The US military government in Korea (USAMGIK) from 1945 to 1948 was a textbook military occupation under the Hague Convention of 1907. The US Army landed on September 8, 1945, dissolved the nascent People's Republic of Korea (PRK), banned the people's committees that had sprung up across the south, and ruled by decree for three full years. The occupation did not end because the US "willingly" handed over power. It ended because the US unilaterally installed Syngman Rhee as president in 1948 after a UN‑supervised election that was boycotted in the north. And even then, the US did not leave. By Rhee's inauguration, US forces still numbered 16,000, and they have never withdrawn entirely.
In 1994, South Korea regained peacetime operational control of its own military. But wartime operational control (OPCON) remains with a four‑star US general to this day. Under the current Combined Forces Command structure, if war breaks out tomorrow, every South Korean soldier would automatically answer to an American commander without Seoul’s consent. It continues
... Mostrar más
TLDR:
The US military government in Korea (USAMGIK) from 1945 to 1948 was a textbook military occupation under the Hague Convention of 1907. The US Army landed on September 8, 1945, dissolved the nascent People's Republic of Korea (PRK), banned the people's committees that had sprung up across the south, and ruled by decree for three full years. The occupation did not end because the US "willingly" handed over power. It ended because the US unilaterally installed Syngman Rhee as president in 1948 after a UN‑supervised election that was boycotted in the north. And even then, the US did not leave. By Rhee's inauguration, US forces still numbered 16,000, and they have never withdrawn entirely.
In 1994, South Korea regained peacetime operational control of its own military. But wartime operational control (OPCON) remains with a four‑star US general to this day. Under the current Combined Forces Command structure, if war breaks out tomorrow, every South Korean soldier would automatically answer to an American commander without Seoul’s consent. It continues to be a 70‑year‑old military subordination that the US has repeatedly delayed transferring. As of May 2026, the US insists on "conditions‑based" transfer and opposes a "politically convenient" timeline. South Korea’s president himself is pushing back against this delay. And a foreign general holding final command over a sovereign nation’s military in wartime is, by any definition, continuing military occupation.
The United States occupied the south under pretenses of facilitating an end to Japanese colonialism, as the soviets were doing in the north. The major difference is that in the south, General MacArthur declared himself dictator:
[Article I] All powers of Government over the territory of Korea south of 38 degrees north latitude and the people thereof will be for the present exercised under my authority . . . [Article III] All persons will obey promptly all my orders and orders issued under my authority.
While the colonial government was being eradicated in the north, and land redistributed to Koreans, General MacArthur asked that the former Japanese colonial government and the compradors remain. While the Soviet Union was leaving the north to Koreans, the US declared the government being set up across Korea, the People's Republic of Korea, illegal. This formalized the 38th parallel not just as a military zone, but an actual administr
... Mostrar más
The United States occupied the south under pretenses of facilitating an end to Japanese colonialism, as the soviets were doing in the north. The major difference is that in the south, General MacArthur declared himself dictator:
[Article I] All powers of Government over the territory of Korea south of 38 degrees north latitude and the people thereof will be for the present exercised under my authority . . . [Article III] All persons will obey promptly all my orders and orders issued under my authority.
While the colonial government was being eradicated in the north, and land redistributed to Koreans, General MacArthur asked that the former Japanese colonial government and the compradors remain. While the Soviet Union was leaving the north to Koreans, the US declared the government being set up across Korea, the People's Republic of Korea, illegal. This formalized the 38th parallel not just as a military zone, but an actual administrative division, which it was never meant to be.
The United States installed a puppet dictator, Syngman Rhee, who then murdered hundreds of thousands of Koreans south of the 38th parallel. Before the division, there were actually more communists in the south than the north. Communists were either killed by Rhee Syngman, like in the Jeju Island massacre, or fled to the north. The strong sympathies for the north also explained why it only took the KPA 3 months to get to Daegu, before the US fully invaded Korea and turned the Korean Civil War into an international war.
To this day, the US has control over the ROK's millitary, and has a seat at any table where leaders of the north and south speak. The US has colonized the ROK, and therefore the demand of progressive southern Koreans is for the US to leave the peninsula, so that reunification can happen peacefully and Korean sovereignty be restored.
First People’s Summit for Korea draws activists from across US, South Korea
Hundreds of peace, labor, environmental, and feminist activists from the US, South Korea and Europe joined together to discuss the threats the Trump administration poses to …
I think it's worth separating your ideal of a borderless world from the actual struggle of Koreans today to establish sovereignty. The age of a borderless world can only be achieved after indigenous sovereignty around the world.
I don't think it's a secret at this point that communists use Lemmy.ml's meme community to try to spark conversations that can make those willing to engage with the subject more sympathetic to communism. There's also the self-serving meme factor too, of course.
Esta entrada fue editada (jueves, 10 de septiembre de 2026, 11:10)
I don't think analyzing the world in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys" is particularly useful. I'm working class, and I support the working class, so therefore I support communists, generally. I'm a communist.
Esta entrada fue editada (jueves, 10 de septiembre de 2026, 11:38)
it really bothers me how common imperial speak is that when we actually name things as they should we are the ones being pointed at. calling occupied korea "south korea" should be comparable to calling people slurs. it is literally accepting and endorsing that fascism could and should rule the "lesser people". hawaii is a colony, puerto rico is a colony, japan is colony, korea is a colony, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Mostly agreed, though I think south Korea/Corea and north Korea/Corea are valid terms (specifically keeping the cardinal directions lowercase). Capitalizing the direction reinforces the idea that these are separate peoples, but frequently the distinction is necessary when discussing this or that subject, such as the fact that taxation has been abolished in northern Corea. I even more strongly prefer "northern" and "southern" as signifiers.
The problem with using DPRK and ROK alone arises when we are discussing region, not state. The illegitimacy of the ROK as a colonial state set up by the US Empire does not really help us linguistically. The Corean people are one nation, divided. Essentially, I use DPRK/ROK the vast majority of the time, and "northern/southern Korea/Corea" when discussing relational, geographic matters. When discussing the people, I do not distinguish, they are simply "Korean/Corean."
Regarding Japan, it's less a colony and more a vassal state like western Europe. The ROK is more of a direct colony. Japan benefits more directly from imperialism, where
... Mostrar más
Mostly agreed, though I think south Korea/Corea and north Korea/Corea are valid terms (specifically keeping the cardinal directions lowercase). Capitalizing the direction reinforces the idea that these are separate peoples, but frequently the distinction is necessary when discussing this or that subject, such as the fact that taxation has been abolished in northern Corea. I even more strongly prefer "northern" and "southern" as signifiers.
The problem with using DPRK and ROK alone arises when we are discussing region, not state. The illegitimacy of the ROK as a colonial state set up by the US Empire does not really help us linguistically. The Corean people are one nation, divided. Essentially, I use DPRK/ROK the vast majority of the time, and "northern/southern Korea/Corea" when discussing relational, geographic matters. When discussing the people, I do not distinguish, they are simply "Korean/Corean."
Regarding Japan, it's less a colony and more a vassal state like western Europe. The ROK is more of a direct colony. Japan benefits more directly from imperialism, whereas the ROK is a neocolonial forward operating base for the US to keep China in check.
Esta entrada fue editada (jueves, 10 de septiembre de 2026, 14:07)
North Koreans may have GNI per capita of $1800 compared to $61900 of South Koreans, healthcare index of 37.5 compared to 82.9, infant mortality of 22.2/1000 vs 2.9/1000, maternal mortality of 107/100k vs 8/100k, internet access below 1%, purchasing power of 18.9 vs 116.6 and 42% of them may be undernourished, but at least they get to spend their, on average, 10 years shorter life compared to South Koreans serving his Excellency, Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un.
Palestinians have 5-10 years shorter life expectancy compared to Israelis
Without the historical context, people can list stuff and make such inclusions.
NK had 10-15% of their population killed by the USAmerican regime during the Korean war, many losses due to the indiscriminate bombings by the USAmerican regime too. Vietnam got media coverage, but NK was earlier. They were brutally sanctioned, threatened with nuclear weapons n all. Losing a major trading partner, the USSR, was also an issue.
Yes, they are backward currently in those parameters and may have issues, but they stood strong against imperialism and if their free flourishing would have been allowed, they would be much better. Like, NK was similar to SK till the 90's or so.
Palestinians have 5-10 years shorter life expectancy compared to Israelis
Without the historical context, people can list stuff and make such inclusions.
NK had 10-15% of their population killed by the USAmerican regime during the Korean war, many losses due to the indiscriminate bombings by the USAmerican regime too. Vietnam got media coverage, but NK was earlier. They were brutally sanctioned, threatened with nuclear weapons n all. Losing a major trading partner, the USSR, was also an issue.
Yes, they are backward currently in those parameters and may have issues, but they stood strong against imperialism and if their free flourishing would have been allowed, they would be much better. Like, NK was similar to SK till the 90's or so.
And from the drop in that around 1990, we can see it is not something Kim Jong Un decided(he was likely 10 or 11 years old then). The likely causes are then the things that were in play then: The fall of their major trading partner + USAmerican regime's sanctions amplifying that + They also had serious natural calamities at the time.
This was deemed as "necessary for soldiers to continue protecting South Korea, and was beneficial for economic development".
Pragmatic?
Finally, with the USAmerican regime seen to be losing dominance, NK will probably be able to rise up with lesser fears of sanctions and sabotage. It seems to be happening.
Yeah siege warfare by western fascists really hurt them, but now that China and Russia don't give a fuck things are completely different. Meanwhile, what's your excuse for the hell that is occupied Korea which has had every advantage? dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/the-wsj-just-confirmed-what-socialists
Carlos Solís
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • •Memes reshared this.
we are all
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
1Malayali
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •United States Army Military Government in Korea - Wikipedia
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)like this
Maeve likes this.
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
in reply to 1Malayali • • •TLDR:
The US military government in Korea (USAMGIK) from 1945 to 1948 was a textbook military occupation under the Hague Convention of 1907. The US Army landed on September 8, 1945, dissolved the nascent People's Republic of Korea (PRK), banned the people's committees that had sprung up across the south, and ruled by decree for three full years. The occupation did not end because the US "willingly" handed over power. It ended because the US unilaterally installed Syngman Rhee as president in 1948 after a UN‑supervised election that was boycotted in the north. And even then, the US did not leave. By Rhee's inauguration, US forces still numbered 16,000, and they have never withdrawn entirely.
In 1994, South Korea regained peacetime operational control of its own military. But wartime operational control (OPCON) remains with a four‑star US general to this day. Under the current Combined Forces Command structure, if war breaks out tomorrow, every South Korean soldier would automatically answer to an American commander without Seoul’s consent. It continues
... Mostrar másTLDR:
The US military government in Korea (USAMGIK) from 1945 to 1948 was a textbook military occupation under the Hague Convention of 1907. The US Army landed on September 8, 1945, dissolved the nascent People's Republic of Korea (PRK), banned the people's committees that had sprung up across the south, and ruled by decree for three full years. The occupation did not end because the US "willingly" handed over power. It ended because the US unilaterally installed Syngman Rhee as president in 1948 after a UN‑supervised election that was boycotted in the north. And even then, the US did not leave. By Rhee's inauguration, US forces still numbered 16,000, and they have never withdrawn entirely.
In 1994, South Korea regained peacetime operational control of its own military. But wartime operational control (OPCON) remains with a four‑star US general to this day. Under the current Combined Forces Command structure, if war breaks out tomorrow, every South Korean soldier would automatically answer to an American commander without Seoul’s consent. It continues to be a 70‑year‑old military subordination that the US has repeatedly delayed transferring. As of May 2026, the US insists on "conditions‑based" transfer and opposes a "politically convenient" timeline. South Korea’s president himself is pushing back against this delay. And a foreign general holding final command over a sovereign nation’s military in wartime is, by any definition, continuing military occupation.
like this
Maeve likes this.
kettuli
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •ohshit604
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ohshit604 • • •The United States occupied the south under pretenses of facilitating an end to Japanese colonialism, as the soviets were doing in the north. The major difference is that in the south, General MacArthur declared himself dictator:
... Mostrar másWhile the colonial government was being eradicated in the north, and land redistributed to Koreans, General MacArthur asked that the former Japanese colonial government and the compradors remain. While the Soviet Union was leaving the north to Koreans, the US declared the government being set up across Korea, the People's Republic of Korea, illegal. This formalized the 38th parallel not just as a military zone, but an actual administr
The United States occupied the south under pretenses of facilitating an end to Japanese colonialism, as the soviets were doing in the north. The major difference is that in the south, General MacArthur declared himself dictator:
While the colonial government was being eradicated in the north, and land redistributed to Koreans, General MacArthur asked that the former Japanese colonial government and the compradors remain. While the Soviet Union was leaving the north to Koreans, the US declared the government being set up across Korea, the People's Republic of Korea, illegal. This formalized the 38th parallel not just as a military zone, but an actual administrative division, which it was never meant to be.
The United States installed a puppet dictator, Syngman Rhee, who then murdered hundreds of thousands of Koreans south of the 38th parallel. Before the division, there were actually more communists in the south than the north. Communists were either killed by Rhee Syngman, like in the Jeju Island massacre, or fled to the north. The strong sympathies for the north also explained why it only took the KPA 3 months to get to Daegu, before the US fully invaded Korea and turned the Korean Civil War into an international war.
To this day, the US has control over the ROK's millitary, and has a seat at any table where leaders of the north and south speak. The US has colonized the ROK, and therefore the demand of progressive southern Koreans is for the US to leave the peninsula, so that reunification can happen peacefully and Korean sovereignty be restored.
First People’s Summit for Korea draws activists from across US, South Korea
ndd (Nodutdol)ohshit604
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ohshit604 • • •ohshit604
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ohshit604 • • •gecko
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
marcie (she/her)
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
UltraGiGaGigantic
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to UltraGiGaGigantic • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
UltraGiGaGigantic
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •CyroSignal54
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •Memes reshared this.
Chemical Wonka
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
Agent641
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Agent641 • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
Agent641
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Memes reshared this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Agent641 • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
1Malayali
in reply to Agent641 • • •Generally seems to be good people
Brings land reform and improved access to education, healthcare etc. Often fights and ends monarchic, feudal or colonial rule.
like this
Maeve likes this.
RiverRock
in reply to Agent641 • • •Dessalines
in reply to Agent641 • • •ghost_laptop
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ghost_laptop • • •Mostly agreed, though I think south Korea/Corea and north Korea/Corea are valid terms (specifically keeping the cardinal directions lowercase). Capitalizing the direction reinforces the idea that these are separate peoples, but frequently the distinction is necessary when discussing this or that subject, such as the fact that taxation has been abolished in northern Corea. I even more strongly prefer "northern" and "southern" as signifiers.
The problem with using DPRK and ROK alone arises when we are discussing region, not state. The illegitimacy of the ROK as a colonial state set up by the US Empire does not really help us linguistically. The Corean people are one nation, divided. Essentially, I use DPRK/ROK the vast majority of the time, and "northern/southern Korea/Corea" when discussing relational, geographic matters. When discussing the people, I do not distinguish, they are simply "Korean/Corean."
Regarding Japan, it's less a colony and more a vassal state like western Europe. The ROK is more of a direct colony. Japan benefits more directly from imperialism, where
... Mostrar másMostly agreed, though I think south Korea/Corea and north Korea/Corea are valid terms (specifically keeping the cardinal directions lowercase). Capitalizing the direction reinforces the idea that these are separate peoples, but frequently the distinction is necessary when discussing this or that subject, such as the fact that taxation has been abolished in northern Corea. I even more strongly prefer "northern" and "southern" as signifiers.
The problem with using DPRK and ROK alone arises when we are discussing region, not state. The illegitimacy of the ROK as a colonial state set up by the US Empire does not really help us linguistically. The Corean people are one nation, divided. Essentially, I use DPRK/ROK the vast majority of the time, and "northern/southern Korea/Corea" when discussing relational, geographic matters. When discussing the people, I do not distinguish, they are simply "Korean/Corean."
Regarding Japan, it's less a colony and more a vassal state like western Europe. The ROK is more of a direct colony. Japan benefits more directly from imperialism, whereas the ROK is a neocolonial forward operating base for the US to keep China in check.
like this
Maeve likes this.
RiverRock
in reply to ghost_laptop • • •qwerty
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •1Malayali
in reply to qwerty • • •Palestinians have 5-10 years shorter life expectancy compared to Israelis
Without the historical context, people can list stuff and make such inclusions.
NK had 10-15% of their population killed by the USAmerican regime during the Korean war, many losses due to the indiscriminate bombings by the USAmerican regime too. Vietnam got media coverage, but NK was earlier.
They were brutally sanctioned, threatened with nuclear weapons n all. Losing a major trading partner, the USSR, was also an issue.
Yes, they are backward currently in those parameters and may have issues, but they stood strong against imperialism and if their free flourishing would have been allowed, they would be much better.
Like, NK was similar to SK till the 90's or so.
data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?locations=KR-KP-US
Palestinians have 5-10 years shorter life expectancy compared to Israelis
Without the historical context, people can list stuff and make such inclusions.
NK had 10-15% of their population killed by the USAmerican regime during the Korean war, many losses due to the indiscriminate bombings by the USAmerican regime too. Vietnam got media coverage, but NK was earlier.
They were brutally sanctioned, threatened with nuclear weapons n all. Losing a major trading partner, the USSR, was also an issue.
Yes, they are backward currently in those parameters and may have issues, but they stood strong against imperialism and if their free flourishing would have been allowed, they would be much better.
Like, NK was similar to SK till the 90's or so.
data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?locations=KR-KP-US
And from the drop in that around 1990, we can see it is not something Kim Jong Un decided(he was likely 10 or 11 years old then). The likely causes are then the things that were in play then: The fall of their major trading partner + USAmerican regime's sanctions amplifying that + They also had serious natural calamities at the time.
Also, if you are a USAmerican, have you heard of this:
theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/05/commando-team-north-korea-civilians-2019-mission
This is what they face for not bowing down to capitalist dominance and USAmerican regime's aggression. And they fight on.
And regarding SK's economic development:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kijichon
Pragmatic?
Finally, with the USAmerican regime seen to be losing dominance, NK will probably be able to rise up with lesser fears of sanctions and sabotage.
It seems to be happening.
Kijichon - Wikipedia
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
in reply to qwerty • • •The WSJ Just Confirmed What Socialists Said All Along
Dialectical Dispatcheslepton64
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •let me guess, you are active on r/movingtonorthkorea on reddit?
Cringe.
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
in reply to lepton64 • • •The Myth of the Default Society
Dialectical Dispatches