Was Truman responsible for division of Korea as he meekly surrendered to Soviet demands regarding Korea?

Joined Aug 2014
5,549 Posts | 582+
India
It was only matter of fact that Soviet Union needed to get something for their war effort against Japan but did not Truman concede more than necessary to Soviet Union?

Soviets got South Sakhalin, Kuril islands, Port Arthur and Manchuria Railway but still Truman accepted Soviet demand to accept Japanese surrender in Northern Korea?

Why would Truman accept Soviet demand to accept Japanese surrender when Soviets already got South Sakhalin, Kuril Islands, Port Arthur and Manchurian Railway? Could not Truman tell Stalin that it was enough?
 
  • Like
Reactions: raharris1973
Joined Apr 2021
1,864 Posts | 617+
Virginia
He could have tried to monopolize occupation of Korea for the USA.

On the other hand, the Soviets might have ignored him, and due to proximity, may have been in a position to occupy all of mainland Korea before America, without granting America any zone. Especially if Truman deferred to MacArthur, who wanted the US Army to occupy all points in Japan, before releasing any troops for occupying any points in Korea or the mainland.

Sadly, the American missionaries, who had much more success in northern Korea than in China in converting people, never had the influence over US Korea policy they had over US China policy, and in China, they were much less successful in converting people.

It would have been very, very hard to get American forces into Korea’s north Hamgyong province in the northeast before the Soviets, because that is right next door to Vladivostok city.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leftyhunter
Joined Aug 2016
12,409 Posts | 8,403+
Dispargum
According to wiki no one had considered the division of Korea prior to the Soviets entering the Pacific War. The Americans were so surprised by the rapid Soviet advance that they thought the Soviets would soon occupy the entire Korean Peninsula. The division at the 38th Parallel was intended to keep the Soviets out of the south. At that time no one was thinking of Allied occupation of the entire peninsula. The Soviets occupied Pyongyang as early as August 24, 1945. The Americans didn't land in Korea until September 8. Possession is 9/10 of the law. The Americans lucky to get as much of Korea as they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leftyhunter
Joined Aug 2016
12,409 Posts | 8,403+
Dispargum
As far as blaming Truman, you have look hard at FDR for inviting the Soviets into the Pacific War in the first place. Once the Soviets were in the Pacific War they were going to get something. Truman dropped the A-bomb to end the war as quickly as possible, before the Soviets took even more.
 
Joined Aug 2014
5,549 Posts | 582+
India
According to wiki no one had considered the division of Korea prior to the Soviets entering the Pacific War. The Americans were so surprised by the rapid Soviet advance that they thought the Soviets would soon occupy the entire Korean Peninsula. The division at the 38th Parallel was intended to keep the Soviets out of the south. At that time no one was thinking of Allied occupation of the entire peninsula. The Soviets occupied Pyongyang as early as August 24, 1945. The Americans didn't land in Korea until September 8. Possession is 9/10 of the law. The Americans lucky to get as much of Korea as they did.

Was not East Asia already divided into spheres of influence before Soviets joined?

Soviets also demanded Hokkaido to be put under their supervision but Truman firmly refused that. If only Truman could show same attitude about Korea, Korea would be united today.
 
Joined Sep 2012
10,340 Posts | 4,400+
Bulgaria
Soviets also demanded Hokkaido to be put under their supervision but Truman firmly refused that. If only Truman could show same attitude about Korea, Korea would be united today.
US Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared оn 12 January 1950 that the American defense perimeter in the Pacific covered the Aleutian Islands, Ryukyu Islands and the Philippines, indicating that Korea was not within the immediate US state interests. It added to the determination of the NK govn at the time in unleashing an armed conflict and kinda helped to convince the cautious Stalin that US military intervention in the Korean conflict was unlikely. The changes in US Korean policy were made in the spring of 1950 based on a secret report presented to Truman in December 1949, which called for an intensification of US military policy and replacing the tactics of containment of the Soviet 'expansion' with an offensive military confrontation with the Soviet Union, realpolitik is a chess game.
 
Joined Jun 2012
15,528 Posts | 2,868+
Malaysia
Last edited:
Supposing, just supposing, in a hypothetical case, that FDR had not invited SU to join in into the Pacific War.

Q1. Could US still have defeated Japan with about similar speed than they had done? Like maybe, even without the nuke option. Because, BTW, as I had heard one story version from a Japanese uni lecturer when I was in Japan in late 1980s, Japan was indeed already in the process of negotiating terms for a surrender to US.

Q2. If they could, then would it have been for possible and viable for US to offer a defeated surrendered Japan the authority to remain as administrator of North Korea and Manchuria, but kind of under a higher overriding US overlordship as the war victor?

Perhaps like a kind of carrot or sweetener for an overall Japanese surrender to US.
 
Joined Aug 2016
12,409 Posts | 8,403+
Dispargum
Was not East Asia already divided into spheres of influence before Soviets joined?
According to this source only in the most general way with no specifics agreed to. The Potsdam Declaration of July 1945 called only for the independence of Korea.
 
Joined Aug 2014
5,549 Posts | 582+
India
According to this source only in the most general way with no specifics agreed to. The Potsdam Declaration of July 1945 called only for the independence of Korea.

The link says:

The General Order No. 1, drafted on August 11 by the United States for Japanese surrender terms in Korea, provided for Japanese forces north of latitude 38° N (the 38th parallel) to surrender to the Soviets and those south of that line to the Americans.

It would be better if Chinese were given responsibility to accept Japanese surrender in Northern Korea like they were asked in North Indo-China cause Chinese soon would vacate Northern Korea as they had civil war which meant US taking over Northern Korea too.
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
It would be better if Chinese were given responsibility to accept Japanese surrender in Northern Korea like they were asked in North Indo-China cause Chinese soon would vacate Northern Korea as they had civil war which meant US taking over Northern Korea too.

Well, how could anyone have known that at the time?
 
Joined Aug 2016
12,409 Posts | 8,403+
Dispargum
It would be better if Chinese were given responsibility to accept Japanese surrender in Northern Korea like they were asked in North Indo-China cause Chinese soon would vacate Northern Korea as they had civil war which meant US taking over Northern Korea too.
Republic of China forces were nowhere near Korea and had limited offensive capability so they couldn't get there anytime soon. The Soviets were in Korea already within days of declaring war on Japan. The Chinese forces closest to Korea were Mao's communist guerillas - not much of an improvement over the Soviets. Mao would have turned Korea over to Kim Il-Sung so we'd still have a Communist Korea.
1690822137013.png Second Sino-Japanese War - Wikipedia
Chiang could reach Indochina. He could have never gotten to Korea.

Again, we return to possession is 9/10 of the law. The Soviets were already in Korea when MacArthur issued Order No. 1 for Japanese forces in northern Korea to surrender to the Soviets.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: SSDD
Joined Jun 2012
15,528 Posts | 2,868+
Malaysia
It would be better if Chinese were given responsibility to accept Japanese surrender in Northern Korea like they were asked in North Indo-China cause Chinese soon would vacate Northern Korea as they had civil war which meant US taking over Northern Korea too.
Well, I'm kind of inclined to consider that as a high risk presumption.

Even if China later had a civil war, that they would so easily have relinquished a North Korea that they had been awarded, is not really a given thing, IMHO. Because NK would have logically been a profoundly strategic territorial acquisition for them.
 
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
The execution of the decision to divide the Korean peninsula along the 38ºth parallel lay on the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee - led by Colonel Charles H. Bonesteel and Major Dean Rusk - by the wishes of the State Department, and that decision just took a mere 30 minutes.
30 minutes of two American officers deciding the fate of an entire nation, without ever asking the Korean people for their consent...

Besides, the rapidity of the events surprised the American decision-makers. Americans did not expect that the Japanese were already holding serious cabinet meetings about unconditional surrender so quickly because of the bombs, and were not expecting that the Japanese forces would collapse so quickly in Manchuria, and quite possibly, neither the Soviets expected that.
During the Potsdam Conference a month earlier, Americans made sure that Korea was not of strategic importance to American interests, and basically gave carte blanche to the Soviets to be the responsible party for post-war Korea, something that the Soviets also didn't prepare for, and neither were especially interested, with the expectation of Korea being occupied under an allied-Soviet trusteeship that ended up being like Occupied Austria of some sort (Cummings 1981: 117-120).

The quick cascade of events in early August just put the entire US State Department in panic mode, and they went ahead with a policy of "(...) the United States sponsoring a rush into Korea and had acquired, so it seemed, a commitment to defend at least a part of Korea against Soviet encroachment or a Soviet-sponsored regime. The scramble into Korea, and this commitment, had the support of virtually all government agencies concerned with the matter, from the presidency on down." (Ibidem, 125-26).

The Americans were expecting the Soviets to not abide by the partition plan, but surprisingly, "(...) Stalin probably also limited Soviet actions in Korea out of a desire to maintain Allied cooperation. Whatever the reason, Stalin permitted joint action in a region where he had the power to take full control." (Ibidem, 121).


- Cummings, B. (1981). The Origins of the Korean War - Liberation and the Partition of Separate Regimes 1945-1947. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
 
Joined Apr 2021
1,864 Posts | 617+
Virginia
@robto correctly captures the rapidity of the decisions on Korea on *both* sides, the lack of long and deep prior thought about Korea’s future, and American and Soviet under-valuation of Korea compared to almost ever other location in China or Japan, during WWII, truthfully, until the start of the Korean War.

Thus it also captures some of the randomness of the 38th parallel demarcation.

The hinge of fate could have easily swung either way, to a demarcation line further north or further south. At Potsdam and after, neither the Americans nor Soviets, increasingly wary of each other, valued Korea enough to make a hard line on *that* land a make or break issue in their relations. It only became a sticking point, and symbolic, after the occupations were set up.

Bonesteel and Lincoln thought about requesting a 39th parallel divide [which matched on historic Tsarist proposal to Japan] but trimmed their sails and decided the 38th was adequate.

Had they stuck to the 39th, the Soviets in Potsdam, not wanting to make trouble, and securing their most vital objectives of Japanese islands, a secure border for Vladivostok, and control of Port Arthur all north of that line might have agreed without a fuss! I tend to think that would have been better, at least in the long run, for Koreans, Americans, Japanese and the world.

Conversely, had the Soviets at Potsdam been instructed to put forward a bold proposal, at least initially, for occupying all Korea, or Korea north of the 37th or 36th, the Americans might have felt fairly powerless to do anything besides accept the Soviet proposal on its face.

In reality, the Soviets touched parts of the country long before the Americans, on the Soviet first day of combat. After Japanese surrender the Soviets could move even faster. But so could the Americans have, even though they took several weeks in the event.

So from Japanese surrender August 15th really the whole western and southern coast of Korea and both capitals were still up for grabs if the Soviets and Americans chose to race. The Soviets had the definite lead on the northeast coast. Michael Sandusky argued in his book the Americans could have airlifted and sealifted at least Marines into their zone of Korea and beyond weeks faster than the historic occupation of southern Korea, but that as theater commander, MacArthur dictated and stage-managed a rigid and sequential timetable that ensured Army personnel were flown in to Japan first before other U.S. armed elements, including himself in grand ceremonial style, before any troop and ship movements onto the Asian mainland were permitted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robto
Joined Apr 2021
1,864 Posts | 617+
Virginia
There was no such division before the Soviets joined.
Well, no such division before it was planned for them to join. The division was planned at Potsdam, as a military operational and administrative demarcation line, after the Soviets promised to join and were getting ready. But Potsdam was before the Soviets started firing actual shots at the Japanese.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robto
Joined Apr 2021
1,864 Posts | 617+
Virginia
As far as blaming Truman, you have look hard at FDR for inviting the Soviets into the Pacific War in the first place. Once the Soviets were in the Pacific War they were going to get something. Truman dropped the A-bomb to end the war as quickly as possible, before the Soviets took even more.
FDR died (in April '45) before Hitler was even dead, although the Third Reich's demise was clearly imminent. But it was months before the Trinity atomic test, it might not have yet been scheduled for July 1945. FDR might have been dead or no longer lucid when the first US troops hit the beach at Okinawa, so the end of the Japanese war was anything but imminent. The Japanese hadn't even been completely halted on the mainland, with their recently successful Ichigo offensive. So the Soviets still looked like they could be useful in helping finishing off the Japanese at less cost in American blood.

And both FDR and later Truman were briefed that very little could actually stop Soviet movement into Japan's mainland empire at the eastern frontiers of the Soviet Union, once the Soviets chose to concentrate on that, so the best American hope as late as spring, and perhaps early summer, 1945 was that Soviet entry would at least be timely and contribute to Japan's defeat.

Some American officials, more diplomatic than military, like Averell Harriman and Jimmy Byrnes, were discussing by June and July the potential advantages of *not* having the Soviets enter the war at all and voiced preferences along those lines and decent confidence Japan would unconditionally surrender before long without it. Military officials, including MacArthur, *never* during the course of WWII said Soviet intervention was unwelcome. Anything that pinned down or shot up some Japanese was good to them. Of course if/when asked, they also said they, and even their particular service, could ultimately win the war all by themselves in a pinch.

I would also note it is debated to this day how much the atomic bombings and the Soviet entry into the war and offensives contributed to the historic Japanese surrender decision, and their particular timing in August. American leaders certainly *hoped* the atomic bombs could break Japan's morale and the finishing blow, but they were in no way prepared to rely on them exclusively as the *instant win* button for the war that hindsight makes them appear to be, and that they may well have been. So even if Soviet entry had its downsides and caused American concerns in its wake, till the very moment of Japanese surrender, the fact the Soviets came in was never a wholly negative factor to American leadership. [like many things, it became more so in hindsight]

I would also note that within no more than 48 or 72 hours after Soviet troops assaulted the Japanese across the Manchurian and Korean borders, they captured Japanese PoW camps and liberated at least several hundreds, if not thousands, of American prisoners, some of whom had been held since the fall of Bataan and Corregidor in the Philippines 3 years earlier. Few Americans would have wanted to prolong their agony in Japanese captivity a single day longer for any Cold War geopolitical purpose, or to risk them being killed by a capricious Japanese decision under a prolonged captivity, if either were the consequence of keeping the Soviet Union out of the war with Japan.
 
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
I would also note that within no more than 48 or 72 hours after Soviet troops assaulted the Japanese across the Manchurian and Korean borders, they captured Japanese PoW camps and liberated at least several hundreds, if not thousands, of American prisoners, some of whom had been held since the fall of Bataan and Corregidor in the Philippines 3 years earlier. Few Americans would have wanted to prolong their agony in Japanese captivity a single day longer for any Cold War geopolitical purpose, or to risk them being killed by a capricious Japanese decision under a prolonged captivity, if either were the consequence of keeping the Soviet Union out of the war with Japan.
Well, the United States did cause agony to American POWs that were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time of the bombs though.
 
Joined Aug 2016
12,409 Posts | 8,403+
Dispargum
FDR died (in April '45) before Hitler was even dead, although the Third Reich's demise was clearly imminent. But it was months before the Trinity atomic test, it might not have yet been scheduled for July 1945. FDR might have been dead or no longer lucid when the first US troops hit the beach at Okinawa, so the end of the Japanese war was anything but imminent. The Japanese hadn't even been completely halted on the mainland, with their recently successful Ichigo offensive. So the Soviets still looked like they could be useful in helping finishing off the Japanese at less cost in American blood.

And both FDR and later Truman were briefed that very little could actually stop Soviet movement into Japan's mainland empire at the eastern frontiers of the Soviet Union, once the Soviets chose to concentrate on that, so the best American hope as late as spring, and perhaps early summer, 1945 was that Soviet entry would at least be timely and contribute to Japan's defeat.

Some American officials, more diplomatic than military, like Averell Harriman and Jimmy Byrnes, were discussing by June and July the potential advantages of *not* having the Soviets enter the war at all and voiced preferences along those lines and decent confidence Japan would unconditionally surrender before long without it. Military officials, including MacArthur, *never* during the course of WWII said Soviet intervention was unwelcome. Anything that pinned down or shot up some Japanese was good to them. Of course if/when asked, they also said they, and even their particular service, could ultimately win the war all by themselves in a pinch.

I would also note it is debated to this day how much the atomic bombings and the Soviet entry into the war and offensives contributed to the historic Japanese surrender decision, and their particular timing in August. American leaders certainly *hoped* the atomic bombs could break Japan's morale and the finishing blow, but they were in no way prepared to rely on them exclusively as the *instant win* button for the war that hindsight makes them appear to be, and that they may well have been. So even if Soviet entry had its downsides and caused American concerns in its wake, till the very moment of Japanese surrender, the fact the Soviets came in was never a wholly negative factor to American leadership. [like many things, it became more so in hindsight]

I would also note that within no more than 48 or 72 hours after Soviet troops assaulted the Japanese across the Manchurian and Korean borders, they captured Japanese PoW camps and liberated at least several hundreds, if not thousands, of American prisoners, some of whom had been held since the fall of Bataan and Corregidor in the Philippines 3 years earlier. Few Americans would have wanted to prolong their agony in Japanese captivity a single day longer for any Cold War geopolitical purpose, or to risk them being killed by a capricious Japanese decision under a prolonged captivity, if either were the consequence of keeping the Soviet Union out of the war with Japan.
FDR discussed Korea at least as early as the Cairo Conference in November 1943 and again at Yalta in February '45. The latter conference included Stalin, but made no mention of spheres of influence or any specific division of Korea. If the US had really wanted to minimize Soviet expansion in the Far East they should not have invited Stalin to enter the war against Japan. That was on FDR, not Truman. Truman had to clean up FDR's mess in that regard.

Whether the atomic bombings did or did not hasten the end of the war, Truman certainly hoped the atomic bombings would hasten the end of the war before the Soviets occupied too much territory. In February '45 it looked as if the Pacific War would last well into 1946, and FDR wanted Soviet help. By August, the end appeared in sight without Soviet help so Truman tried to end the war as quickly as possible before the Soviet's could demand too high a price for their 'help' that Truman no longer wanted.

I agree with At Each Kilometer in post #6 above. Prior to June 1950 Korea just was not an American priority. Keeping Communism out of South Korea was an American afterthought. The close alliance between the US and South Korea that exists today developed after 1950, not before.
 
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
FDR discussed Korea at least as early as the Cairo Conference in November 1943 and again at Yalta in February '45. The latter conference included Stalin, but made no mention of spheres of influence or any specific division of Korea. If the US had really wanted to minimize Soviet expansion in the Far East they should not have invited Stalin to enter the war against Japan. That was on FDR, not Truman. Truman had to clean up FDR's mess in that regard.

Whether the atomic bombings did or did not hasten the end of the war, Truman certainly hoped the atomic bombings would hasten the end of the war before the Soviets occupied too much territory. In February '45 it looked as if the Pacific War would last well into 1946, and FDR wanted Soviet help. By August, the end appeared in sight without Soviet help so Truman tried to end the war as quickly as possible before the Soviet's could demand too high a price for their 'help' that Truman no longer wanted.

I agree with At Each Kilometer in post #6 above. Prior to June 1950 Korea just was not an American priority. Keeping Communism out of South Korea was an American afterthought. The close alliance between the US and South Korea that exists today developed after 1950, not before.
At the Potsdam Conference, Truman still wanted to invite Stalin to get into the war in the Pacific, just like FDR wanted.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top