Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up freeThe Oakwood Press (Oakwood
Oakwood, Montgomery County, Ohio
What is this article about?
The editorial criticizes US leaders Roosevelt and Truman for concessions to Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam, leading to Korea's division. It supports UN-backed intervention to repel North Korean invasion but warns of escalation risks into North Korea without broader support, questioning motives to undo past mistakes.
OCR Quality
Full Text
Let us be honest about the Korean situation. Let us look facts in the face and quit hiding behind the United Nations in our obvious attempt to undo the mistakes our "statesmen" made at Yalta and Potsdam.
A review of history will show that President Roosevelt held to the hope that if he gave Russia everything Russia demanded the politburo would be ashamed to abuse our magnanimity. It will show also that President Truman thought Joe Stalin a "likeable fellow". And it will show that we did, as a matter of fact, go out of our way to placate Stalin, that we did permit Russia to enter the war just a few days before Japan's surrender, that we did make concessions to Russia in Asia, and that among these concessions was the division of Korea at the 38th parallel and the awarding of control of the northern part of that unhappy country to Stalin & Co.
We did this, not because we needed Russia's help in beating an already-beaten Japan, but because we wanted to show we were good fellows.
Well, we've shown it. And we've shown, besides, that we are the world's prime suckers.
We permitted Russia to arm North Korea and then obligingly we withdrew from Southern Korea, leaving the new republic practically-defenseless. It was inevitable that Russia would try to take over the southern half we had vacated.
We believe that it was well that we interceded, for sooner or later we had to take a stand and tell Stalin: this far and no farther shall you go. Had we not done so we would have had to face the showdown in some other part of the globe, whether Formosa or Greece or Turkey or Iran or Germany. As well Korea as any other spot.
And so, backed by the United Nations which lent its moral support but precious little more, we went into Korea and by dint of super-human exertion drove the invaders back across the 38th parallel. We did it almost single-handedly, for we received--but token assistance from a scant three or four other members of the United Nations who showed stamina by voting to protect the Republic of Korea but showed practically nothing else even when we desperately needed men and equipment.
Well, we have reached the 38th parallel. We have driven the invaders out of South Korea. And, obedient to the decree of the United Nations, we are now invading the territory of North Korea.
We wonder what will be accomplished by that step. We must recognize that the real offender is Russia, not North Korea. Stalin, though, is cagy--enough to fight with the men of North Korea and not with his own men. Red China is cagy enough to stand on the sidelines and mutter threateningly, but it is not foolish enough to risk everything by siding with the Russian puppets in North Korea.
We carry the torch. We carry it practically alone, for the support of the United Nations is largely moral. We have shown Russia that we won't be bluffed, that we dare risk a third world war to stop the spread of communism. What more do we hope to show?
If Russia permits--and doubtless she will--we shall conquer North Korea. Our forces will drive to the Manchurian borders. And, driving, they will prove no more than has already been proved: that we are not afraid of the growling bear, however rash that bit of bravery may be.
Are we really concerned in seeing a united Korea? Or is our principal concern to rectify the mistakes of Roosevelt and Truman?
We had no business consenting to a division of Korea five years ago.
Are we now to undo that mistake? Are we to risk another world war in case Russia does not want that mistake undone?
Frankly, we don't know the sensible course. But we view with alarm our foolhardiness in marching north unless we are willing to fight Russia. It could eventuate in that and if it should the odds are that we still would have the moral support of the United Nations--and precious little else.
Too often when we enact laws with teeth in them, they turn out not to have been wisdom teeth.
What sub-type of article is it?
What keywords are associated?
What entities or persons were involved?
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Critique Of Us Concessions To Russia In Korea And Current Intervention
Stance / Tone
Critical Of Past Us Leaders' Mistakes, Supportive Of Stopping Communism But Alarmed At Escalation Risks
Key Figures
Key Arguments