Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Suhi Choi

This book is not about the Korean War itself. Rather, it is about communicating trauma in the process of constructing memories of the Korean War. My primary impulse to write this book stemmed from a reflexive awareness that I have an irresistible affinity with this war. I am drawn to the Korean War because I have visceral and psychological connections to this conflict through the bodies and minds of my loved ones who survived the war. As one who belongs to what Marianne Hirsch would call “the generation of postmemory,” I willingly pair my academic inquisitions about memory process with the subject of the Korean War since I am better positioned to articulate my questions about trauma, empathy, and memorials within this particular context. I do not necessarily have more abilities than others to witness the complex memories of this conflict, yet I am highly provoked to persistently reimagine it. I argue that postmemory could be an epistemologically advantageous site where one is able to glimpse how the texture of trauma is momentarily manifested in the multifaceted, cross-sectional, and dialogical interactions between survivors and past events, between survivors and the generation of postmemory, and between the generation of postmemory and past events.

2019 ◽  
pp. 17-36
Author(s):  
Suhi Choi

The proscription of mourning is the most pertinent characteristic of the Korean War memories. It has been caused by battlefield realities of the war (many unaccounted deaths of civilians), an ideologically charged memory process, fear-riddled bodies under censorship, and the convention of testimonial practices that mimics perpetrators’ epistemology. Although South Korea has recently opened up many memorial sites for suppressed mourners, the proscription of mourning nonetheless has been persistent and thus has continued to create an impasse of remembering. As a breakthrough of such an impasse, this chapter calls for emphatic mourning that reenacts survivors’ reflexive acts of witnessing their incommunicable trauma. Likewise, a memorial is reframed as a potential theater of empathic mourning that carries out an intangible process of the symbolic world through unorthodox signifiers such as bodies, nonverbal gestures, oralities, and even evanescent occurrences.


1979 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abraham Ben-Zvi

During the years following the Second World War, intensive research was undertaken on the subject of response to threat. Confronted with the baffling yet recurrent inability of nations to respond adequately to warnings of an impending attack, many scholars concentrated on such events as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and the outbreak of the Korean War, and produced a voluminous empirical literature, as well as a considerably meagre body of theoretically oriented works. Thus alongside the plethora of works that sought explanations solely in terms of certain specific conditions operating at the time of the event analyzed, a few other inquiries attempted to integrate the case under scrutiny into a broader theoretical context in order to better elucidate the patterns by which nations cope with situations of crisis and threat.


Author(s):  
Ilia Valerievich Mametev

The article gives a historical overview of the Korean conflict as one of the largest events in the world history of the mid-twentieth century. The result of that armed confrontation could escalate into a nuclear war. The USSR took part in that conflict. The Korean War of 1950-1953 laid the foundation for the current tense situation on the Korean Peninsula. The war events had determined the vector of developing relationship between the states of the Pacific region for decades to come and are still the subject of fierce debates in the scientific community, causing a broad public response. One of the most essential problems in the history of the Korean conflict is the question of the outcome of the Korean War.


2018 ◽  
pp. 97-130
Author(s):  
Denzenlkham Ulambayar

Since the 1990s, when previously classified and top secret Russian archival documents on the Korean War became open and accessible, it has become clear for post-communist countries that Kim Il Sung, Stalin and Mao Zedong were the primary organizers of the war. It is now equally certain that tensions arising from Soviet and American struggle generated the origins of the Korean War, namely the Soviet Union’s occupation of the northern half of the Korean peninsula and the United States’ occupation of the southern half to the 38th parallel after 1945 as well as the emerging bipolar world order of international relations and Cold War. Newly available Russian archival documents produced much in the way of new energies and opportunities for international study and research into the Korean War.2 However, within this research few documents connected to Mongolia have so far been found, and little specific research has yet been done regarding why and how Mongolia participated in the Korean War. At the same time, it is becoming today more evident that both Soviet guidance and U.S. information reports (evaluated and unevaluated) regarding Mongolia were far different from the situation and developments of that period. New examples of this tendency are documents declassified in the early 2000s and released publicly from the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in December 2016 which contain inaccurate information. The original, uncorrupted sources about why, how and to what degree the Mongolian People’s Republic (MPR) became a participant in the Korean War are in fact in documents held within the Mongolian Central Archives of Foreign Affairs. These archives contain multiple documents in relation to North Korea. Prior to the 1990s Mongolian scholars Dr. B. Lkhamsuren,3 Dr. B. Ligden,4 Dr. Sh. Sandag,5 junior scholar J. Sukhee,6 and A. A. Osipov7 mention briefly in their writings the history of relations between the MPR and the DPRK during the Korean War. Since the 1990s the Korean War has also briefly been touched upon in the writings of B. Lkhamsuren,8 D. Ulambayar (the author of this paper),9 Ts. Batbayar,10 J. Battur,11 K. Demberel,12 Balảzs Szalontai,13 Sergey Radchenko14 and Li Narangoa.15 There have also been significant collections of documents about the two countries and a collection of memoirs published in 200716 and 2008.17 The author intends within this paper to discuss particularly about why, how and to what degree Mongolia participated in the Korean War, the rumors and realities of the war and its consequences for the MPR’s membership in the United Nations. The MPR was the second socialist country following the Soviet Union (the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics) to recognize the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) and establish diplomatic ties. That was part of the initial stage of socialist system formation comprising the Soviet Union, nations in Eastern Europe, the MPR, the PRC (People’s Republic of China) and the DPRK. Accordingly between the MPR and the DPRK fraternal friendship and a framework of cooperation based on the principles of proletarian and socialist internationalism had been developed.18 In light of and as part of this framework, The Korean War has left its deep traces in the history of the MPR’s external diplomatic environment and state sovereignty


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document