The massacre was committed by the government forces of president Syngman Rhee and falsely blamed on the communists led by North Korean leader Kim Il Sung. The South Korean government made efforts to conceal the massacre for four decades. Survivors were forbidden by the government from revealing it, under threat of being treated as communist sympathizers; public revelation carried with it the threat of torture and death. During the 1990s and onwards, several corpses were excavated from mass graves, resulting in public awareness of the massacre. Half a century after the massacre, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission investigated this among other incidents that were largely kept hidden from history, unlike the well-publicized North Korean executions of South Korean right-wingers.
This was the instigating event behind the civil war.
This the was instigating event behind the civil war
No it wasn’t, and it wasn’t even one event.
There were literal years of border skirmishes before the North invaded on the 25th of June, 1950. The Bodo League Massacre is the name for a series of purges of suspected communists that began with an order from the SK President on June 27th, 1950. Two days after the North Invaded.
The Bodo League Massacre
This was the instigating event behind the civil war.
No it wasn’t, and it wasn’t even one event.
There were literal years of border skirmishes before the North invaded on the 25th of June, 1950. The Bodo League Massacre is the name for a series of purges of suspected communists that began with an order from the SK President on June 27th, 1950. Two days after the North Invaded.
Try again tankie.
If hating tankies means you have to support fascist dictatorships, then I guess I’ll never hate tankies.
Luckily it doesn’t.
It is very possible to dislike more than one thing.
Why do you have to defend the fascists in this specific case, then?
I did not defend any fascists. I pointed out innacuracies in the prior posts.
Ask the other poster why they felt the need to lie to make their points.
You know how it goes, “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds”.
Well, that’s a refreshing take to see. But that doesn’t make the event mentioned here not problematic or not a further motivator of the war
Did you miss the part where the first such event didn’t take place until after the invasion by the North?
Nope. That’s like saying the Emancipation Proclamation couldn’t have motivated any sides in the Civil War because it happened halfway through.
The comment I replied to said this:
Dictionary.com says this for the word “instigating”
Please explain how an event that occured after the invasion was the cause or initiator of the war.
If you cannot, then admit you didn’t read the thread and just came in here to muddy the waters.
If you are too proud to admit that, just ghost.
I didn’t claim they were correct. If you look above, I made a weaker claim than they did.