Did Nagasaki lead to Korean division?

Did the second US atomic bomb, on Nagasaki, lead to the division of Korea into north and south?

So claims Tim Shorrock on Substack. 

The reality, as I see it? 

Not entirely and not deliberately at the time.

The US/USSR split was intended to be temporary, until a trusteeship. Here's more of its reality:

Soviet troops advanced rapidly, and the U.S. government became anxious that they would occupy the whole of Korea. On 10 August 1945 two young officers – Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel – were assigned to define an American occupation zone. Working on extremely short notice and completely unprepared, they used a National Geographic map to decide on the 38th parallel as the dividing line. They chose it because it divided the country approximately in half but would place the capital Seoul under American control. No experts on Korea were consulted. The two men were unaware that forty years before, Japan and pre-revolutionary Russia had discussed sharing Korea along the same parallel. Rusk later said that had he known, he "almost surely" would have chosen a different line. The division placed sixteen million Koreans in the American zone and nine million in the Soviet zone. Rusk observed, "even though it was further north than could be realistically reached by US forces, in the event of Soviet disagreement ... we felt it important to include the capital of Korea in the area of responsibility of American troops". He noted that he was "faced with the scarcity of US forces immediately available, and time and space factors, which would make it difficult to reach very far north, before Soviet troops could enter the area". To the surprise of the Americans, the Soviet Union immediately accepted the division.

See that, Tim? Stalin agreeing, tacitly at least, on the division in general at Tehran and Yalta, and the details in 1945. 

As for the details of August 1945? This.

On 10 August, Soviet forces entered northern Korea. Soviet forces began amphibious landings in Korea by 14 August and rapidly took over the northeast of the country, and on 16 August they landed at Wonsan. Japanese resistance was light, and Soviet forces secured most major cities in the north by 24 August  (including Pyongyang, the second largest city in the Korean Peninsula after Seoul).

There we go. 

In addition, per the 1945 Moscow Conference, North Korea shifted to accepting the trusteeship plan, presumably under "nudging" by the USSR. 

As we advance to 1948, elections were held in South Korea, under US occupation at the time — but under UN supervision. North Korea was offered the opportunity to participate, but Kim Il-Sung, in conjunction with the USSR, rejected that, in part because South Korea had twice the population. 

Yes, Syngman Rhee helped start the Korean War. Yes, the US has a history of war crimes in that war. Yes, the US had a degree of imperialism. But, in this case, unlike Vietnam 1954, it was not the US ultimately at fault for how we got to this point. 

And again, this is why I identify as a skeptical leftist. See also my 80th anniversary piece on both bombs.

Related to that 1948 elections link, note the stories of Kim Ku and Kim Kyu-Sik. Both opposed the South Korean election, knowing it would through a spanner in the wheel of reunification. The former was assassinated in 1949 by a South Korean army lieutenant; speculation continues to this day as to whether or not he acted alone. The latter was kidnapped by North Korea after the start of the war and is presumed to have died in captivity later that year.

Moving ahead to the war? I, like Shorrock, have read Bruce Cumings. I've also read Blaine Harden items he's written about Korean and divided-Korean history, as well as Shorrick himself, whom I follow. If we limit ourselves to the battlefield, the US probably did commit the most war crimes of any Korean War belligerent. If we include prisoner of war treatment, though, North Korea almost certainly moves to the head of the class. 

As for Soviet meddling? Already at Potsdam, per D.M. Giangreco (it's in conference minutes) Stalin was trying to get a protectorate over Italian Libya, because of Italians fighting on the eastern front. Beyond the imperial greed, this was of course rank hypocrisy, as he had been pushing and goading FDR on calling out British colonialism. 

And, despite Turkey staying clearly and cleanly neutral in World War II, Stalin, allegedly pushed by Beria, not only abrogated a treaty over the Straits with Turkey, but pushed to try to take northeastern sections of the country. This backfired, leading to the declaration of the Truman Doctrine, and also to the Marshall Plan offering aid to Turkey as well as Greece, and from there, to the formation of NATO.

Publishers' Auxiliary fellates the Roswell (Daily) Record

Not the one in Georgia. 

The one in New Mexico, beloved by conspiracy theorists.

Lead story in Pub Aux's July issue? 

Touts local news production with "Roswell UFO controversy was a local story."

Well, today, there is no controversy.

There IS a lot of grifting by the Beck family ownership.

Re both of those issues? 

Per the "about" on its website, the Record is like Jill Stein trying to pretend to not be an antivaxxer while actually being one. In this case, it's trying to pretend not to push 1947 UFO conspiracy theory while actually doing so.

In July 1947, something streaked out of the sky, hitting the ground outside of Roswell, New Mexico, beginning years of ongoing speculation as to what the object was. According to initial information provided to the Roswell Daily Record by the Roswell Army Air Field, the startling headlines claimed that the military had recovered a flying saucer from a nearby ranch.

Overnight, the story changed from a flying saucer to a weather balloon, and over the ensuing years, that explanation morphed into a military high-altitude surveillance program. Over decades of conspiracy theories that the U.S. government has covered up the possibility that an alien spacecraft and its otherworldly crew were responsible for the 1947 crash. Through it all, and continuing to this day, the Roswell Daily Record was there to report the news and to spark the public interest and fascination with this story.

Wrong. 

And, Beck daughter has a reason to peddle this, as did daddy, assuming he did, too.

The paper owns its own UFO store.

Of course, here's the reality.

And, I knew that reality long ago. I also know that, 25 years ago, Roswell boosters were talking about when the city would hit 50,000. Never happened. Population's been basically flat since 1990 and Farmington has just about caught it, while the Farmington metro area is much bigger.

Not that Teri Saylor at PubAux will tell you that. About halfway through:

In 2022, on the 75th anniversary of the crash event, CBS News reported the debate is far from settled, and “for decades, journalists, authors, documentary film crews and others fascinated by the incident have unearthed and publicized countless bits of information and artifacts o that time.”

Ugh. No skeptical organizations or individuals are quoted anywhere. 

But wait, it gets worse:

On the newspaper’s website, Beck wrote that “over decades of conspiracy theories, the U.S. government has covered up the possibility that an alien spacecraft and its otherworldly crew were responsible for the 1947 crash. Through it all, and continuing to this day, the Roswell Daily Record was there to report the news and to spark the public’s interest and fascination with this story.”

Saylor doesn't question that, nor does she mention the grifting involved. Well, she did mention that above two paragraphs:

Both the Roswell Daily Record and the Morning Dispatch are trademarked, and their UFO crash stories and images cannot be reproduced without permission or by paying royalties to Record Publishing, the parent company.

To be more accurate, she doesn't mention the ethics of a newspaper promoting an untrue conspiracy theory off of which it's grifting.

She and PubAux should be ashamed of themselves. 

But they won't be. (I tagged both on Shitter the day this came out.)

Gack.

And, people in the media biz wonder why people in the media biz don't believe all claims about the media biz? 

Texas Progressives

Off the Kuff is all over redistricting. 

Related? Will the Texas GOP win its gamble that it can continue to run strong with Hispanics?

SocraticGadfly notes new climate modeling that says Southwestern drought will likely last the rest of this century. Having already noted that a drying Rio Grande won't fix itself means that US-Mexico water treaties, as well as Texas-New Mexico interstate compacts, are null and void by the laws of nature.

Sid Miller may have a hankering for ganja puffs as well as Jeebus shots.

One of the big failures of Charles Perry's big beautiful water constitutional amendment is that it has no provisions to stop the likes of Kyle Bass pumping the hell out of groundwater then shipping it hundreds of miles.

Greg Abbott's veto of a bill that could have protected Dripping Springs is a poster child not only for his anti-environmentalism, but the Lege's failure this spring to pass a constitutional amendment that would have created either a special session, or time at the start of the next regular one, for veto overrides.

The Lege is eyeing further attempts to strangulate local governments on property taxes.

But youth camp safety (to the degree the Lege would protect kids from rich camp owners anyway, per my piece on the Kerrville floods) will likely get screwed. (The Texas Living Waters Project a;so looks at the state of flood response in the special session.)

RIP Flaco Jimenez.

The International Court of Justice has ruled nations have an obligation to address climate change. I'm sure the next Democrap prez will ignore that just as much as Trump. After all, the Paris accords are voluntary, toothless Jell-O due to two people: Xi Jinping and ... Dear Leader.

Neil at Houston Democracy Project says Texas Democratic Party electeds & rank and file must find path to common course similar to what happened in South Korea last year when martial law was declared.

The TSTA Blog worries about the end to desegregation enforcement in public education. City of Yes would like for cities to be built for both children and dogs.

The Barbed Wire teases Love is Blind: Austin, which we're sure will be totally normal and generate no discourse at all.

The Dallas Observer finds a local case of ICE coming for a Trump supporter who surely wasn't expecting it.

Texas 2036 has concerns about ditching the STAAR test.

Olivia Julianna gives Dems permission to be ruthless.

Sorry again, Joe Costello, and again — part 2

I'm riffing on part 1 of how I said he was wrong about "republic vs democracy," as he's now entered not one but two pieces about the rise of political parties.

In part one, he's generally right about the development and emergence of modern political parties in Britain, the United States and France, and largely right about their co-option in part two. 

But, he's wrong as rain about this being a modern phenomenon. The Blues, Greens, Reds and Whites of Byzantine times were quasi-political, especially the first two. 

The Guelphs and Ghibellines in the Holy Roman Empire, then the split into White and Black Guelphs? These were also quasi-political, if not fully so. And, they were organized in a party way.

Again, Costello knows better, or should. 

Update, Oct. 7, 2025: A "nice" short piece about Chicago vs ICE, but ... I guess you don't care about Gaza. 

Hiroshima 80 years on

Cue the knee-jerk reactions from non-skeptical leftists who won't read, or knee-jerk reject the findings of, Richard Frank's "Downfall", Marc Gallicchio's "Unconditional," and A.M. Giangreco's "Truman and the Bomb."

 See expanded thoughts on the first, and somewhat the second, books here. 

Per all three, I don't like the use of the bomb, not just once, but also the second time at Nagasaki, but embrace it as the least bad option in terms of lessening not just U.S. deaths, but allied deaths and even Japanese deaths. (A tight sea blockade of another six months would have killed far more Japanese by starvation, not to mention ongoing non-nuclear bombing, etc.)

I have broad related thoughts here on the 70th anniversary. I talk here about rejecting the idea of "justified" vs "unjustified."

I note here that, no, Russia didn't cause the surrender.

Let us quote Hirohito’s Imperial rescript, at that link.

Despite the best that has been done by everyone – the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people – the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

One can try to read the Russian invasion of Manchuria into the end of the first paragraph, the “general trends of the world have turned against her interest.”

But, it’s still secondary to the second paragraph.

It’s also hypocritical as hell in the last sentence of the second paragraph, Hirohito’s claim to claim that he was surrendering Japan to prevent “the total extinction of human civilization.

Per “Unconditional,” let us quote the end of that rescript.

“Seeing that the situation had developed not necessarily to his advantage, Hirohito finally relented.”

That’s what we faced.

Don’t let the non-skeptical leftists continue to pull the wool over your eyes.

One can dislike US imperialism and dislike the former Japanese imperialism far more at the same time.

And, since the 75th anniversary post, I've read Bucky Sheftall's "Hiroshima: The Last Witnesses" and was not that impressed. 

==

Companion piece: No, Nagasaki did not directly lead to or contribute to the division of Korea.

LibreWolf: Issues so far

Yes, it runs faster than Firefox, and it doesn't "phone Google."

 That means two things.

One: Things like highway route numbers don't render on Google Maps. So, you have to use something else.

Two: Google Images does not work AT ALL. 

There's some lesser issues, but those are the biggies. 

==

Update: It doesn't like Bing or Yandex on their reverse image lookup any more than Google. I don't know who "backbones" Yandex, but I assume, like the search engine itself, it's Bing and thus ultimately Microslob on Bing.

Also? Won't let me copy-paste something out of a Word document into Goodreads. (I'll check on that again, by accident if nothing else, in the near future.) I can type in the review box, but can't paste anything there. Is this because Goodreads is Amazon? Unknown. 

Alt-history: Nixon chooses a different Veep in 1973

Per Jeff Toobin's solid "The Pardon," Richard Nixon had several alternatives to replace Spiro Agnew in 1973.

Other than eventual choice Jerry Ford, John Connally, whom Nixon had almost considered in 1972, was atop that list as Nixon's personal preference. Connally seemed to have awe-stunned Nixon the same way JFK did. But, as Toobin noted, the tip of the milk price support scandal was already popping up in early fall 1973.

The others were St. Ronald of Reagan and Nelson Rockefeller. Politically antagonistic, though not so much personally, both would have posed problems for possibly splitting the party. Per my piece a week ago, 10 months later, Ford seems not to have taken notice.

Speaking of that political piece? What if Dick Nixon chooses Shrub Bush? He probably would not have faced much more confirmation problem than Ford. Like Ford, Nixon probably would have regarded him as a lightweight.