Michael thank you very much, charles, for the kind introduction. I am pleased to be here at the Woodrow Wilson center as a fellow. It has been a great experience the last several weeks and i look forward to another bit of research and fellowship here at the center. The work i am going to talk about today is a work in progress. This will eventually be a booklength manuscript describing the korean war and how it is remembered primarily in the United States, but north and south korea and some of the other countries that were major participants in the korean war. I think this topic is important because it helps us understand the Current Situation in east asia. How those countries get along, what is behind some of the tensions that continue to exist. The memory of the war, the public memory has impacted american policymakers and political decisions. I think it is important to understand the memory of the war in order to understand ourselves as americans and as a society. At this point, i see two themes developing through my work. One is that the public memory of the korean war has evolved over time and continues to evolve. All memories of traumatic events, particularly wars, change over time. In the case of the korean war this is particularly so because the war is not over yet. There is only an armistice that has halted the Major Military operations. Also to understand the korean war one needs to look at it, i believe, in the international context. That will be something i will talk a little bit about today. The first image i am presenting here is one that is familiar to many who have been to south korea. This is Douglas Macarthur overlooking the bay at inchon. I arrived in korea 47 years ago, a little more than that now, as a young twentysomething peace corps volunteer. One of the first places i wanted to visit was incheon, to see where the famous landing had taken place in september of 1950. Incheon was a much different place at that time than it is today, with huge container ships and thousands, maybe tens of thousands of hyudnais and kias ready to be shipped abroad. They cannot drive the 30 miles to seoul in a new automobile. It is home to one of the worlds most modern and uptodate international airports. One thing that remains the same the statue of macarthur overlooking the bay. I was with some students at that time and i said, that is a really wonderful statue of General Macarthur. There should also be one of harry truman. They said, no, truman was bad. It is because of truman that korea is divided. I said, isnt that the good news . If truman had not sent macarthur in the first place korea would , be united, but under the guys from the north. They said no, macarthur wanted to unite korea, and that is why macarthur was fired by truman. I tried to explain it but it was not the way it happened. But i was unsuccessful at that time. Unfortunately now, 47 years later, that is the prevailing attitude in korea. Whether i will have the chance to change minds during my upcoming fulbright to korea, we will have to see. That was my first introduction to the conflicted and competing memories of the korean war. The war began 67 years ago and one day. That was june 25, 1950 that the North Koreans attacked. It was a particularly brutal war. In many ways it was a civil war, but also in International Conflict instigated by the soviet union. Soon, the chinese were involved as well as the americans and the u. N. It was a war in which the civilian population got caught up in the war. One in 10 koreans, both north and south, died during the 3year conflict. Hundreds of thousands of others, millions really were injured in one way or another. Thousands of orphans on both sides. A very tragic event. The American Public was dissatisfied with the war the way it was being fought. It was a limited war. Not being fought for what americans believed at the time how we fought wars. We fought for unconditional surrender. They really never did that, even world war ii kind of finessed the issue of the japanese emperor. The public, as the war dragged on into a stalemate, lost interest. News of the warm moved from the front page to the midsection of the newspapers. Americans also became concerned about the issue of the atrocities that were committed by the North Koreans. News of atrocities committed by u. N. Command was kept largely silent until recent decades. American prisoners of war were badly abused and it soon became apparent that there were prisoners who were making confessions to being war criminals, to using chemical weapons. Which was later proved not to be the case but they did that. Americans became concerned that maybe the veterans returning from the war, and they returned on a rotating basis after the accumulated points for their services, there were no parades to welcome them. Veterans themselves became disillusioned with their service and many spent the next decades trying to forget the war. Another issue that came up during the war, especially with the defection of some p. O. W. s making false confessions, was this concerned that maybe the american soldiers were easily subjected to brainwashing. The term brainwashing comes about during the korean war. It was devised by a journalist from miami named edward hunter. Here is an american soldier who obviously had been brainwashed and turned into a kind of zombie, not even aware of the tender loving care being administered him by this attractive young nurse. Hunter, i read a quote of his testimony before the House Unamerican Activities Committee in the 1950s, claiming that war has changed its form. The communist had discovered that a man killed by a bullet is useless. He can dig no coal. The objective of communist warfare is to capture intact the minds of the people and their possessions so they can be put to use. This rather scary notion that prisoners of war had been subjected to some sort of treatment, some sort of psychological warfare that had turned them into, again, zombies or people who had lost their ability to think and identify with their own personalities, people who may actually be dangerous. Maybe programmed to do damage to the United States once they returned. Immediately following the war, and actually even during the war Popular Culture began to , interpret events. This is a poster from a movie they came helmet, out in 1951. In the first full year of the war there was already a hollywood movie. This dealt with refugees fleeing from the north in which the communist north korea had intermixed in their own soldiers disguised as refugees. Once they got behind the american lines they did considerable damage. This was a common tactic in the early years of the war. It is interesting that a very wellmade movie that came out in 1951, with an months of the outbreak of the war itself. Another popular movie, the bridges at tokori, this came out after the war, 1955. It deals with the servicemen pilot played by William Holden who is called back into service. Leaves behind his wife, played by grace kelly. Their two young daughters. Great footage of the aircraft taking off and landing on aircraft carriers. It is based on a James Michener book. It was one of the more popular movies in terms of Box Office Success related to the korean war. This movie like the next one, sayonara, which starred marlon brando, that was occupied japan at the time of the korean war. What is significant is their portrayal of japanese in a very popular and sympathetic manner. It is real change from a decade earlier at the end of world war ii. And certainly during world war ii. Another popular movie at the time based on a military historians book pork chop hill. This starred gregory peck and others you may recognize. To gregory pecks right is woody strode. He made a number of movies. Was also one of the first black Football Players in the National Football league. In 1939, played in ucla as jackie robinson. An interesting character in his own right. This movie deals with the harsh realities of trench warfare and the frustration of fighting a war in which preserving the status quo is the objective rather than a total victory. Here we have Ronald Reagan hanging out with some communist. My goodness. [laughter] not to worry. Actually Ronald Reagan is a military officer deliberately placed in a situation where he is captured by the North Koreans and chinese to be interrogated. His real job is to check up on what is really going on in these prisoner of war camps. This movie is called prisoner of war and came out in 1959. There he is making a false confession to american war crimes. Again, it is something that has been set up. It is for a good cause. Here we have paul newman on the righthand side. This is a movie called the rack. In this movie, newman is a returning war veteran in 1956. A decorated veteran. It turns out that while he was in a p. O. W. Camp he collaborated with the enemy and was accused of treason by another soldier in the same p. O. W. Camp. Lee marvin. Probably the most famous movie of all, this came out in 1962. The manchurian candidate starring Frank Sinatra and angela lansbury. In this case a soldier has been totally brainwashed and program to come back to the United States to assassinate a president ial candidates so that a candidate under the control of the communist that will win the election. Done of all the movies about the korean war, m. A. S. H. Might be the most popular. Then of course there was a very popular tv series. But it was really about the vietnam war, not the korean war. It happened to be set in korea, but the theme of antiwar activities on part of the doctors and soldiers is something you see in the vietnam era. But the korean war ended in 1953 in july, at least the major , military operations. With only an armistice, a ceasefire. Hostilities continued across the border, the new demilitarized zone, which replaced the 30th 38th parallel as a dividing line. There were numerous instances, perhaps the most famous was the capture by the North Koreans of the uss pueblo in 1968. The crew was held prisoner. Again they were subjected to , harsh and brutal treatment. Here is the commander. Here is some of his crew. They were supposed to be posing for a picture to show how well they were treated and fooled their north korean cap this by Getting International sign of friendship there. [laughter] they suffered some setbacks because of that. It really did not help their treatment integrity in captivity when the North Koreans found out what they had done. The opinion of the war as maybe unnecessary, maybe something that could have been avoided, something that if we fought it, we should have fought for complete victory rather than this divided korea, this persists in the 1960s and 1970s on up into the 1980s. American veterans try to forget the war. They are not feeling good about it, nor does the American Public feel good about it. What is left in south korea seems to be an impoverished military dictatorship. It really isnt so much better than the north. This all changes in 1988 with the summer olympics. That is not my original opinion. There are a number of others, including a scholar here some years ago. Suddenly the public saw glistening skyscrapers, beautiful olympic facilities, a very wellmanaged olympic event, and got the impression that they maybe south korea is doing pretty well. That was followed the following year by the collapse of the soviet union, which then led to the economic collapse of the democratic peoples republic of north korea which is been underwritten by the soviet union. A few years later, south korea had its first truly democratic elections. It appeared briefly in the early 1990s that the north korean regime might implode because of the famine, the poverty that existed, and what was perceived as possible political weakness that would occur once the founder of the regime died and he was in pretty back condition in the early 1990s. Time the South Koreans begin to memorialize the war. They begin planning a gigantic korean war museum. This is the outside of the museum. The theme of the museum, there are really two themes. One is peace and reconciliation with the north. The brutality of the war, the harsh treatment of south korean p. O. W. s, as well as those in the u. N. Command, the wartime atrocities. These things are all played down. The key is that koreans are all brothers. That somehow they should be united. This war was perpetrated by outside forces that instigated the north korean attack. The other theme is the International Support that the south korean government had during the war. You see it very prominently displayed outside the front of and museum. This is just one side of the museum. The flags of the 22 countries that provided some form of assistance to south korea in the military or humanitarian, during the korean war. This is a famous statue right in front of the museum that shows the two korean brothers embracing. The larger brother, as you might expect, is the south korean. He is fully armed. The little guy is the north korean, who is embracing his older, better armed, and much stronger big brother, but reconciliation is clearly the theme here. In keeping with the recognition of the support of the u. N. Command, there are these huge columns inside the museum that have these polished granite slabs on which there are the names. This is a metallic piece. It has the names of those who died fighting in the korean war from all the various allied nations. Korea also is very proud of its proud to host American Veterans. This is a slide at took last summer on a visit to korea. These are young military officers. They are not so young. I thought they were like college majorsut they are korean who are giving this veteran a tour of a Historic Site in the southern part of south korea. The event commemorating the korean war. Thousands of American Veterans have been invited back. There are groups that arrange charter flights. Once they are in korea, all their expenses are paid by the south korean government. Again, in acknowledgment of the support from the the u. N. Command, but also helps the south korean regime and its claim as a legitimate government of all of korea. On the other hand, the exhibits in north korea are all about the great leader and his fearless leadership, brilliant leadership, and brilliant victory. Never defeated in battle. His philosophy of juche still a , dominant philosophy in north korea. It means independence and keeping away from any kind of foreign help. Generally selfreliance would be the best term. Throughout the guidebook i have not been to north korea, but i am indebted to a former Woodrow Wilson scholar for writing the english language guide to the north korean museum. Almost every page has a picture of kim ilsung. A young man brilliantly leading his troops here at there are no mentions of the chinese even though they sent hundreds of thousands of troops to support the North Koreans. There is almost no mention there is no mention of the soviet union, which provided all the arms and equipment for the early attack in 1950, and also the military planning. That brings us as we move up in our look at how the war has been memorialized, the Korean War Memorial here on the mall. It wasnt until 1984, two years after the Vietnam Veterans memorial was dedicated that the First National Korean War Veterans Association was even organized. They began immediately to lobby for their own recognition. It is only after the Vietnam Veterans have lobbied successfully, raised money, and built their own very dramatic memorial on the national mall. Unlike the building of the Korean War Memorial, just the planning alone, people complained it took longer than fighting the war. There was all kinds of disputes between the original architect, the one he designed. Eventually people from Penn State University who had produced the winning design withdrew from the products because so many changes were made. They decided it would not be a wall of remembrance. Instead there is a kiosk to the side. If you are not paying attention, you might miss it. If you want to know who the casualties in the war are, you can go to the kiosk enters a touchscreen computer. You type in the name. I typed in general Walton Walker and there it is. The Korean War Memorial was dedicated in the 1990s during the time of president bill clinton. Like the Korean War Memorial like the vietnam war memorial, it was built with private money, instigated by the veterans themselves. This led to kind of a boom in memorializing wars on the national mall. We now have a world war ii memorial as well. When the Korean War Memorial was being planned, even though the world war ii veterans didnt initiate this, the public thought this is the greatest generation. They should have their memorial on the mall. So they eventually got one as well. This is a memorial in honolulu, hawaii. There are now about 28 states and untold communities, College Campuses around the country that have memorials. I only know of 28 states, but i know several of the communities. If you search the website every day there is something additional. I show this as an example because these two ushaped structures, one is for vietnam, and one is for korea. It is the only combined vietnam and korea memorial that i know of, just outside the capital of honolulu. Like the memorial on the mall and others, it was rate controversial. The design phase went on for some time. The names are actually on these little granite stones there. Here we are back at the Korean War Memorial. Memorializing anything that is of interest still to people is always a complex process, particularly in a democracy. You have the artist, the architects, the veterans, public boards, public commissions all have to weighin. Funders have their own issues that they want to bring to the floor. Satisfying everyone is impossible. Certainly there have been many critics of the Korean War Memorial here, as well as critics of the memorials that exists throughout the country. However, i think for the most part they do what they are intended to do. They provide a place of remembrance. A place where people can receive some information about the war, and to provide comfort and some degree of solace to the veterans families and survivors. Let me conclude with a quote that exists in a book, the longest winter. For those who are familiar with the book, he talked with hundreds of korean war veterans about their service, about their disappointment and their sour feelings about the war that existed for many years. In one vfw hall he met a gentleman sitting there. He told him, you know, we sat around here now with my other veterans and we try to remember things that we spent the last 50 years trying to forget. With that, ill wrap up my comments and turn it over for some commentary. Thank you very much. [applause] before opening up to question and answers with the audience, we will hear some comments from samuel wells, a former associate director of the Woodrow Wilson center. Hes held many other position s here at the center. He is currently a cold war fellow with the history and Public Policy program, and also engaged in his own Research Project on the korean war and its impact. Thank you. Dr. Wells i dont have anything that mike said that i disagree with, but i want to add some context that might help some of you understand the broader situation that memorials appear within. If you think back about world war i, world war ii, korea, just those three, you can see a pattern that the narratives of individual countries have been shaped very largely by the domestic political agenda of the groups in power. In our country, there are many groups. You got the congress, the executive branch, the veterans, etc. , so all this gets complicated. In countries where there isnt quite as much participation, think north korea, the soviet union, the narratives are uniform and fits the agenda of the populace. This is even true in south korea, which for many years was almost as authoritarian as the north. Though the incident that mike opened with of the korean students who thought Douglas Macarthur was the good guy and harry truman was the fountain of evil for insisting that korea remain divided, that is part of the narrative that the Rhee Administration developed. Rhee wanted to continue the war. He wanted to revitalize and push yalu, and whene the armistice was getting very close to conclusion, he released all the prisoners. North koreans, chinese, everything under the control of the South Koreans. It didnt stop the armistice because both the soviets and the americans, the two driving forces on either side, had decided there was going to be in armistice. And it came about. But thats the way things began. In this context of nationally driven narratives, mike is absolutely correct that things began to change in 1988 with the seoul olympics, but they continued with the collapse of the soviet union and the opening of archives in Eastern Europe and moscow. We began to get documents that Charles Krause referred to to tell us what really went on. We learned some very different accounts from what we had thought. We found out, among other things, that the North Koreans had been the ones really pushing for the invasion and they had been put off for a long time by stalin. We found out that stalin changed his mind, that he was getting pushed very hard by mao zedong to return a lot of the concessions made to the peoples republic by the nationalist regime in 1945. Mao changed his mind because he thought he would need those stalin changed his mind because he thought he would need those concessions if he were in control of the government that could dominate all of korea. He would have what he wanted, plus be a threat to the american control of japan, which was a point of leverage he thought would be very useful. We learned also that the chinese were somewhat hesitant to come in. But importantly, they decided to come in when mao realized that the American Intervention was going to create a situation in which he had to change his objectives for the peoples republic. Mao aspired to be the leader of communism in asia. He knew or believed that at some point, in order to achieve that objective, he would have to fight the United States and he wanted to do that on korean territory rather than chinese. So mao had his own agenda, and the war was not three weeks old before he had decided that the peoples republic was going to intervene with volunteers, and he started moving toward it. These are some of the things we have learned in the meantime. What has happened, of course, with the internet and social media is that these National Narratives cant hold up anymore. Someone can sit in russia. They cant sit in north korea and do it and sometimes in russia they have problems, but if they know the proper shortcut to run the fire will firewall in china, and read the documents we have online giving cable traffic between stalin, mao, and kim ilsung about the war. They can read books by international scholars, including people like charles armstrong, catherine weathersby, and a group of very able and productive chinese scholars. One of our principal collaborators. Some russian scholars, one of whom teaches at manchester university. Gorliski. They went through the Central Committee archives that they are not really allowed to mention. They analyzed the decisionmaking process in the politburo under stalin. It is an absolutely fascinating, very compact little book. It tells us more of the actual information about stalins cautious planning than any of the previous scholars. I will stop there just to say that the combination of the opening of archives and now the internet, social media, and Research Projects using multiple archives complicate the ability of anyone to set up a single narrative about this or any other conflicted item in international relations. Thank you. [applause] ok, we will now open up the floor to question and answer. We have microphones so please wait for the microphone to come to you. If you could identify yourself before asking your brief question. Keep the questions brief so we can get as many in. We will start up here. Wonderful talk. I am wondering if you are familiar with the book called in every war but one, which i think was the first book in america to have an introspective review of the stalemate in korea. I certainly dont agree with the central thesis. I dont even know if it is in print, but i would like to hear your comments. Michael i dont know that it is in print, but im sure is available on amazon. Com, where just about anything is available. It has been great to be her the Woodrow Wilson center, even for a couple of weeks because we have access to the holdings at the library of congress. I think this p. O. W. Issue was a result of a lot of mythology that americans always sought to escape from their captives. Which was and somehow, they didnt in korea. Actually, some did try to escape, but it was virtually impossible for americans to disguise themselves and travel several hundred miles in the furthest parts of north korea all the way back down and get through the dmz. The Korean Peninsula is pretty narrow. No one really made very good headway. The climate of their, up there, especially in the winter is just brutal. That notion needs to be qualified a bit. Even the idea of brainwashing and people doing false confessions, there are some instances of that earlier on, but in most cases the opponents of the United States didnt try to force that kind of thing out of american captives. The notion that there was some kind of special technique, some new Psychological Development that the soviets and chinese and North Koreans had developed, i think this has been pretty much debunked. The tactics they used were not all that different from what Police Forces in the United States and elsewhere have used for generations to extract confessions from suspects. Sometimes real confessions and sometimes false confessions just to avoid further pain and suffering. John burton with the korea times. There has been a lot of attention paid lately in the media about the American Air Campaign against north korea during the korean war. It is one explanation for why north korea wanted to eventually acquire a Nuclear Weapon. It is interesting to see that there is a debate Bruce Cummings has paid attention to this for a long time. The North Koreans are using this as justification for their nuclear program. It was interesting to see brian blog countering that. It doesnt play a strong role in north korean mythology about the war. I would like your comments on that. Michael there is no doubt that the bombing of north korea was extensive. It was the first war in which napalm was used in air campaigns. On a relentless basis. It had been used in world war ii in the bombing of tokyo, but korea took it to the next level. However by the end of the fighting in 1953, most analysts of the war and its strategy point out that there werent really many targets left in north korea. Almost all the public buildings have been destroyed. Much of the manufacturing and warehousing of military supplies had all moved underground. Just how effective the air campaign was late in the war is subject to some debate, just as after world war ii there is an extensive study of the effects effectiveness of the air war against germany. It was decided germany was actually producing about as much in their factories for the war effort as they had been before the air campaign started. But still there seems to be this believe that somehow the United States can win a war simply by bombing. We even heard a political candidate talk about the way to solve the problem in syria was to carpet bomb the whole country last year. There is still that notion. I think what really influenced the North Koreans this is a little off point of my work but what influenced them to decide to develop a Nuclear Weapon was looking around the world and noticing that there was no longer a Saddam Hussein or muammar gaddafi, and with what those two had in common was they didnt have weapons of mass destruction. They didnt have Nuclear Weapons. Small nations that did, like israel for example, just having those as a kind of doomsday device seemed to be effective. I would argue that the North Koreans are well aware of what happened during the war. They are well aware of the bombing. But i dont think that was what led them to develop their nukes as much as their concern that they could be subject to attack by nations that surround them, including the United States, if they didnt have the nuclear deterrent. We will go to the back. Kent hughes at the wilson center. Thank you for a terrific talk. Very informative and engaging. I have a question for mr. Devine and mr. Wells. How were you treated as a peace corps volunteer, and how was the peace corps in general treated in that earlier era . For mr. Wells, no one mentioned decisioneson and his not to include korea in the defense perimeter that the United States has established. How much did that weigh on soviet and north korean thinking . Michael my peace corps experience took place in a much different korea. This was in 1970 when i arrived after three months of training in hawaii and suddenly it was the end of january and the first thing i noticed was it was kind of cold. I was treated very well, much better than i deserved. If anyone learned to speak better english because of my teaching, well, it was coincidental. I dont want to take a lot of credit for it. I certainly learned a lot. It confirmed in me that i wanted to come back and study american diplomatic history and u. S. Foreign relations. I developed some lasting friendships and even ended up marrying a teacher at a nearby womens college. Weve been together for 47 years, so i guess all these things would indicate i was treated pretty well. I should point out that when i was in korea, i had a room in this little house with a professor at a university which was near the university where i was teaching. This fellow had studied in europe and had become very fond of cafe au lait, and also french belgian pastries. His wife was a Home Economics professor and taught her how to make these pastries. He taught he taught her how to make these pastries. There was 20 worth of supplies at the commissary. I would always give my landlord a nice bottle of scotch. When my friends would come in from the peace corps at the countryside where it they would or any kind off American Food they would stay with me and we would talk to buy a landlord who spoke perfect english, drink scotch and stay over at my place. The girl wasorning back on the door and there would be freshly made croissants and cafe au lait. Colleagues said this is not the peace corps experience. [laughter] soon got out to stay with me if you were in korea. You learn tos like work the system. The decision to not have korea taiwan or south within the defensive perimeter was basically made by the joint chiefs of staff. That, General Macarthur completed ratified that. He was pushing for it. Everyone viewed korea as a bigger problem for us than a potential asset. Said was that we would not make an advanced defensive preparations. Jcsou look at the full analysis about it. It would not go back if there was a north korean invasion. Not mean what it appeared to me to nonmilitary planners. Joseph stalin and mao said song song would come out in equal fraction from beijing. They took it as a potential item of misinformation. They thought if they came in they thought if they can have korea wrapped up and completely under their control before we can intervene. Heard andessentially discussed. Mouth to get more seriously than others. It did not change the plan that was evolving. I am with the National Museum of American History. I am curious about seeing consistent themes in museum commemorations in the United States . From the ones that i have visited with veterans groups and chance to interview. The themes are similar. When central theme is that the war as tragic and as costly as nevertheless unnecessary. I think that was always the case looking at American Society and talking to veterans groups. It is not the case at all until you get past the 1988 olympics and well into the 1990s. What motivates the veterans groups and their families and this it isk almost always private money that has to be raised. The federal government will provide space and maybe agreed to make it stateside and provide upkeep. It actually creates commitment for the fundraising. That would not be possible if it were not for the fact that the consensus certainly in the United States is that the war was one that halted communism. It deterred further aggression in the far east. The sacrifice. I think that is a consistent theme. While non observations one was satisfied or no one is satisfied to this day with the outcome of the war. There is the armistice the way it is. The fact of the matter is east china,he countries of have enjoyedkorea unprecedented peace and stability. As well as Economic Prosperity in the six decades since the armistice was signed. The koreans themselves and their war museums which deal with all wars that have taken place, they put it in the context of four 4000 years they have been subject to invasions. On average of once every 10 years. For 4000 years a point to that. A century than half with no invasions that is a pretty remarkable thing. Weather has been some unpleasantness in east asia and tension along the dmz are what they are the fact remains there has been no major conflict among those powers for close to 70 years now. It is a remarkable thing. I think you have to look at the korean war im how it was fought and how it ended. Thank you. It is my understanding that prior to the landing the south were relegated to a small portion of the peninsula. They had been forced back. The joint chiefs were opposed or skeptical of the landing because of tide and other reasons. Had that takeoff not been successful with the landing with that have been the end of the war . With the North Koreans have taken over the peninsula as a result of a unsuccessful landing . That is hard to say. Happen andd not engaging in counterfactual history can always be speculate. To it is impossible to come up with a solid conclusion. I think United States by the time of that invasion was pretty well committed to preserving the south korea. Truman went over and over again in his correspondence and in his pointing to the failure of the league of nations. A soldier very much and world war i. He was a democrat and believe and thely that idea of the league of nations. Ton they did not stand up mussolini and ethiopia, antler what led tohat is world war ii. His primary goal was to avoid a thermonuclear war. Believed that i think his commitment to south korea which i think by the time of the korean war was tremendous and his wife. Director oft as a the library for 13 years. He saw as a soviet inspired attacks he had no doubt read from the beginning even though he had no access to the documentation that appears now it was the soviets. Have been ait could diversionary tactic because they were interested in europe area. For thatp korea unprovoked naked aggression that simply could not stand. Situation even if Douglas Macarthur would have failed at what have ratcheted up. It could have even been a much wider war. Goes there, i am from the midwest. I had never seen a tide. Ties on lakeave michigan. To hear of these 30 foot tides. I wish i could see what it looked like and what General Macarthur was up against to see the seawalls. When theimpressive tide goes out you just have based mud that go out for miles. When the tide comes in at 30 are in any ship you want. The timing was a critical factor. At that point following world war ii the United States had a lot of experience with this kind of thing. We have time for one last quick question. I remember in the presentation you mentioned that being the themes of involved was how the war is remembered. The kind of changed the way they remembered the war. I am curious if there is anything similar happening in north korea even though the way they remember it is in a much more uniform way. If they had any kind of thing happened through the 1950s and now about how they delete or censor whoever was involved in the conflict. Tell withat i can their public memory and the remembrance of the war that i havein their museums met went to north korea but i have talked to people who have been there. Quite a bit of information even from north korea on the internet now. It looks like it is pretty consistent that it was the great leader and his brilliant leadership. His strategy. With this brochure that i alluded to briefly, if you look at his early life it was he and his band of gorillas fighting and the mountains of north korea that brought japan to its knees in august of 1945. They make no mention of the chinese or the americans and their allies. Korean gorillas who did this. Out today if you look across the south into the north you can see some highpowered binoculars anywhere you stand three or four stitches of kim ilsung are in these villages that they have built. Dynasty is in control. The public narrative of the korean war in the democratic peoples republic of korea well stay the same. Axis to these documents with new interpretations and looking at the political and International Changes that have taken waste. That is what is causing the memory to evolved in other parts of the world. Will involvek that north korea. I think it was a different dynasty is put in place. Thef you have enjoyed presentation i encourage you to the websites program. We have published a synopsis and a expansion of what he spoke about with how the war is remembered differently and soul and pyongyang. Himse join me and welcoming and thanking him for his presentation. [applause] we have a facebook question from. Visas are there any Historical Resources for the people who died in detroit . There is one in particular. You can be featured in our next life program, join the conversation on facebook. As well as at cspan history. Up next on American History w
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.