Don Oberdorfer's The Two Korea's is a triumph of style over substance. To be sure, Oberdorfer is a compelling writer and he tells the story of North and South Korea since the 1970s with a great deal of flair. But Oberdorfer's overall knowledge of Korea and Korean history is very shallow. Oberdorfer does not speak or read Korean and he can only use Korean sources that have been translated for him. His research in Korean materials is very thin and as a result the book does not yield a good understanding of the Korean perspective on events that were occurring. His knowledge of Korean history before the 1970s is also lacking. His telling of the events of the last three decades could have been greatly enriched by a deeper understanding of how the actions taken by Korea's leaders during this period were rooted in Korea's long history and fascinating culture. In short, Oberdorfer, like many of the Washington area journalists who write about Korea without ever bothering to learn the language or study Korean history, is really just a dabbler in Korean politics. His work may satisfy those who want a superficial telling of recent events but is useless to those who want to gain a deeper understanding of Korean history.

Anyone who wants to brush up on the issues surrounding North and South Korea would do well to pick up this volume. It is well written and actually enjoyable to read. You will also pick up a lot of historical tidbits from the era from the author who was actually there as a reporter. Especially interesting were his observations of North Korea made during a trip there.

I cannot recall reading a book which covers a country's contemporary history in such an interesting and insightful way.

I picked up "The Two Koreas" before leaving for my first visit to Seoul and Busan hoping to get a full picture of political and economic developments on the peninsula since the end of the Korean War. I usually pre-screen my book purchases thoroughly, but in this case chose Oberdorfer's piece simply because it appeared to be the best option available on short notice.

This isn't a bad book; but it is a bit awkward. First, the only logic to the timeframe covered (roughly 1972 to 2000) is that it cooresponds to Oberdorfer's personal experience in Korean affairs as a journalist with the Washington Post. The post-war years of the authoritarian regimes of Syngman Rhee and Kim Il Song are not discussed at all, nor are the early years of Park Chung Hee's regime in the 1960s as he laid the groundwork for the South Korean economic miracle of the late twentieth century.

Second, the weight of the narrative is heavily focused on the North Korean nuclear program and the efforts of the Clinton administration to negotiate a settlement with Pyongyang in the 1990s. Large and important swaths of Korean history in the 1970s are dealt with in a largely cursory manner, but the 1994 nuclear crisis is reconstructed in an almost hour-by-hour chronology of events. Indeed, nearly half of the book is dedicated to just a handful of events in the 1990s.

Finally, the style of "The Two Koreas" is a clumsy blend of narrative history and personal memoir cum political analysis. Oberdorfer should have pursued one of two approaches to his topic. He could have written a comprehensive contemporary narrative of post-war Korea in the spirit and style of similar endeavors by veteran foreign journalists, the most notable example being Stanley Karnow's wonderful piece on the Philippines "In our Image." Or he could have fully embraced the use of the first person and written a memoir on his experiences in Korea and how that experience has shaped his perception of Korean history and the future of North/South relations, much as Tom Friedman did with his award-winning memoir/history "Beirut to Jerusalem." Instead, "The Two Koreas" reads like a personal, casual conversation with Don Oberdorfer over drinks at a club on Capitol Hill. He delves deeply into the topics he knows best, punched up with anecdotes from personal encounters with the key players at the time, while providing just basics on the other parts of the story he is less familiar with.

The above notwithstanding, "The Two Koreas" does provide a good introduction to some of the key players and Korean events of the past three decades, from the ax-handle murders at the DMZ in 1976 and assassination of Park Chung Hee in 1979 to the government crack-down on government protests in Gwangju in 1980 and the arrest of former presidents Roh Tae-Woo and Chun Doo Hwan in 1996 on corruption charges.

Concerning the on-going North Korean nuclear crisis, which is really the focus of this book, Oberdorfer clearly sees the program as Pyongyang's only effective card to play in relations with the United States and the international community. As the communist bloc imploded, North Korea witnessed the blossoming relationship between Seoul and the Soviet Union and China with no reciprocal rapprochment between Pyongyang and Washington. Oberdorfer suggests that Pyongyang basically stumbled upon the nuclear program as the one sure-fire way to the undivided attention of leaders in the United States and develop the dialogue and aid packages the beleagered communist state so desperately needs.

One final point should be noted. The cover states that the book has been "revised and expanded," but any potential reader should know that "The Two Koreas" does not cover critical events in the 2000-2005 timeframe, including Pyongyang's admission that the government never lived up to the original terms of the Agreed Framework in the first place.

I picked up "The Two Koreas" before leaving for my first visit to Seoul and Busan hoping to get a full picture of political and economic developments on the peninsula since the end of the Korean War. I usually pre-screen my book purchases thoroughly, but in this case chose Oberdorfer's piece simply because it appeared to be the best option available on short notice.

This isn't a bad book; but it is a bit awkward. First, the only logic to the timeframe covered (roughly 1972 to 2000) is that it cooresponds to Oberdorfer's personal experience in Korean affairs as a journalist with the Washington Post. The post-war years of the authoritarian regimes of Syngman Rhee and Kim Il Song are not discussed at all, nor are the early years of Park Chung Hee's regime in the 1960s as he laid the groundwork for the South Korean economic miracle of the late twentieth century.

Second, the weight of the narrative is heavily focused on the North Korean nuclear program and the efforts of the Clinton administration to negotiate a settlement with Pyongyang in the 1990s. Large and important swaths of Korean history in the 1970s are dealt with in a largely cursory manner, but the 1994 nuclear crisis is reconstructed in an almost hour-by-hour chronology of events. Indeed, nearly half of the book is dedicated to just a handful of events in the 1990s.

Finally, the style of "The Two Koreas" is a clumsy blend of narrative history and personal memoir cum political analysis. Oberdorfer should have pursued one of two approaches to his topic. He could have written a comprehensive contemporary narrative of post-war Korea in the spirit and style of similar endeavors by veteran foreign journalists, the most notable example being Stanley Karnow's wonderful piece on the Philippines, "In our Image." Or he could have fully embraced the use of the first person and written a memoir on his experiences in Korea and how that experience has shaped his perception of Korean history and the future of North/South relations, much as Tom Friedman did with his award-winning memoir/history "From Beirut to Jerusalem." Instead, "The Two Koreas" reads like a personal, casual conversation with Don Oberdorfer over drinks at a club on Capitol Hill. He delves deeply into the topics he knows best, punched up with anecdotes from personal encounters with the key players at the time, while providing just basics on the other parts of the story he is less familiar with.

The above notwithstanding, "The Two Koreas" does provide a good introduction to some of the key players and Korean events of the past three decades, from the ax-handle murders at the DMZ in 1976 and assassination of Park Chung Hee in 1979 to the government crack-down on government protests in Gwangju in 1980 and the arrest of former presidents Roh Tae-Woo and Chun Doo Hwan in 1996 on corruption charges.

Concerning the on-going North Korean nuclear crisis, which is really the focus of this book, Oberdorfer clearly sees the program as Pyongyang's only effective card to play in relations with the United States and the international community. As the communist bloc imploded, North Korea witnessed the blossoming relationship between Seoul and the Soviet Union and China with no reciprocal rapprochment between Pyongyang and Washington. Oberdorfer suggests that Pyongyang basically stumbled upon the nuclear program as the one sure-fire way to the undivided attention of leaders in the United States and develop the dialogue and aid packages the beleagered communist state so desperately needs.

One final point should be noted. The cover states that the book has been "revised and expanded," but any potential reader should know that "The Two Koreas" does not cover critical events in the 2000-2005 timeframe, including Pyongyang's admission that the government never lived up to the original terms of the Agreed Framework in the first place.

Thanks for the fast service. Haven't read the book yet, but looks quite interesting and informational!

This book is a novel-like easy read, but it's as informative as a textbook. It's a must for anyone who wants to understand just what the hell happened to make the two Koreas so different from one another today, and the roots of the nuclear standoff that we're having with North Korea today. The author is a pretty authoritative source, as he's actually met and interviewed many of the key players in the book. Highly recommended.

This book is a novel-like easy read, but it's as informative as a textbook. It's a must for anyone who wants to understand just what the hell happened to make the two Koreas so different from one another today, and the roots of the nuclear standoff that we're having with North Korea today. The author is a pretty authoritative source, as he's actually met and interviewed many of the key players in the book. Highly recommended.

This book was pretty readable, however I did have a couple of issues. The biggest problem I had was that it jumped around chronologically. It would appear to be relating events sequentially, then jump back and add an event years prior that would seem to have been too important to skip the first time. This was both confusing and irritating. It also left out alot of significant events. For example, it only mentioned the Pueblo incudent in one sentence in the entire book. It did not explore the event at all. It also did not touch on defections of US servicemembers to the North. And it barely referenced the North's kidnappings of Japanese in the 70's. Also, some event details were erroneous when compared to other books I've read on the same subject. This book seemed heavily subjective/opinion-based in alot of areas. Not my favorite book on the subject.

As I have recently moved here, this book was a must read to increase my understanding of Korea. This book does an admirable job of overviewing 1972-2001 on the Korean peninsula, and not only paints a portrait of the politics of South Korea, but also does so with North Korea. Although the specifics of what exactly went on in Pyongyang can only be guessed at, the author makes a competent stab at it, by utilizing the facts as we know them. The journey this book takes you on is astonishing: South Korea's transformation from a largely agrarian authoritarian society to an industrialized, democratic one, and North Korea's slow downward spiral from one level to hell into worse and worse ones.
The book does regurgitate facts, this is true, but for me at least, some were forgotten or previously unknown, so this was a good review. And it is organized well and written coherently. However, I give it four stars because of the following flaws: 1) it would have been good to catch a glimpse of how the Koreas fared in the aftermath of war on up until 1972 (the author glosses over this critical period) and 2)his rather annoying use of first person pronouns. As one who has a history degree, this habit was "beaten" out of me early on, and I was hoping the author, though he is a journalist and thus taught differently perhaps, would not utilize "I", "me", and "myself" as often as he did. But these flaws are minimal. Bottom line: if you want to know what the fuss is over the Korean peninsula, and why we still have troops to keep the peace there, read this book. It illustrates all of this and does so in an very readable and enjoyable manner.

I've found from reading a lot of history books over the years that well-written books on history read more like novels than textbooks. This is such a book. The author weaves a story of the modern Koreas in such a way that not only is it easily comprehendable, but entertaining.

Oberdorfer skips back-and-forth across the 38th parallel to describe events as seen from both sides (or at least as best as one could possibly guess at how the North Koreans saw the events) as well as how U.S. policy towards the Koreas has helped to shape the events on this troubled peninsula. While probably not as in-depth as other books on the subject, this book helps to bring the current crisis into perspective.

I've been living in Korea for about 10 years now [on the economy, for you military types :) ] and I can say that this book has helped me immensely in my debates with Koreans on the subject of American intervention into Korean politics.

The average Korean likes Americans well enough but they have a bit of a chip on their shoulder about US involvement in their country (as well they might). However, they hold a lot of mistaken beliefs about US influence as well. For example, one of my Korean friends thought that the US government supported the Chun Doo Hwan military coup d'etat. One of their arguments was that Korean troops weren't allowed to mobilize at the time without US military approval (as if Chun Doo Hwan filled out an application to overthrow the government). Their other argument was more persuasive on the surface. They asked, "If the US didn't support Chun Doo Hwan then why did Reagan invite him as the first foreign dignitary to visit the White House?" Good point. Upon reading this book, I found out that it was a deal to save the life of Kim Dae Jung, the US's real favorite, whom Chun Doo Hwan was about to execute.

There are many facts like this, reported from someone who was there at the time and personally interviewed all the principle people involved, that have made it indispensible for me.

I was pleasantly surprised at how well-written this book is. Oberdorfer knows his subject, and he is clearly a top-knotch journalist. Unlike a previous reveiewer, I don't find his writing dry at all -- compared to most history books, it is gripping and entertaining, and does a good job of describing the key players and major events without bogging down in trivia.

Having grown up during the 70's and 80's (and having lost a relative to the Korean conflict), I'm fascinated to learn more about the events that were unfolding at the periphery of American consciousness during the administrations of Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton. Despite recent developments in North Korea's nuclear standoff, the book doesn't feel out of date, as the situation today is little different than when this book was written.

Highly recommended for those with an interest in East Asia, international affairs, or geopolitics.