RugbyRebels

Cumings is a superb and intriguing historian and undoubtedly one of the most interesting authorities writing on Korea in English; but he is also, undeniably, left-leaning and has his own revisionist biases. You cannot form a balanced view of the 20th Century history of Korea by reading his work alone. He does tend to play a little fast and lose in his selection of references and sources and his manipulation of the historical chronology could be construed as misleading at best.

William Stueck, perhaps the leading right-leaning authority on the Korean War would argue that Cumings "displays a limited grasp of sources that have emerged since he published his second volume on the war's origins in 1990," and that readers "wanting an up-to-date account of the war in all its complexity should look elsewhere."

As with everything, there is a balance of truth somewhere in between.

The fiction of the North’s invasion of the South being a reaction to an invasion by the South was created by the three Soviet Generals that Stalin had sent to Korea to oversee the invasion planning . It is a standard device for creating a causus belli, beloved by aggressors the world over, and still used by Russia now(e.g South Ossetia). Probably the most famous example was Nazi Germany invading Poland to “prevent closure of the Danzig corridor “.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Cumings is a superb and intriguing historian and undoubtedly one of the most interesting authorities writing on Korea in English; but he is also, undeniably, left-leaning and has his own revisionist biases. You cannot form a balanced view of the 20th Century history of Korea by reading his work alone. He does tend to play a little fast and lose in his selection of references and sources and his manipulation of the historical chronology could be construed as misleading at best.

William Stueck, perhaps the leading right-leaning authority on the Korean War would argue that Cumings "displays a limited grasp of sources that have emerged since he published his second volume on the war's origins in 1990," and that readers "wanting an up-to-date account of the war in all its complexity should look elsewhere."

As with everything, there is a balance of truth somewhere in between.

Bruce Cumings (born September 5, 1943) is an American historian of East Asia, professor, lecturer and author. He is the Gustavus F. and Ann M. Swift Distinguished Service Professor in History, and former chair of the history department at the University of Chicago. He specializes in modern Korean history and contemporary international relations.

In May 2007, Cumings was the first recipient of the Kim Dae Jung Academic Award for Outstanding Achievements and Scholarly Contributions to Democracy, Human Rights and Peace granted by South Korea. The award is named in honor of 2000 Nobel Peace Prize winner and former President of South Korea Kim Dae Jung. The award recognizes Cumings for his "outstanding scholarship, and engaged public activity regarding human rights and democratization during the decades of dictatorship in Korea, and after the dictatorship ended in 1987."

Cumings' Origins of the Korean War, Vol. 1 (1980) won the John K. Fairbank Prize of the American Historical Association, and his Origins of the Korean War, Vol. 2 (1991) won the Quincy Wright Book Award of the International Studies Association.[1]

- Wiki

Reginald Thompson's first hand account provides a very similar account of the war's origins in 'Cry Korea,' re-released several years ago after government-imposed censorship was relaxed. These are Western historians, of course, American and British. It would be very interesting to see what the North Koreans themselves think about it, and also what the Russian and Chinese perspective is.

rowan wrote:Rowan, access to a search engine does not in itself define authority

The fellow questioned the sources. How could you question that?

labeling other posters who offer a personalised contribution to dialogue as brainwashed by mainstream media

No, it was a response to ad hominems and insults which you have chosen to ignore.

but that contribution is not thus far as clever as you seem to believe it to be

The above evidence would suggest this is your problem.

and he does it again. You have issues my friend. Every point you make above can be applied legitimately to your own posting.

Anyone who wishes to examine the chronology of this thread will see that I began by presenting perfectly valid opinions, was challenged on my sources, presented the sources, was told the sources were biased, replied that mainstream media was itself extremely biased, came in for a barrage of ad hominems and insults, and thus the tit-for-tat began. You completely ignored the initial, unprovoked ad hominems and insults I responded to and are taking exception to the presentation of the sources I was challenged on to begin with. I'm well aware that this is the standard tactic, to try and discredit me because you can't discredit my arguments and the subject matter I've backed them up with. Puja actually owned up to this on another thread before deciding he'd rather hide from me

Rowan, you Clampet! You don't have arguments; you merely rehash the arguments of others and stick them on here in voluminous quotes. Given that you are merely representing the arguments of others, it is surely appropriate to question the credibility of those whose arguments you present?

Seconded. You do not have any arguments. You seem to specialise instead in having arguments.

Once again, you challenged my sources. If you don't like them, I have others...

I'd say its a fair bet I won't like those either but fill your boots.