but it also acts like Korea doesn’t have its own culture or resist American influence
Also… I am no Korean expert, but doesn’t North Korea have, uhh… some influence from their northern neighbors, too? Like, significant influence?
I wouldn’t call the North ‘occupied’ either, and obviously the agreements and military logistics are different, but still, it seems a bit hypocritical to call South Korea an assimilated vassal or whatever.
The DPRK has some mutual trade and cultural exchange with the Russian Federation and PRC. It’s certainly not colonized like the southern half of Korea is, though, it’s just normal diplomacy. The ROK, on the other hand, was directly set up by the US Empire after declaring the country the entirety of Korea was making, the People’s Republic of Korea, illegal. The ROK’s millitary is directly subservient to US commanders. Recognition of the ROK as colonized isn’t exclusively a communist thing, reunification activists generally recognize this. Check out the orgs that attended the People’s Summit for Korea.
Uhh… the USSR occupied the North until Kim Il-Sung took control. Just like the US with the South.
The (current) relationships between the North and China and between the South and the US are very similar, except the US has military bases in the South. But the US does that with all its allies.
As for the ROK military being directly subservient… I’m not as knowledgeable about this, but I think that’s only half true. The Korean military largely focuses on logistics and raw manpower, plus their special forces. (Holy shit, Korean special forces are fucking terrifying.) It’s largely understood that the US would lead operations, given that the US has more veterans, mass, and better-tested doctrine. However, as I understand, legally, Korea still controls its own military. KOTRA is one exception, but that’s a small subset of Korea’s military. But to be clear, this is my understanding from passive learning. I could be wrong about things and don’t have the time to read up right this moment. I’d appreciate corrections with sources.
The USSR was mostly hands-off with the DPRK, when the DPRK formed it was more of a merging of the various socialist parties with the remnants of the PRK that were not declared illegal in the North. Further, the US is extractionary towards the ROK, while the PRC is not towards the DPRK, the economic relations are different because the modes of production are different. Further, the scale of US millitary presense in the ROK is far beyond typical for its allies.
Also… I am no Korean expert, but doesn’t North Korea have, uhh… some influence from their northern neighbors, too? Like, significant influence?
I wouldn’t call the North ‘occupied’ either, and obviously the agreements and military logistics are different, but still, it seems a bit hypocritical to call South Korea an assimilated vassal or whatever.
The DPRK has some mutual trade and cultural exchange with the Russian Federation and PRC. It’s certainly not colonized like the southern half of Korea is, though, it’s just normal diplomacy. The ROK, on the other hand, was directly set up by the US Empire after declaring the country the entirety of Korea was making, the People’s Republic of Korea, illegal. The ROK’s millitary is directly subservient to US commanders. Recognition of the ROK as colonized isn’t exclusively a communist thing, reunification activists generally recognize this. Check out the orgs that attended the People’s Summit for Korea.
Uhh… the USSR occupied the North until Kim Il-Sung took control. Just like the US with the South.
The (current) relationships between the North and China and between the South and the US are very similar, except the US has military bases in the South. But the US does that with all its allies.
As for the ROK military being directly subservient… I’m not as knowledgeable about this, but I think that’s only half true. The Korean military largely focuses on logistics and raw manpower, plus their special forces. (Holy shit, Korean special forces are fucking terrifying.) It’s largely understood that the US would lead operations, given that the US has more veterans, mass, and better-tested doctrine. However, as I understand, legally, Korea still controls its own military. KOTRA is one exception, but that’s a small subset of Korea’s military. But to be clear, this is my understanding from passive learning. I could be wrong about things and don’t have the time to read up right this moment. I’d appreciate corrections with sources.
The USSR was mostly hands-off with the DPRK, when the DPRK formed it was more of a merging of the various socialist parties with the remnants of the PRK that were not declared illegal in the North. Further, the US is extractionary towards the ROK, while the PRC is not towards the DPRK, the economic relations are different because the modes of production are different. Further, the scale of US millitary presense in the ROK is far beyond typical for its allies.
As for the source on the US being in charge, here’s the Wikipedia article on the ROK/US Combined Forces Command. 1 four star US general in command with 1 four star ROK general as deputy commander. It only applies “in wartime.”