Kim Jong Il warned North Korea to stay away from China in his will

[Raphael]

More often than not, those who 'recommend' books have not read them...

Amazon.com: On China (9781594202711): Henry Kissinger: Books

Kim shrewdly manipulated both Stalin and Mao into a war that each did not wanted unless the other agreed to said war. In the process, each tried to outmaneuver the other into being the first to bless Kim's desire for war, thereby anticipating a potential blame that can be foisted upon the other and a blame that both knew was very real if the venture fail.

I agree with Kissinger's account and I suggested as much in a previous post: that Stalin and Mao were both notified of Kim's plans, and Kim only carried out the invasion after having obtained this dual consent. Kissinger's account differs considerably from Jung's account, as she suggests Kim was some stooge of Mao who invaded after being pressured and promised Chinese troops by an enthusiastic and zealous Mao. But of course, this disparity is to be expected when comparing a work of quality scholarship with some hack historical revisionist piece.

@ Truthseeker

It's interesting how you refused to provide a source for that:

Letters · LRB 15 December 2005

Because right under Jung's response, Professor Nathan wrote another rebuttal. Quite unnecessary IMO, because the readers worth swaying would have already dismissed Jung's work of revisionism after reading Nathan's exhaustive first rebuttal. I'm guessing Nathan was incensed that Jung could be brazen enough to continue peddling her thoroughly discredited work, and felt he had the moral obligation to have the last word.

 

[TruthSeeker]

And so, Raphael, Sir,

Do you think that Kim warned of the danger of China to his heirs or not? I think it is highly plausible that he did so. And for many reasons, including the one that I proposed. Jung Chang is a Chinese patriot. She hopes that the Chinese people will understand that Mao was a monster and turn away from his example. Just as Germans had to confront the legacy of Hitler and the Russians, Stalin. Deny all you want. Jung Chang's truth is 100% better than yours. Read her biography of Mao if you have the courage. Or would doing so get you in too much trouble with your bosses?

 

[Raphael]

Most likely. Despite Mao having saved his behind, Kim definitely wasn't pro-China. But definitely not because Mao betrayed him as you suggest. The invasion was his own initiative, and he executed his plans immediately after having notified and secured Sino-Russian consent.

The rest of your post is drivel. I'm not denying that Mao was a 'monster', only that he wasn't the monster as conceived by Jung, because her work is a piece of historical revisionism. As many of the academics have noted, distorting Mao's reputation only weakens the 'anti-Mao' camp, because this camp doesn't need to distort and fabricate and exaggerate to portray Mao negatively - the truth already provides enough material to do this.

Until you can refute the overwhelmingly hostile reception of the academic community to Jung's work, you can't keep shilling for her work as '100% truth' and whine about my skepticism.

 

[gpit]

...

So may be the Chinese in this forum can make it clear, what were exactly the periods when Korea was a vassal of Han Chinese empire?

If you are interested in real history: Ming Dynasty was a typical period where Korean Kings called themselves sons and submitted totally to the power to the mid-kingdom empires. In fact, even when the Manchurian controlled the China and many Hans were abandoning Ming remnants, Korean Kings were still showing their loyalty to Ming, because the Koreans deemed the Manchurian inferior, or otherwise at most equivalent, to Koreans.

Another reason for Koreans to respect Ming is probably Ming saved Koreans from Japanese invasion:

Early Japanese invasions


Throughout Korean history, there were frequent pirates attacks on both the sea and land. The only purpose for the Koreans running a navy was to secure the maritime trade against the Wokou pirates. The Korean navy repelled the pirates by using an advanced form of gunpowder technologies (i.e. cannons, fire arrows in form of Singijeon deployed by Hwacha, etc.).
During the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598), Japanese warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi, plotting the conquest of Ming China with Portuguese guns, invaded Korea with his daimyō and their troops in 1592 and 1597, intending to use Korea as a stepping stone. Factional division in the Joseon court, inability to assess Japanese military capability, and failed attempts at diplomacy led to poor preparation on Joseon's part. The use of European firearms by the Japanese left most of the southern part of the Korean Peninsula occupied within months, with both Hanseong (present-day Seoul) and Pyongyang captured.
However the invasion was slowed down due to Admiral Yi Sun-shin destroying the Japanese invasion fleet. The guerrilla resistance that eventually formed also helped. Local resistance slowed down the Japanese advance and decisive naval victories by Admiral Yi Sun-sin left control over sea routes in Korean hands, severely hampering Japanese supply lines. Furthermore, Ming China intervened on the side of the Koreans, sending a large force in 1593 which pushed back the Japanese together with the Koreans.

During the war, Koreans developed powerful firearms and the Turtle ships (right before the war started however). The Joseon and Ming forces defeated the Japanese at a deep price. Following the war, relations between Korea and Japan had been completely suspended until 1609.

Joseon Dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am just curious about why Koreans have so strong anti Chinese and xeno-phobic feelings towards Chinese. ...

Korea War in early 1950s inscribed a deep scar in the bones of the people living on the Peninsular, creating a sort of inferiority complex on both sides of the 38 parallel.

When US and China had decided to cease fire, neither Koreans wanted to stop. Unfortunately Koreans’ fate is not in their own hands. It is in other powers’ hands. So frustrated, so hated, so angry … on both Koreans to their masters, which was reflected on how torture on POW was carried out: Chinese POW were well treated by US soldiers but were badly tortured by S Koreans, and US POW were well treated by Chinese soldiers but badly tortured by N Koreans. …you know this hatred is going to last for a long while.

 

[gpit]

The "academic circles" that you rely upon to discredit this Mao biography are certainly as biased as may be Jung Chang. Western academics who specialize in China are beholden to the PRC for access in order to carry out their studies. They kowtow to the PRC line in order to preserve their rice bowls. I have not yet seen any "academic" who has gone down into the second level detail provided by Jung Chang in her footnotes to disprove her facts, her interpretations or her analysis of Mao actions and motivations. The so-called "academics" just say: "We don't believe her. She has an ax to grind." But no factual rebuttal is offered. I think it is highly likely that Jung Chang's picture of Mao is the truest one we will ever have. Certainly no official biography conjured up by the PRC can be anything but propaganda. As we all know, Mao, and the PRC he created, were masters of the lie told forcefully and with conviction. But lies nonetheless.

This is another Truth you perhaps need to seek.

A Chinese scholar (I actually forget his name, but if I search I may still be able to find it) was out-speaking against CPC since young age. So he was naturally only able to work in remote areas. You guessed it right, he was sent to Tibet to work, where he fell in love with Tibet culture and history.

Later he managed to come to the US and would like to continue his study on Tibet. He submitted his resume to some of many US foundations and many people were interested in him: being prosecuted by CPC, had been in Tibet. Wouldn’t his guy produce tons of materials that meet the need of Western appetite of propaganda?

So in the first couple rounds, he was selected. He felt excited: finally he could continue his academic work in the US! In the final round, the Foundations needed detailed sketches what to write about Tibet. He faithfully presented his plans in detail: according to his study, Tibetan Lama System did a lot of bag thing to Tibetans and CPC did a lot good things.

You guessed it right again! He is disqualified for the foundation funds as he not only did not plan to say bad things against CPC, but dared to praise CPC and condemn Lama system.

Of course, you have your right to seek whatever truth you’d like to. You might actually have your truth which is true, but that is perhaps a partial truth. Often, it is too partial…

 

[gpit]

...

Amongst their criticism of Mao, Chang and Halliday argue that despite being born into a rich peasant family, he had little concern for the welfare of the Chinese peasantry. They hold Mao responsible for the famine resulting from the Great Leap Forward and claim that he exacerbated the famine by allowing the export of grain to continue when China did not have sufficient grain to feed its population. They also claim that Mao had many political opponents arrested and murdered, including some of his personal friends, and argue that he was a more tyrannical leader than had previously been thought.

...

I remember Mao’s doctor, Dr. Zhisui Li, also wrote a book against Mao. In fact, Dr. Li didn’t know much English. Thus, he wrote his book in Chinese, and the publisher organized translators for the English version. He later told his friends that the publisher pushed him for lot more sexual contents in English version than the Chinese version and some ere not quite true, but the publisher told him that not much Chinese would read English version if there was a Chinese version, yet those additions of sexual contents would definitely boost the sale of the book... so he did as he badly in need of money.

As an ordinary person who always has evil part and good part, Mao has no exception. I personally believe Mao did more good things to the Chinese than bad things. This is based on factual numbers not conjecture or reasoning. In fact we can easily conclude that Mao saved more Chinese than killed.

1) When Mao took over China, expected life expectancy is 35. I believe homo erectus would have similar life expectancy. Now it is 75. Thus billion people’s life saved.

2) When Mao took over China, illiteracy was 70%. Now it is 4%. Thus, he made billions live like human not animal.

3) He safeguarded China from foreign invasion. Before Mao, many world powers had a piece of China. Now this is long gone. Thus, many billions saved again.

People against Mao always emphasize starvation in early 1960s. No question this was a dark period. Funny part is not much noise is heard about the great starvation NOW in a democratic country Two million slum children die every year as India booms | World news | The Observer , not much noise is heard about a great starvation before in USA Famine killed 7 million people in USA - English pravda.ru. In fact, the second starvation mentioned above killed more per capita than the Chinese one by any available guessed number.