<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">The question is whether or not they got bonuses in order to "volunteer" for Vietnam. If they got no bonuses, then obviously they wouldn't be "mercenaries." Even if they got bonuses, it would be difficult to pin the mercenary label since soldiers in any army generally get combat pay when fighting overseas. Also, I'm not sure ordinary draftees had any say in where they were sent.<br> All told, 300,000 Koreans served in Vietnam over nearly a ten-year period. Five thousand of them were KIA, many more WIA. The White Horse and Tiger divisions were the principal units. Korean special forces were also in Vietnam. Those whom I have met are proud to have served there. Many of them, grizzled old veterans, turn up at demonstrations in Seoul protesting leftist demos, NKorean human rights violations, North Korean dynastic rule etc. They love to wear their old uniforms
with ribbons awarded for Vietnam service, including acts of individual heroism. <br>Some of them also talk quite openly about what they did in Vietnam -- and could provide material supporting your thesis re "the type of warfare that they had to fight in Vietnam,<br>including guerrilla warfare and civilian warfare." Strongly suggest you come here and interview some while they're still around. They'd tell you a lot, good and bad. Sorry to say, one of them once boasted to me of a personal "body count" of 300 victims -- would doubt if all of them were "enemy." On the other hand, they were also known for high levels of efficiency and success in their AO's.<br>Good luck on the project.<br>Don Kirk<br><br>--- On <b>Sat, 4/14/12, Kevin Shepard <i><kevin_shepard@yahoo.com></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: Kevin Shepard <kevin_shepard@yahoo.com><br>Subject:
Re: [KS] Brian Hwang's Discussion Question<br>To: "koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws" <koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws><br>Date: Saturday, April 14, 2012, 1:40 PM<br><br><div id="yiv220816123"><div><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt;"><div><span>I think you will be hard-pressed
to justify calling individual soldiers mercenaries - the Korean
government may have received funds from the US, but ROK soldiers were
drafted into mandatory service. If you come across documentation that
individuals volunteered for Vietnam in order to receive funds from the
US, please send such documents to me. </span></div><div style="text-align:left;font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;"><font size="2"><br></font></div><div><font style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;" size="2">Kevin Shepard, Ph.D.<br>Strategist<br>UNC/CFC/USFK<br>UCJ 5 Strategy Div.</font></div><br><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt;"> <div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> "koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws" <koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">To:</span></b> koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws <br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:00 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Subject:</span></b> Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 106, Issue 9<br>
</font> </div> <br>
<br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Discussion Question (<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:brianhwang@berkeley.edu" target="_blank" href="/mc/compose?to=brianhwang@berkeley.edu">brianhwang@berkeley.edu</a>)<br> 2. March 2012 Issue of "Cross-Currents: East Asian History and<br> Culture Review" Available Online (Center for Korean Studies)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:15:24 -0700<br>From: <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:brianhwang@berkeley.edu" target="_blank" href="/mc/compose?to=brianhwang@berkeley.edu">brianhwang@berkeley.edu</a><br>To: <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws" target="_blank" href="/mc/compose?to=koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</a><br>Subject: [KS] Discussion Question<br>Message-ID:<br> <<a rel="nofollow"
ymailto="mailto:7cb59ce69b486f3c15e6bba3e396a6d4.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu" target="_blank" href="/mc/compose?to=7cb59ce69b486f3c15e6bba3e396a6d4.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu">7cb59ce69b486f3c15e6bba3e396a6d4.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8<br><br>Hello all:<br><br>I am a history student at University of California, Berkeley. Currently I<br>am working on a paper regarding Korean involvement in the Vietnam War. My<br>argument is that although Korean soldiers were 1) mercenaries (because<br>they were paid predominantly by US dollars to go) and 2) anti communists<br>(because of past history), the atrocities that they are accused of<br>committing are not primarily due to the aforementioned reasons, but<br>because of the type of warfare that they had to fight in Vietnam,<br>including guerrilla warfare and civilian warfare.<br><br>Do you all think this is a valid argument? Are there any primary
sources<br>that would help me in my argument, including ones that attribute Korean<br>atrocities to their mercenary
and anticommunist nature?<br><br>Thank you!<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:00:21 -0700<br>From: "Center for Korean Studies" <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:cks@berkeley.edu" target="_blank" href="/mc/compose?to=cks@berkeley.edu">cks@berkeley.edu</a>><br>To: <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws" target="_blank" href="/mc/compose?to=koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</a>><br>Subject: [KS] March 2012 Issue of "Cross-Currents: East Asian History<br> and Culture Review" Available Online<br>Message-ID: <037401cd199f$4b410820$e1c31860$@berkeley.edu><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>March 2012 Issue of "Cross-Currents: East Asian History and Culture Review" now online <br> <br>The second issue of IEAS's new, interactive e-journal "Cross-Currents: East Asian History
and Culture Review" is now online. The theme of the March 2012 issue is
"Japanese Imperial Maps as Sources for East Asian History: The Past and Future of the Gaih?zu" (guest edited by K?ren Wigen, professor of History at Stanford). Visit http://cross-currents.berkeley.edu/e-journal/issue-2 to read the articles, a review essay written by Timothy Cheek (University of British Columbia) about Ezra Vogel's new book on Deng Xiaoping, and abstracts of important new scholarship in Chinese. The March issue of the e-journal also features a photo essay by Jianhua Gong documenting Shanghai's longtang alleyways. <br> <br>A joint enterprise of the Research Institute of Korean Studies at Korea University (RIKS) and the Institute of East Asian Studies at the University of California at Berkeley (IEAS), "Cross-Currents" offers its readers up-to-date research findings, emerging trends, and cutting-edge perspectives concerning East Asian history and culture from scholars in both English-speaking and Asian language-speaking academic
communities. <br><br><br>* * ** ** <br><br> <br>March 2012 issue of "Cross-Currents" e-journal<br>(See <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://cross-currents.berkeley.edu/e-journal/issue-2">http://cross-currents.berkeley.edu/e-journal/issue-2</a>)<br> <br>*Co-Editors' Note*<br> <br>Building an Online Community of East Asia Scholars<br>Sungtaek Cho, Research Institute of Korean Studies (RIKS), Korea University<br>Wen-hsin Yeh, Institute of East Asian Studies (IEAS), University of California, Berkeley<br> <br>*Japanese Imperial Maps as Sources for East Asian History: The Past and Future of the Gaihozu*<br> <br>Introduction to "Japanese Imperial Maps as Sources for East Asian History: The Past and Future of the Gaihozu"<br>Guest editor K?ren Wigen, Stanford University<br> <br>Japanese Mapping of Asia-Pacific Areas, 1873-1945: An Overview<br>Shigeru Kobayashi, Osaka University<br> <br>Imagining Manmo: Mapping the Russo-Japanese Boundary Agreements in
Manchuria and
Inner Mongolia, 1907-1915<br>Yoshihisa T. Matsusaka, Wellesley College<br> <br>Triangulating Chosen: Maps, Mapmaking, and the Land Survey in Colonial Korea<br>David Fedman, Stanford University<br> <br>Mapping Economic Development: The South Seas Government and Sugar Production in Japan's South Pacific Mandate, 1919--1941<br>Ti Ngo, University of California, Berkeley<br> <br>*Forum*<br> <br>Asian Studies/Global Studies: Transcending Area Studies and Social Sciences<br>John Lie, University of California, Berkeley/<br> <br>Defenders and Conquerors: The Rhetoric of Royal Power in Korean Inscriptions from the Fifth to Seventh Centuries<br>Hung-gyu Kim, Korea University<br> <br>*Review Essays and Notes*<br> <br>Of Leaders and Governance: How the Chinese Dragon Got Its Scales<br>Timothy Cheek, University of British Columbia<br> <br>A Note on the 40th Anniversary of Nixon's Visit to China<br>William C. Kirby, Harvard University<br> <br>*Photo Essay*<br>
<br>"Shanghai Alleyways" by photographer Jianhua Gong<br>Essay by Xiaoneng Yang, Stanford University<br> <br>*Readings from Asia*<br> <br>Ge Zhaoguang , Dwelling in the Middle of the Country: Reestablishing Histories of "China" [????:????"??"???]<br>Abstract by Wennan Liu, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences<br> <br>Wang Qisheng, Revolution and Counter-Revolution: Republican Politics in Social-Cultural Scope [???????????????????]<br>Abstract by Bin Ye, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences<br><br><br><br><br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/attachments/20120413/a3ff12bf/attachment-0001.html">http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/attachments/20120413/a3ff12bf/attachment-0001.html</a>><br><br>End of Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 106, Issue
9<br>*********************************************<br><br><br>
</div> </div> </div></div></div></blockquote></td></tr></table>