OLD HARRY & KOREA

it is sad, you know, that george walker bush can liken himself to harry truman and virtually no one recognizes the irony. perhaps that is because very few understand the real history of the truman era.

so, as a preface, let me cite some books that might provide more dimension of the truman presidency.

1. cumings, bruce: the monstrous 2-volume history, THE ORIGINS OF THE KOREAN WAR.

2. cumings, bruce & halliday, jon: korea - the unknown war. this was a companion volume to a documentary that these scholars produced for thames television. eventually, it was aired in the usa on pbs, but highly redacted. for a history of that monstrosity of historical censorship, see cumings' recounting - TELEVISION WAR.

3. stone, i.f.: the hidden history of the korean war. and a collection of his essays entitled, the truman era.

there may be more good history of the truman era out there, but these books will give you a start.

in my assessment, truman revealed himself to be a homicidal psychopath when he ordered the nuclear bombardment of hiroshima, nagasaki. there was absolutely no need for this mass murdering of essentially civilian[non-combatant] populations.

after all, curtis lemay's B-29's and their thermite bombs had destroyed virtually the entirety of japan's urban areas. built of wood and paper, they went up better than most suburbanites' backyard barbecue grills.

and the B-29's had complete mastery of the air. japan had no aircraft capable of interdicting them.

and by 1945, the japanese had no navy. and no indigenous hydrocarbons[no coal, no oil, no natural gas]. japan was an island surrounded, blockaded in all dimensions.

but truman, the beacon of bullying, did his war crime thing. and by and large, has gotten away with it. harry truman - the tough guy. instead of harry truman - the mass murderer.

but hiroshima, nagasaki are the first revealing aspects of harry truman's character[or lack of].

now, let us bounce to korea. historically, korea had never been a divided country.

even after japan assumed control of the country after the russo-japanese war in 1905, the country was not divided.

BUT, at yalta, fdr and old joe decided that they would divide the korean peninsula at the 38th parallel. and in 1945, at potsdam, old harry agreed to preserve this divisive arrangement. no koreans were consulted concerning this division of their country.

following the signing of the surrender documents on the big mo in edo bay, the usarmy took control of korea.

think upon this as if you were kim il sung. you had been the leader of an anti-japanese band of insurrectionists[korean patriots] and suddenly, not only was your country being cut in half, but in the southern half, the usa was appointing japanese war criminals as its administrative surrogates.

in addition to truman's willingness to kill thousands of non-combatant japanese, in addition to his willingness to steal the korean peninsula, let us consider his domestic actions[those that he instigated, those that he allowed to be instigated].

truman was the first president since woody that asserted the doctrine that george walker bush has asserted: you either with us or against us. and if you are not with us, you are treading on treasonable activities.

so, what did old harry bring to the usa? loyalty oaths. and all the secret policemen...the cia, the nsa, and an empowered stasi, hoover's fbi. illegal wiretapping. the surreptitious reading of mail. etc ad infinitum.

the most interesting aspect of old harry was his program to infiltrate and destroy the amerikan trade union movement.

and to energize the future of war profiteering... an activity that has been enshrined ever since.

but what makes old harry so interesting today is how much he is the model for george walker bush. both invaded other countries. and both f*cked up their invasions.

and both had a press that overlooked their crimes, their incompetence.

i have long said, if you knew the true history of the amerikan invasion of korea, then you would have been more adamant in opposing the invasion of vietnam, grenada, panama, nicaragua, iraq.

what i think most interesting about the perceptions of the amerikan invasion of korea is the barren aspect of the korean landscape.

just to enlighten you, prior to this amerikan invasion, korea was a leafy country.

but then old harry unleashed curtis lemay. who bombed the shit out of the korean peninsula.

and then there was the napalm. indiscriminately dropped everywhere.

because it was understood by the usa, and by the un that it controlled, that there were no allies in korea. all were opposed to the amerikan invasion. therefore, all deserved death.

and that is the real history.

so, when you hear george walker bush likening himself to old harry, don't miss the truth of that statement.

by the way, old harry was a colossal f*ck up in the management of the korean invasion. his first error was invading. but the errors kept on climbing

remind you of anyone?

old harry would never relinquish his f*ck up.

and eventually, it may have been this refusal that insured his party's defeat, eisenhower's election.

and though ike ended the active combat, real redress was never achieved.

korea is still divided. which is an artificial situation imposed upon korea by the usa.

there are still thousands of us troops occupying the southern half of the korean peninsula.

and much as is the situation in iraq, the amerikan press continues to prevaricate concerning korean realities.