가야 하는 것일까?
[좌편향 논란 교과서 집중해부] ‘근•현대사’ 6종，양측 주장 살펴보니
[2008.09.12 00:31]
전국 시•도교육감들이 좌편향 논란 교과서를 사실상 일선 교육 현장에서 퇴출키로 결의하면서 교과서 이념 논쟁이 다시 불붙었다. 교과서 저자들은 교육감들이 보수단체의 일방적 주장만 듣고 섣불리 '빨강 딱지'를 붙이려 한다며 반발했다. 11일 본보는 논란에 휩싸인 고등학교 선택과목용 한국 근•현대사 교과서를 모두 입수해 양측의 주장을 비교•분석했다.
◇논란의 교과서는=현재 전국 고교에서 사용 중인 한국 근•현대사 교과서는 금성출판사, 대한교과서, 두산, 법문사, 중앙교육진흥연구소, 천재교육에서 출판한 6종이다. 지난 3월 대한상공회의소가 내용이 부정확하거나 편향적으로 기술됐다며 수정•추가•삭제를 요구한 부분은 금성 38곳 등 모두 138곳이었다. 지적은 6•25전쟁 도발 주체, 남북 분단 책임 소재, 이승만•박정희 정권과 경제 발전에 대한 평가 등에 집중됐다.
보수학자로 구성된 교과서포럼은 주로 금성 교과서를 문제삼고 있다. 포럼은 최근 이 교과서의 31개 항목 56개 표현이 좌편향적이라며 교육과학기술부에 수정을 요구하겠다고 밝혔다. 대한민국 건국과 이후 역사를 부정적•비판적 시각에서 서술한 반면 북한의 건국과 이후 역사는 상대적으로 중립적•우호적으로 서술했다는 주장이다.
전국 시•도교육감협의회는 교과서 선정을 직접 지도하겠다고 발표하면서 대한상의와 교과서포럼 등 보수단체의 문제제기를 이유로 들었다.
◇'나무 말고 숲을 봐야'=교과서 저자들은 보수단체의 상당수 지적이 '나무만 보고 숲은 보지 못한 오류'라고 반박했다. 대한상의는 "금성 교과서 249쪽 '한국에서 일어난 6•25전쟁이 그(자본주의와 사회주의 체제의 대립이 날카로워진) 결과였다'는 기술이 김일성의 책임을 희석시켰다"며 "'김일성은 6•25전쟁을 도발하였다'로 바꿔야 한다"고 주장했다. 그러나 이 교과서 270쪽에는 이미 '1950년 6월25일 북한군의 전면적인 기습 남침으로 전쟁은 시작되었다'고 설명돼 있었다.
대한 교과서에서는 '우리나라를 둘러싼 국제 정세가 빠르게 변하는 가운데 1950년에 6•25전쟁이 일어났다'(261쪽)고 쓴 부분을 문제삼았지만 같은 쪽에 '김일성이 6•25전쟁을 일으킨 까닭을 자료3에서 찾아보자'는 과제가 제시됐고 '북한 공산군은 (중략) 선전 포고도 없이 남쪽으로 쳐들어왔다'(262쪽)는 내용도 있었다.
대한상의는 중앙 교과서 305쪽 내용이 경제 성장의 부정적 측면만 강조했다고 지적했지만 이 교과서의 '경제개발 5개년 계획의 추진과 성공'이라는 주제로 2개면(342∼343쪽)에 걸쳐 경제개발 추진 과정을 설명한 뒤 '우리 경제는 고도성장과 수출 증대를 이룩하여 국민들의 생활수준은 크게 향상되었다'고 평가했다.
금성 교과서를 쓴 김한종 한국교원대 교수는 "일부 내용만 놓고 교과서가 마치 특정 이념이나 북한의 주장을 그대로 옮겨놓은 것 같다고 비난하는 것은 편파적이다"고 주장했다.
◇편향 논란 자초한 대목도=저자들의 해명을 받아들인다 해도 한 교과서 안에서 같은 사건에 대해 서로 다른 의미의 표현을 사용하거나 일부 사안에 대해서는 부정적 측면만 기술한 점은 편향 논란을 자초했다는 분석이다.
하나의 사건에 대한 종합적 이해를 위해서는 관련 기술을 한곳에 집중시킬 필요가 있다. 특히 단독정부 수립이나 6•25전쟁처럼 중요한 주제이면서 다양한 관점이 있는 경우 사실관계를 명확히 한 다음 의미나 평가를 토론 과제 형식으로 다루는 게 효과적이다.
논란이 일 만한 표현이나 인용도 자제했어야 한다는 지적이다. 금성 교과서는 병인•신미양요 당시 프랑스•미군 함대의 동선을 표시한 그림(48쪽)에서 프랑스 함대에는 '진로', 미국 함대에는 '침입로'라고 표현했다.
'자료2 신문 만평으로 보는 우루과이 라운드'(330쪽)에서는 만찬에 참석한 10명 중 미국과 유럽공동체(EC) 국가 마크를 각각 가슴에 단 두 명만이 배불리 먹었다는 듯 웃으며 손수건으로 입을 닦고 있다. '반미 감정을 자극한다' '개방 경제는 선진국만 배불린다는 말이냐' 등의 지적이 가능한 대목들이다.
◇졸속 추진은 피해야=교과부는 교과서포럼의 수정 요청이 접수되면 대한상의의 시정 요청과 함께 교과서심의위원회에서 1차 검토를 거친 뒤 타당하다고 판단되면 국사편찬위원회에 최종 검토를 요청할 계획이다. 10월 중순까지 수정 여부가 결정돼야 11월부터 고쳐진 2009학년도 교과서를 인쇄할 수 있다.
일정이 촉박하지만 전국 시•도교육감들은 수정과 상관없이 일선 학교의 교과서 선정 과정을 지도하겠다는 입장이다. 이 때문에 교과서 수정이나 선정이 충분한 여론 수렴과 학술적 검토 없이 졸속으로 추진된다는 우려가 나오고 있다.
전국 시•도교육감협의회에 참석했던 한 인사는 "교과서 문제는 사전 통보된 의제가 아닌데 협의회장인 공정택 서울시교육감이 회의 막판에 갑자기 안건으로 올렸다"면서 "설왕설래하기는 했지만 교과서의 이념 편향 여부가 아니라 학교장의 자율성 침해를 우려하는 차원이었다"고 당시 상황을 전했다. 서울시교육청 관계자는 "여러 차례 교과서 이념 편향 문제를 제기해온 새 정부를 위해 교육감들이 총대를 멘 게 아니겠느냐"고 말했다.
강창욱 기자 kcw@kmib.co.kr
Toyota predicts its first annual operating loss in 7 decades
The automaker is hurt by a sales slump, rising yen and some inventory miscalculations.
By Martin Zimmerman
December 23, 2008
If misery loves company, Detroit's Big Three can welcome Toyota to the club.
The Japanese carmaker said Monday that it would report an annual operating loss for the first time in seven decades, underscoring the breadth of the auto industry's woes amid the global economic downturn -- and proving that even an envied giant such as Toyota Motor Corp. can make mistakes.
"It speaks volumes about the severity of the recession," said George Magliano, an industry analyst at IHS Global Insight. "Nobody's immune, and everybody's taking a hit right now."
Tight credit markets and slumping economies are keeping consumers out of showrooms and making it tough to find financing for those who do want to buy. Sales of cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles fell almost 37% in the U.S. last month compared with November 2007 -- the worst monthly drop since January 1982.
Toyota's sales in the U.S. -- the carmaker's largest single market -- fell 34% last month and are down more than 13% this year.
"The change that has hit the world economy is of a critical scale that comes once in a hundred years," Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe said at a news conference in Japan. The drop in vehicle sales over the last month was "far faster, wider and deeper than expected."
The Japanese automaker said it would post an operating loss of 150 billion yen ($1.66 billion) for the fiscal year ending in March. Just last month, Toyota had been forecasting an operating profit of 600 billion yen ($6.65 billion).
Operating profit reflects the financial performance of a company's core business, before taking into account costs such as income taxes and interest payments. Toyota said it hadn't recorded an operating loss since it started officially reporting such results in 1941. Based on internal company calculations, however, the automaker had an operating loss in 1938, the year after it was founded.
In addition to slumping consumer demand, Toyota and fellow Japanese automakers Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. have been battered by a soaring yen, which has risen 24% against the dollar this year and is currently trading at 89.98 to the greenback.
That raises the cost of importing vehicles into the United States, although the higher prices aren't necessarily passed on to buyers, further hurting the automakers' profits. It also decreases the value of profits the automakers earn in the U.S. when dollars are converted into yen.
But Toyota, whose management techniques, inventory systems and technological advances have been the envy of the industry for years, has also been a victim of some miscalculations.
Last summer, for instance, a shortage of batteries crimped supplies of its hot-selling Prius hybrid just when gas prices and demand for the fuel-efficient hatchbacks were peaking. The shortfall enabled dealers to sell Priuses at fat markups, but those extra profits went to dealers, not Toyota.
Toyota also launched its redesigned Tundra pickup truck in early 2007 just as the U.S. housing market -- a key driver of pickup sales -- was topping out. Although sales of big pickups are down across the board, the Tundra, despite heavy promotion, has fared worse than its competition from Detroit recently and ranks a distant fourth behind offerings from the Big Three.
"Toyota followed General Motors into large, less fuel-efficient vehicles," said Dennis Virag, president of Automotive Consulting Group in Ann Arbor, Mich., an unusual move for a company that made its reputation in part by offering vehicles with high fuel economy.
Toyota spokesman Sam Butto noted that products such as the Tundra are planned years in advance.
"Sometimes the timing is right and sometimes it's not," Butto said. "Like everyone else, we've got to ride out this current climate."
Toyota has been cutting production plans in the U.S. and elsewhere to try to whittle down inventories. Just last week, the company said it would indefinitely delay plans to begin U.S. production of the Prius at a plant in Mississippi, and it shut down its Tundra assembly plant in San Antonio for three months.
The automaker currently has a 93-day supply of cars in the U.S. compared with a 39-day supply a year ago, and it has had to rent additional space at the Port of Long Beach to store vehicles awaiting shipment to overstocked dealers.
Despite Toyota's struggles, it is still in far better shape than its competitors in the U.S. and elsewhere. General Motors Corp., Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. have been forced to idle or shut dozens of assembly plants, and GM and Chrysler have turned to the federal government for financial help. On Monday, Korean automakers Hyundai Motor Co. and Kia Motors Corp. cut their joint 2008 sales forecast 12% and said they would freeze pay for executives.
Watanabe also reduced the forecast for the number of vehicles Toyota expects to sell globally this year to just below 9 million, down 4% from last year. And in a departure from previous years, he gave no goal for vehicle sales for the next fiscal year.
Toyota still expects to record a net profit of 50 billion yen ($555 million) for the current fiscal year. That's less than the previous forecast and just a fraction of last year's profit of 1.718 trillion yen (about $16 billion), but still better than the billions in losses racked up by U.S. car companies.
Toyota is hoping technological advances, such as the electric car concept it said Monday that it planned to debut at the Detroit auto show next month, will keep it competitive. And despite its struggles, the automaker could pass GM this year for the title of world's largest auto company.
Toyota is also likely to reduce its dependence on North America, which accounts for one-third of its sales, and focus more on emerging markets such as Brazil and China, one analyst said.
"Over the course of the next decade, you're going to see less emphasis by Toyota on the United States and more emphasis on markets where they have more potential to grow," said George Peterson, president of AutoPacific Inc. in Tustin.
martin.zimmerman@latimes.com
English Education Under US Military Government
This is the 18th in a series of articles about history of English education in Korea _ ED.
By Kim Eun-gyong
Contributing Writer
Japan’s sudden surrender in August 1945 brought World War II to a close. In September United States forces began to arrive in Korea for the control of the territory of Korea south of 38th north latitude, while Soviet Union troops had already begun to occupy northern Korea.
During its three-year occupation of the South, the American military government attempted to transform every aspect of the Korean life according to its concept of democracy. The occupation signaled the beginning of the U.S.'s direct involvement in Korean politics, and wide-spread American influence on Korean society has persisted to date. Thus, one might say that it is impossible to talk about contemporary Korea without an understanding of this occupational period.
More pertinently, the status of the English language was elevated and solidified as the language of the ruling class during this period and has since retained its prominent status in South Korean society. Therefore, a close look at this critical period is necessary and will be offered in the next several articles.
The American military government ruled over southern Korea from U.S. forces' arrival in Incheon on September 9, 1945 to the establishment of the South Korean government on August 15, 1948.
There existed a few international agreements on Korea before the forces' landing in Korea: the Cairo Declaration, a joint statement by American President Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Churchill, and Chinese Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek released on December 1, 1943, and an informal agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union at the Yalta Conference in February 1945.
The Cairo Declaration simply stated that "The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the People of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent," where "in due course" signified the implementation of a trusteeship. At Yalta there was a verbal agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union on the trusteeship of Korea.
President Roosevelt was preoccupied with Japan, rather than Korea, which he did not consider strategically important. By creating a trusteeship for Korea, shared with other powers, the U.S. government intended to free up its forces so that it could focus on the occupation of Japan.
The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan on August 6 and 9, 1945; Moscow declared war against Japan on August 8. A week later on August 15, Japan surrendered. As the Soviet troops began to make their ways into Korea, the U.S. government hastily drew the 38th parallel as the dividing line between the two occupational forces and proposed it to the Soviet Union, which readily accepted it. It is not logical or sensible that Korea, a colony, was treated as if it had been an aggressor in the war and occupied by the Allies divided.
Three weeks after Japan's surrender, U.S. armed forces landed at Incheon, led by Lieutenant General John R. Hodge, who had been appointed as Commanding General of the United States Army Forces in Korea (USAFIK) by General Douglas MacArthur.
He delivered General MacArthur's Proclamation No. 1, "To the People of Korea," part of which read, "Having in mind the long enslavement of the people of Korea and the determination that in due course Korea shall become free and independent, the Korean people are assured that the purpose of the occupation is to them in their personal and religious rights. In giving effect to these purposes, your active aid and compliance is required…. All power of government over the territory of Korea south of 38th north latitude and the people thereof, will be for the present exercised under my authority."
General Hodge immediately extracted the official surrender from the Japanese Governor-General and began to govern southern Korea. In December 1945, at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers of the U. S., the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, the ministers discussed the problems of the Korean occupation, along with other Asia-related issues. They agreed on "working out of an agreement concerning a four-power trusteeship of Korea for a period up to five years." The agreement was made under the pervasive, erroneous belief that "Korea is incapable of self-rule" among the international society.
As soon as the news spread to Korea, the whole nation erupted in protests and strikes. Korean people had been anxiously waiting for their assumed independence. However, now it looked like they were going to be governed by multiple foreign rulers, instead of one, for several more years, and the word "trusteeship" sounded all too familiar, reminding them of the Japanese protectorate.
South Koreans were first united in their resolute cry for instant independence, but later became embroiled in chaotic discord between the anti-trusteeship movement and the pro-trusteeship campaign by the left-wing parties.
The U.S. Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) was officially established as a unit of the 24th Corps, under the command of the military governor of Korea, in January 1946 even though it actually began to rule over the southern part of Korea in September 1945.
On October 12, 1946, the Military Government announced the institution of the South Korean Interim Legislative Assembly (SKILA), a legislative organ that was entirely composed of Koreans. On 17 May, 1947, the Korean components of the Military Government were renamed the South Korean Interim Government (SKIG). Formal administrative authority was handed over to the Koreans, leaving the American Military Government personnel in advisory capacity. In reality, however, the American personnel continued to exert influence and act as final authority.
General Hodge's visit to Washington in February 1947 was "a turning point in the U.S. Korea policy-away from cooperation with Moscow." Hodge argued for discarding U.S.'s efforts to collaborate with the Soviet Union and creating a separate government in the South, which gained approval from the Truman administration.
As the 1947 U.S.-Soviet Union Joint Commission adjourned with little hope for solving the Korean problem soon, Washington decided to set up a democratic Korean government in the South alone and pull out the U.S. troops.
The State Department had been at odds with the War Department, which kept arguing for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, saying that Korea lacked strategic importance. General Hodge also supported the removal of the troops.
In November 1947, the U.S.-dominated United Nations approved a resolution calling for an election in Korea. Under the observation of the UN Temporary Commission on Korea or UNTCOK), the elections were held in the southern part only in May 1948, as the Soviet Union objected to UNTCOK and repudiated such elections.
On August 15, 1948, exactly three years after Korea's liberation from Japan, the Republic of Korea was declared, with its first president Syngman Rhee, one of the most known conservative figures at the time.
The American forces finally withdrew from the Korean peninsula on June 30, 1949; the months-long delay was due to the State Department's concerns over the security of South Korea, neighboring the communistic North Korea.
Kim Eun-gyong is an associate professor of applied linguistics and Associate Dean of the Center for International Affairs, Information and Communications University (ICU) in Daejeon. She can be reached at egkimrivera@icu.ac.kr
블로그 보관함
-
▼
2008
(33)
-
▼
12월
(29)
- International accounting standards wilt under pres...
- Consumer confidence falls unexpectedly in December...
- Won Likely to Remain Weak Against Dollar By Kim J...
- Media Big BangGoverning Camp Should Follow Democra...
- http://www.kfb.or.kr/pds_data/PUB_NOTICE1/51.pdf 문...
- [Column] Practiced distortion: The resurrection of...
- Among the 55 sections to be rewritten are negative...
- High schools switch history textbooks December 04,...
- S. Korean shipyards should halt capacity build-up:...
- • The ministry also called for stern punishment of...
- South Korean Parents Dissatisfied With Education S...
- Watchdog urges banks to extend more loans to small...
- Watchdog urges banks to extend more loans to small...
- It also said if the strike becomes serious enough ...
- 대일 무역적자 사상 최대...300억 달러 돌파 일본에 대한 우리나라의 무역적자가 사상 처...
- (LEAD) S. Korean parliament in disarray after FTA ...
- S. Korea's top priority is to save jobs, help smal...
- 12-19-금요일
- 12-18-목
- 12-13-수
- 12-15-사무실
- 12-15-일
- 12-14-일
- 12-11-목
- 12-08
- 12-08-월
- 12-07 (2)
- 12-07-일 (1)
- 12-07-일
-
▼
12월
(29)
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기