The Korean peninsula was ‘liberated’ following the defeat of Japan at the end of the Second World War. Military occupation and the division of occupied territory between the USA and Soviet Union was originally only put in place to secure the transition of Korea into a peninsula controlled by an international administration. The complex politics of the Cold War prevented this [1].
The developments of post-liberation politics were complicated by various political alliances and domestic issues, and so an American-backed colonial elite came back into power in the South. There was no clear break in political structure in the South in the pre- and post-liberation periods, so the “legacy of collaboration” remained a political issue [1]. Ceuster states that public opinion maintained that, “in order to secure a future for an independent Korean state, former collaborators had to be excluded from an active role in post-war politics.” [1]. However, no comprehensive attempt was made at defining who was actually a collaborator. Many Korean administration workers for the Japanese colonial government general remained in high positions by painting themselves as “crusaders against the communist threat.” [1]. Moreover, historical discourse on collaboration became complicated when political convictions interfered and steered historical research.
For positivist historians, who emphasised the objectivity of empirical research in history writing, the idea of having to apologise for their role during colonial occupation was problematic. The concept of writing a positivist history rested on the notion that the facts told the story, and that the story was inherently embedded in themselves as fact. No historian who submitted to rigorous research of the facts could produce an alternative narrative that was not already present in the historical sources themselves [2]. As long as a historian conformed to this scientific, empirical method, then the histories they wrote were ultimately objective.
Considering this, what then would positivist historians in Korea have to apologise for post-liberation? [2]. If they acknowledged their role in furthering Japanese historical narratives, such as toyoshi, then they would be admitting that their positivist histories were not as objective as they claimed. The idea of disavowing their previous work and engaging in a systematic critique of their positive historiographies, and the narrative strategies immanent within them, was not popular. This kind of critique would come later in South Korea, starting in 1961 and developing into historiographies on cultural history [2].
.
[1] Ceuster, Koen de, (2001) ‘The Nation Exorcised: The Historiography of Collaboration in South Korea,’ Korean Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2. pp. 207-242
[2] Em, Henry H. (2013) The Great Enterprise: Sovereignty and Historiography in Modern Korea, Duke University Press, London and Durham