Talk:Syngman Rhee

---

As a Korea who grew up during the Korean War, I feel your article "Syng-man Rhee" could use more information, especially during the time the armistice was considered by the Chinese and UN leaders in 1953. Many articles describe our former president as a crazy old man deranged with power to rule the unified Korea, but to me, his bold action against the world leaders at the time of the armistice was heroic. Who is at fault for dividing Korea in two, any way?

    In 1905, after Japan won the Russo-Japanese War,the American president Thedore Roosevelt "handed" Korea to Japan, and as the result, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  In 1941, Japan launched war against the United States. 
    On August 10, 1945, even before Emperor Hirohito's surrender speech was delivered, two young American officers, Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel who knew nothing about Korea, drew a pencil mark on the National Geographic map along the 38th Parallel as a dividing line between the US territory and Russian territory in our country.  Two days earlier, the Russians had entered the major cities in the North, calling themselves "liberators", and the Americans were nervous about losing the entire Korea.    
    in 1953, three long years of intense bettle and millions of lost lives later, the world leaders wanted to end the war, completely ignoring how we Koreans felt about it. It took courage for President Rhee to stand up and tell the GIANTS "enough is enough."  Our country's fate had been decided by OUTSIDERS too many times already, and he was sick and tired of it.  
    The Korean historians recognize that Syng-man's Rhee's courage awakened people conscience with a message that: although we were poor and powerless and were depending on other nations, we had pride, too, and that we shouldn't be stepped on like worms.  
    As a politician, President Rhee made many serious mistakes, but as a man, he loved his country and understood the pain of his countrymen who suffered 40 long years of Japanese colonial ruling, the humiliation of the division, and three years of devastating war against our own.  Had he obediently signed the armistice as the world leaders wanted him to do, the people of South Koreans would not have regained their self-respect and and strength to rebuild South Korea the way she is now.  Today South Korea is one of the strongest nation that boasts its people's skills, its modern cities, and its stable economy.

I agree that outsiders often paint a simplistic portrait of Rhee as a crazy old man. And as you say, maybe his stance regarding the armistice really was heroic. However, I think many Koreans tend to overemphasise the role of outsiders in the division of the peninsula and the war. Kim Il-sung, who was responsible for the war, was Korean, as was Rhee, who has to take at least some blame for the division. Yes, it was the rivalry between Kim and Rhee that made the division into something permanent. It was the outsiders who imposed the initial division, but that does not absolve the Koreans of the blame for the fratricidal war. Rhee on the other hand has to be commended that he was no Kim Il-sung. He had basic respect for the democratic system (although this didn't keep him from abusing power through the National Security Law and rigging elections), and the press was freer under him than under the subsequent military regimes. The commitment to at least the idea (if not the actual practise) of liberal democracy alone was crucial in that it created the conditions for the democratic South Korea we have today. --Iceager 06:05, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

This article has prompted little discussion, but has prompted revert wars. It has also prompted additions that could supplant previous assertions, but do not. The odd result is a page that does not present all sides of an argument, but actually takes all sides of an argument. It actually contradicts itself. The shifts in point of view are disorienting; the inability of its editors to agree on a neutral presentation of the facts discredits the encyclopedia. I don’t care to join a revert war with both sides; but clearly the opposing attempts either to condemn or to excuse Rhee are not going to stand without objection. Can we not drop them both? Ford 17:23, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Is it possible to clear this page to a neutral standpoint? The article initially was heavily pro-Communist and clearly biased. Tlaktan 06:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would add a new note about the neutrality dispute on this page, but it would be exactly what I said before. Anyone who wants to wade into the thick of this leftist-rightist brawl over the legacy of this controversial ruler is welcome to take a crack at the article and remove the contradictory points of view. Until that happens, it is obviously disputed, so do not remove the tag.
— Ford 11:44, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

M*A*S*H quote

Radar: Syngman Rhee's been reelected dictator again.