Ehhh the Korean war is complicated. It started with Japan invading Korea and attempting to erase their history and culture. (Worth noting that America gave them the green light on this). After WW2, Korea was divided and backed by US/USSR interests on either side. It was a shitshow with everyone disagreeing how things should be run. Eventually North Korea did invade the South, though, so I guess this meme still applies. But even that fact is unclear - they claim it was retaliatory. Who knows.

[–] calavera@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

It would have been so much easier if instead of splitting Vietnam and Korea, they kept one for each empire to take care of

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ehhh the Korean war is complicated

North Korea did invade the South

Doesn't seem very complicated to me

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

oh well if you think it's simple then please write the historians who cant make sense of it, we don't know who attacked first

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The Korean War was fought between North Korea and South Korea from 1950 to 1953. The war began on 25 June 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea following years of internal instability and hostilities between the two states.

Yeah it's a real conundrum, that one

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

scroll down on the Wikipedia page you copied that from. it describes exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not some Hexbear shill here, the Korean war is a legit fucked up and complicated situation

Honestly why are you so adamant that international conflict must be simple? are you that naive, or are you playing with me, or what?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Who started it is very simple. North Korea started it by invading the South. I'm sorry if that annoys you but it's not a very controversial thing to say at all or something that's highly debated by historians or anything.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

sigh you're really not gonna go back and read it, are you?

Operation Pokpung
Main article: Operation Pokpung

At dawn on 25 June 1950, the KPA crossed the 38th parallel behind artillery fire.[128] The KPA justified its assault with the claim that ROK troops attacked first and that the KPA were aiming to arrest and execute the "bandit traitor Syngman Rhee".[129] Fighting began on the strategic Ongjin Peninsula in the west.[130][131] There were initial South Korean claims that the 17th Regiment had counterattacked at Haeju; some scholars argue the claimed counterattack was instead the instigating attack, and therefore that the South Koreans may have fired first.[130][132] However, the report that contained the Haeju claim also contained numerous other errors and outright falsehoods.[133]

This isn't some galaxy brain conspiracy take, I'm literally just talking about this ambiguity. And I really don't feel very strongly about this issue - I'm more perturbed that you're be so obstinate about it.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

However, the report that contained the Haeju claim also contained numerous other errors and outright falsehoods.

Yes, that claim. It's not highly debated or anything. Like the article says

The years prior to North Korea's invasion of South Korea were marked by border clashes between the two countries and an insurgency in the South that was backed by the North.[36][37][38] After failed attempts to stop the fighting and unify the Koreas, North Korean forces (Korean People's Army or KPA) crossed the 38th parallel on 25 June 1950, formally starting the war.

There's some dubious claims, but almost everyone agrees that North Korea started the war. This is like arguing that there's ambiguity about climate change since there's some scientists who don't believe in it. Meanwhile, the vast vast majority agrees that it's a thing.

It's all well and good to think "there's two sides to this" and whatever, you want to be fair and whatnot, but it's really unwarranted here. You're just unwittingly giving more credence to dubious claims.