In my opinion this TV series of Seoul 1945 is obviously a biased work to support communism rather than democracy. When I began watching the show, it appeared to me that the point of view of the film is neutral. I was fooled as episodes later revealed it to be contrary. Yes, they put in the idea of romance between four individuals as a focal point, but the underlining meaning is clear. To me, these characters are just pawns to twist the idea that communism is the patriotic, proper way that will lead to the betterment of human kind. It is far from the truth of it. As long as any government is ruled by humans, human greed and human obsessive desires will be entangled in it. It will always be flawed.

The character of Kehee is demeaning to the female race itself. To me, she is a reckless character who made poor decisions and blames Suk-kyong for them and so did the rest of her family. In truth she did not take responsibility for her own decisions and actions as a human being. There are many examples from the series that I can pull from. One example is when she was

Spoiler (Click here to reveal) :

engaged to the character of Oon-hyuk, a communist, and yet decided to take close action with Dong-woo who she knows has a fervent history with Suk-kyong

. A proper gentlewomen will not act in such a way, especially when you do not intend to coax the man to love you. As a person who has experienced “love”, of course you will not take certain actions to provoke such a feeling from someone who you do not love yourself. Then, without attempting to know about the development of Suk-kyong’s feeling for

Spoiler (Click here to reveal) :

Dong-woo, Kehee turns the fault of Dong-woo’s change of heart towards Suk-kyong; criticizing Suk-kyong for taking action in politics and using that as the only excuse for the reason Dong-woo fell in love with her (Kehee) in the first place

. To top things off, this TV show portrays Kehee’s action as being done in innocence. To me her actions are sassy and debasing to the character of any woman with dignity. Her character later is

Spoiler (Click here to reveal) :

lustful for both Oon-hyuk as well as Dong-woo. She knows she is obsessed with Oon-hyuk and yet she goes and toys with Dong-woo. To me, she has her landscape covered. Should she get caught helping the communists by the democratic party, she has Dong-woo to protect her. When she was not chosen over politics and was abandoned by Oon-hyuk, she has Dong-woo to scrape up what is left of her.

A second example of the flaws of the character of Kehee, is when she tells Suk-kyong that

Spoiler (Click here to reveal) :

she “may not know much about politics but that she knows it should not come from under Suk-kyong’s skirt”.

These words are not words of power to top Suk-kyong’s argument but are a direct insult to all women and a direct insult to her own being. By saying these words she is implying that women are born to be inferior to men and not equal to the dirt that they walk on. My examples for the deep flaws of this character of Kehee can go on and on.

Seoul 1945 also demeans democracy. The character of Dong-woo is

Spoiler (Click here to reveal) :

not portrayed as being loyal to democracy even though he works under the name of democracy… even though he claims his “loyalty to one woman is as important as his desire to spread democracy”. This is a hysterical exaggeration. If you have seen the show aired so far, his work and decisions in politics are governed by not what is appropriate for democracy but by his lust. He is the major traitor to the Americans in this TV series. He continues to justify his actions either by his past relationships with the communist people or by his own lecherous feelings.

The entire TV series concentrates on the communists regime and gives little heed to the democrats. It is by no means a work of neutrality. If this TV series was to document historical facts it should do so but not through the deceit of using a love theme to cover an excuse to spread the ideals of communism.

I did not expect this show to be twisted as it has been. As an ordinary viewer of Korean TV series, I thought it was going to be based on plain truths and facts. However, the integrity of this show has revealed itself to be a major flaw. I will not continue to support this show furthermore.




Edit by Theresa: Topic moved to appropriate topic. Spoiler tags added

Karma for your first post and welcome.

I moved your post here as it did not relate to Episode 1 which is where you posted it. I also included spoiler tags because we here in Philly have not reached those things.



To anyone responding - please be careful and use spoiler tags.

 

Duken,

Your views also seem to echo the sentiments of the Koreans who were protesting this show.

I think you hit on every point I disliked about the first few episodes.
Which is why I stopped watching.

*gasp*
I am NOT watching a Korean drama--Yep--hell did feeze over.

I can't believe they did it. Those freakin' nerds blew up the BuyMore.

~Big Mike




It's better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness.




Be sure to check out----> www.adrienneleslie.com

I think that's rediculous.

I am actually enjoying the show. At first I was a bit uncomfortable with my growing affinity for the communists. Then I realized that communism unto itself was not a bad thing and that America is closer to being communist than Russia, China or North Korea ever were. Understand that I mean communism in its purest form - not the bastardized version we have seen in these countries.

I also don't agree with your view of Kehee. Granted we are not as far along as you are, but I see Kehee as a stereotype of the "servant class". All of her life she was told she wasn't good enough, she had her place and not to shoot too high. I can see how someone who had been beaten down their entire life would go over the deep end if they were given some power. Take a look at the character of Baron Moon.

But mostly, I see Seoul 1945 as an entertaining show that includes a history lesson. Years from now it will not be the interpersonal relationships that I remember, it will be the big stuff - the attitude of the Japanese towards the Koreans, the class system, the wars.

 

mtlandis wrote:

But mostly, I see Seoul 1945 as an entertaining show that includes a history lesson. Years from now it will not be the interpersonal relationships that I remember, it will be the big stuff - the attitude of the Japanese towards the Koreans, the class system, the wars.

I agree with this...I grew up or was born at a time when MASH was the only view that I had of the Korean War and unfortunately was not a history class fan and didn't pay attention. I became ignorant to what it was about and now I am able to get a number of views of the history of both sides and can appreciate what they went through and still experience.

In general - the dramas have opened my eyes and my (I'm not sure if this the right word) tolerance or understanding of other cultures...and to not judge them as quickly as I might have done in the past.

This is not indented to duke it out or anything negative.
But I read your opinion and I'm not going to say you're wrong or anything like that because no opinion is wrong.
Opinions can be confused, misguided or driven by lack of knowledge.

If you familiarize yourself with the history of Korea around the time of the brutal Japanese occupation you could discover that there were many groups of people who sought independence. Very prominent within those ranks were indeed communists.

You fail to point out that the capitalists fairly portrayed are the people that collaborated with the Japanese occupiers such as the Baron Moon et al.

One thing under appreciated in the west is the fact that while The good Baron and pals were raking it in at the peasants expense there was countless Korean patriots training in other countries such as Communist China and The Soviet Union who indeed played a part with their own lives in the independence movement.

After the end of WW2, the Japanese turned over the government to the last people in the world they wanted to - the communists. Because if they had given control of the country to the worms that collaborated with them then all hell would have broke loose.


The U.S. stepped in at this point because our government didn't want communism to spread and split the country in half. Something the USSR was politely asked to do and agreed to. After the civil war in the 1950's the U.S. government backed several brutal regimes in order to keep the communists out of the South.

We tend to view the communist issue in hindsight seeing the current regime in the North disgusting as it is as something that was planned all along going back to the independence movement. And certainly it wasn't conceived that way. What people all over the world want after being brutally repressed for decades/centuries to a chance for equality and to be able to pursue their lives as they see fit.

Maybe I'm wrong but my opinions and knowledge of history aren't colored by some unnecessary communist phobia.

I'm very willing to bat this subject back and forth as I've as about as much venom for the real villains as you do for the supposed ones.

Duken - I read and can appreciate your opinion because as someone said - no opinion is right or wrong - it is what it is.

My opinion differs greatly. And in a way, my opinion of this show seems so much more simplistic than the thoughtful ideas others have expressed.

I've enjoyed this show from the beginning. I am surprised that across the many message baords on Korean drama there seems to be very little discussion of this program, perhaps this has to do with the background of the communists and WWII.

I have been watching kdramas for a number of years. I watch them only for the drama. Yes, some things seem to have a basis in fact/history. But that is not why I watch or what I learn from watching. If there is some social custom or cultural or historic event that is used as part of the story and it strikes my interest as driving some part of the plot, then I will seek to learn more about it from more reliable, fact-based resources - and it is not hard to find many of differing perspectives in an academic community.

There have been many plots and sub plots in recent contemporary dramas such as BB or MPC, even YH that made me very curious about laws, behavior and customs. There has been 'behavior' or action in some of these that could drive me nuts - I want to scream - "how could anybody in their right mind do that?" But it is, as people here often say - a drama, a story. Fiction.

I believe that what we see today in N. Korea is nowhere near communism and actually never even got on the road - it is a cult of personality. And I think in some small way, in the very early episodes, we saw that beginning to happen. We are not so far along in Phila.

If KeeHee is either a wicked vixen out for her own selfish ends or a poor peasant unfamiliar with a 'good' life and trying to have control of her life to me it is relevant only if it moves the story of the relationships. We know the history, now I want to see the 'stories' of these fictional characters.

Thank you, however, for another perspective.

IMHO - like '24' or 'Lost', it's just a story.

Diva

Lucas wrote:

I think that's rediculous.

Lucas,

Yours and my experiences with regards to this are totally different.

Rememeber that I was in military intelligence during the 80's....


There are things that I can't talk about for another 50 years--if even then.
But I know what I know and what I saw.


Let's just say that communism in the real world isn't anywhere near as hearts and flowers as Marx envisioned it.



As far as backing some brutal regimes in ROK, yes, the US did.
And while I don't condone the actions of those regimes, consider the alternative.

At least the Korean people had the opportunity to change their government if enough of them chose to rise up and change it.

And frankly, when the Phillipine people, thru their elected president, asked us to leave, we did.
No guns, no tanks rolling thru the streets, just a fairly even-handed exit of our troops from a foreign country.


Look at what happened to Hungary and other Slavic countries which tried to throw off the shackles of the Soviet Union.


It was a dark brutal time before the Soviet Union splintered.

Afghanistan would probably still be a battleground for Soviet oppression if the SU hadn't fallen.




ROK had a 15 year headstart on true freedom compared to the satellite Soviet countries.


I remember how excited I was when Kim Dae Jung returned from political exile.

Not that I agreed or disagreed with him.

It was just that I was watching democracy grow stronger in ROK and seeing the growing pains of a country I love.

That would never have happened if the communists controlled ROK.


Knowing all that we know about human nature, that humans have a drive to compete and succeed, that we need to suffer the consequences of bad choices in order to change for the better, do you honestly believe that communism is a benign type of government??

Read Animal Farm again. Great book on the pitfalls which await anyone foolish enough to believe in a benevolent system of government.

Communism as practiced by all three main cultural philosphies (Asian, Hispanic and Russian) has consistently been shown to be MORE corrupt than capitalism ever could be. Communism consistently fails to reward the common man with enough to fill even the most basic of needs. Communism as practiced by all three fails to acknowledge the checks and balances that exist in a truly democratic society.

Only when capitalism enters the mix do we see the goodness that man is capable of being given fertile ground to grow. When humans are allowed to keep their own money, earned with their own hands and sacrifices, the challenges they've overcome to earn that money nurture a giving, warm spirit that, for most people, will result in a compassion far beyond what any government can legislate. And then they have the resources to act on that generous spirit. A gift from one person to another is usually treated with more respect and gratitude than a handout from a government agency. That gift does twice the good that gov't aid does.

The very evils that Marx railed about in his Manifesto find a welcome home in his ideals because he was born into history a little too soon. He didn't have the luxury of seeing how capitalism is in fact a great equalizer. There are less pronounced class struggles in Capitalistic societies because money knows no color or gender.

There will always be injustices in this world because, to put it bluntly, there are always assholes in any culture.

BUT--Communism is a seriously flawed theory, as history has proved.


I chose to turn off Seoul 1945 because I don't need to waste my time watching some idiot's sanitized, idealized version of one of the most evil forms of government ever conceived.


Ok--Off my soap box.


Next!

I can't believe they did it. Those freakin' nerds blew up the BuyMore.

~Big Mike




It's better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness.




Be sure to check out----> www.adrienneleslie.com

Dunken, I think I understand your point of view on SEOUL 1945. Even my parents in their 60s think that way. But one thing I'd like to point out is that what seems to be more appropriate to be comapared to communism is rather capitalism than democracy, and in general democracy could be compared to autocracy rather than communism. I'm not sure whether I could find an example of "democratic communism" systems , but I can say that we already know many examples of "autocratic capitalism" systems including South Korea before 1990s.

Another point of this drama is so called "the collaborators problem" which was important to Koreans but not important to the US after WWII. In general those who collaborated with Japan during the occupation period were not communists; I mean persons like Park Chang-ju, Baron Moon and his daughter, and Dong-Woo's father. They should had been put into trial and punished just after WWII, but they survived by being ardent anti-communists and siding with the US which needed an anti-communist government in South Korea. If you were an Korean, can you believe that persons like Park Chang-ju were not only discharged of what they had done to Koreans during the Japanese occupation period but also succeeded in life after WWII simply because they were anti-communists. Surely justice was not done in South Korea after WWII. Should we expect "neutral" and "unbiased" view of point when we talk about the Nazis and those who fought against the Nazis? I admire "unbiased" point of view, but hate it when it is "contrived" or "mechanical."

We would generally prefer the combination of "capitalism + democracy + non-collaborator" to "communism + autocracy + collaborator", but history is not so black and white. To make things very simple, I suppose we are basically seeing the collision between "capitalism + autocracy + collaborators" and "communism + autocracy + non-collaborators" on SEOUL 1945. Perhaps the reason why many people both Korean and American consider SEOUL 1945 as pro-communist is that communists were fighting against fascist Japan for the independencs of Korea on the drama and in actual history during the period this drama is dealing with. They could not accept that the "bad" commies were doing "good" things as it were during the period. I hate communism, but as a drama watcher I keep trying to go back to the past, and concentrating on what Koreans in the 1940s were thinking about communism rather than what Koreans today think about communism. I think we have to admit the historical fact that the 1940s was a period before communism was proved to be a failure in human history and was a hope of many depressed people in the world.

I don't think this drama is very good; I frequently feel the storyline too contrived, and romance dominates too much. But I think it is good in the sense that it provides us with chances to think about history that is sometimes uncomfortable.

I don't want to get into protracted discussions on weather dialectic materialism is better or worse than some other philosophy.

The reason I added my opinions to this is because of what I perceived as typical knee-jerk reaction to the subject of communism.
Have so-called communist countries come and gone, failed miserably? Why sure. How many? Of course how many so-called Capitalist or democratic countries have risen and risen and crashed into flames? How many evil murderous heads of state were elected to office? I won't defend a type of government that has never existed. True communism can not be observed.

So back to the knee-jerk reactions. Anyone reading this may find some of this hard to believe but the home I was raised in was so far to the right (politically) that at an early age I was lead to believe that there was an actual physical iron curtain around the USSR. You know a curtain like people pull down over their store fronts when they are closing shop. And the moment after a baby was born they were put inside a tool box and taken to work. The list goes on. However absurd these ideas are what the result is that we grow up seriously doubting the opinions of people who only want to mold you to believe what they believe. You can not be trusted to hate on your own what you are supposed to hate.
Yes, in this hostile anti-commie environment I was fed lies and it wasn't a smart thing to admit you didn't believe the boloney. Indeed sometimes a microcosm of the free world.

As much as I survived the deep scaring of these heinous acts (humor here) I've noticed over the years that we're supposed to hate the boogyman and anyone not marching in lock step is considered one with the boogyman. Even if we despise them ourselves but don't agree with "what we're supposed to believe" then we are hated as well.

I resent this attitude.

But I love the show...

They can be commies, circus midgets, half wits or creatures from some freaky weird alternative universe and I'd still like it... well maybe not.

I wish there was more "history" thrown into this drama. But it's top notch.

Oops! Cathy, that wasn't directed towards you!

I think that any idea/item--some people will simply regard it as an intellectual concept, while others, because of their experiences, will view it with more passionate intensity.


Any "hot button" topic is guaranteed to elicit strong opinions on both sides of the fence.


Pawr Bob---unintentional flashback!

I can't believe they did it. Those freakin' nerds blew up the BuyMore.

~Big Mike




It's better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness.




Be sure to check out----> www.adrienneleslie.com

What I meant was that the idea that the show "is obviously a biased work to support communism rather than democracy" was rediculous. Equally rediculous is the idea that the show has to be "neutral" or "document facts". It's a tv show and the writers ans producers can do whatver the heck they want! The bottom line is, will people watch it so they can sell advertisements (Hey! That's Capitalism at work! lol).

I wanted to resist getting into this but I am having difficulty.

First off, we cannot compare Communism and Democracy. Communism is an economic system. Democracy is a type of government. They are not one-and-the-other.

However, Cathy since you brought some other things up, I am going to address them.

Why is it that people automatically think if we disagreed with the OP of this thread that we somehow were defending Communism/thought Communism was some great system that could work? Nobody said that, we just think that the show is being mischaracterized. One of the first threads about this show I pointed out that what I liked about it was the fact that we got into peoples specific personal stories and saw how labels like "communist" and "pro-japan/collaborator" etc. made things too black and white and sometimes it could destroy and/or split up families and lovers. It's dangerous to try and distill history into good guy/bad guy because the turth is in the details, not in who "won".

Also, if you want to criticize Communism, just do it on it's own faults. That is not very difficult! Don't try and use Capitalism as the reason that Communism is bad because, wake up folks, Capitalism ain't doing so hot. Stop drinking that Cool Aid if you think so!

Quote:

Only when capitalism enters the mix do we see the goodness that man is capable of being given fertile ground to grow. When humans are allowed to keep their own money, earned with their own hands and sacrifices, the challenges they've overcome to earn that money nurture a giving, warm spirit that, for most people, will result in a compassion far beyond what any government can legislate. And then they have the resources to act on that generous spirit.

It is wonderful that you believe that, but I do not see it. There is a whole lot of greed and not a whole lot of warm, giving spirit these days.

Quote:

seeing how capitalism is in fact a great equalizer. There are less pronounced class struggles in Capitalistic societies because money knows no color or gender.

Judging by the huge disparity in income, the ever increasing gap between the incredibly wealthy and the poor, and the growing number of poor, I fail to see how that is a great equalizer, and it is most definitely NOT a "fact". Also, considering that you, as a woman, make 80 cents to my dollar, as a man, and that the majority of the wealthiest are white men, the "capitalist societies" that exist presently don't fall in line with what you say about color or gender either.

Other "successes" of Capitalism: exporting labor to deregulated countries where you can pay sub-human wages and don't have to provide sanitary/safe working conditions, keeping environmental regulation down so that it doesn't interfere with profit. Gee, I could go on and on...

Quote:

There will always be injustices in this world because, to put it bluntly, there are always assholes in any culture. BUT--Communism is a seriously flawed theory, as history has proved.

I agree there totally, but Capitalism is not your proof.

Quote:

I chose to turn off Seoul 1945 because I don't need to waste my time watching some idiot's sanitized, idealized version of one of the most evil forms of government ever conceived.

It's too bad that you were so quick to judge this show since that's not even close to what it's about and you are missing a great drama.

Lucas wrote:

First off, we cannot compare Communism and Democracy. Communism is an economic system. Democracy is a type of government. They are not one-and-the-other.

thanks for pointing that out. It's been something that's had me pretty pissed over years. Without characterizing one or the other this is the whole point. People in the west (and surely in the U.S) are somehow convinced they are one and the same. You compare democracy with autocracy. You can compare Capitalism with Communism.

I always thought it was pretty simple. But I guess it isn't.


BTW, Baron Moon is clearly justified in having Kehee falsely accused of a crime then having her murdered like an animal so that the ugly face of communism won't affect his clan. Although it's never occured to me that communism is some wonderful thing or something I prefer, I do however see this as an analogy for how those in power see capitalism.

Let me first admit that I only watched a very few episodes on and off on KBS World. But I think I am very comfortable with the theme of this drama. It is not "a biased work to support communism." Can you show me some examples?

When I and Candylover were growing up in Korea in the 70s and the 80s, we went thru "anti-communism" education at school. I therefore have no illusions about communism, even though I later learned that it was a part of fear tactics that S. Korean dictators used to stay in power.

In the mid 90s when S. Korea finally began to move toward a democracy society, a very controversial book came out. It is called Tea Baek Mountains. The writer got in big trouble with S. Korea's national security law, and its movie version was once banned. After 10 years of investigation, S. Korea finally dropped the case against him in 1995. Some right wing activists still fighting to send him to jail.

This book has the similar theme. What is the book about? I did not read it, but I watched the movie version. I think this book portrayed a communist as a human being. It also touched upon S. Korea's brutal treatment with communist sympathizer.

Imagin you are living in a small town in Tae Baek Mountains where communists guerillas, who were left behind after the Korean war, were himding. During the night time, communists guerillas come in and kill those who are siding with S. Korea. During the day time, S. Korean army comes in and kill the communist sympathezers. Isn't it a great tragic story?

I have to go. I will continue later.

I see many of you have expressed your opinions on my opinion about Seoul 1945. I have come to realize that many of you have not seen much of the story, which is the reason why some of my examples are closed up by our webmaster. I can understand that many of you may think it absurd to believe that this work is intended to spread any ideology especially when you only have seen the beginnings of it. When I began watching this show, I did not even know that there are protestors of this series. I was just a regular viewer believing that this film is for the history of the Korean people. In addition, I was following the movie for the interactions of the characters only to later feel that these characters are put there for a purpose that is bigger than it seems. You will have to figure it out on your own. Before I have written my critique of the show, I understand that this is the work of fiction with facts melted in here and there. However, do any of you understand that the media is the most powerful parent we have here on this planet today? Fiction or nonfiction or fiction with nonfiction together can influence the mind and the way we think. Even so, I trust experience more than words. And the words I have expressed are my interpretation based on experiences… which is why I am asking you to extract yourself from the film and really think about it as you watch it sitting on American soil.

You may call these different notions of government any name you want. You may compare and contrast them until the threshold is blurred. In the end, the truth of the matter is that what does not work will not work in the future. This is my meaning when I referred to “documenting historical facts” and expressing in “plain truths and facts”. What has worked, even in its errors, will have opportunity for improvement. These improvements can be strived for under the general public. Again, you may remark on my expression of the “general public”. By this I mean those who have risen and want to rise from the lows of society and had/want to honestly fought/fight for the rights we enjoy today and of tomorrow. Rights we may even take for granted. Laws and regulations are different from what I mean by rights. By rights I am referring to the right to speak out our minds, to write what are in our thoughts, and to work for our own betterment as a result of our own efforts. I know that these rights can be gone anytime because they are made by we humans and so can be taken away by we humans. By the previous sentence, I am simply expressing the idea that things are impermanent and that these rights should be respected for what they have done. To me, that is respecting the very people who worked hard to put them there and to the very people who allowed them to still be there. Without them, you and I will never have these exchanges of opinions. The topic will not even be brought up… let alone discussed.

I understand that the gap between the rich and the poor are widening, but we are given the opportunity or opportunities to get it in balance as much as we can. To search for these opportunities to reach a form of balance even when there may not be total balance is what we can strive for and are able to strive for. Just imagine if that hope and that chance is oppressed. When I write my views on Seoul 1945, I was also expressing the content based on the overall and general nature of we, the people. Do you think it more than due time to work with what we as humans have in this society? When there is a history of success by those who worked their way up to affect good changes there is a high likelihood that it can happen again. My words can be omitted anywhere on this page and the meaning interpreted differently from what I intended. I understand that to state my opinions is to have them differently interpreted by many people of many backgrounds.

Folks, we can write back and forth about this all we want and we may still get nowhere. To those who may have seen my writings on Seoul 1945 as a mere problem: Aye, I understand that showing this series is a form of freedom and that anyone of us can choose to watch it and form any opinion on it as any of us wishes. I was asking you and again asking you to remember that every time we walk on the streets of America, every time we make a choice and make a decision, every time we turn to our neighbors and give an honest form of expression that these things are respected. This is what I mean by a “neutral” view in which I later feel that the characters and the hidden content of Seoul 1945 have deviated from. We must stop and think and express the content based on what has worked in the past and what did not work in the past… for if we are driven to continue sticking our hands in fire we will no longer have any hand to use.

Many of you may take my words lightly and may not bother with anything I have to say; but until you have no rights as a human being in society, until your thoughts must be silence, until you have an inkling of understanding of the magnitude of oppression and bloodshed there can be and has occurred, until you can sense the loss of total hope and of being powerless to create change my words may not mean anything to you. They say “the grass is always greener on the other side”. However, until you sense the other side, the rights you are given in America… even if you see them in the smallest measure… may not give you any feeling of appreciation or satisfaction.

Duken,
I appreciate your heartfelt opinions in both of your posts.

I'm probably not going to reply to this subject again because I think we've all expressed what we've needed to say.
But I will say this in closing. After watching the KBS historical dramas like Emperor Wang Guhn, Dawn of the Empire, Age of Warriors & Yi Sunsin and a few others there seems to be a repeating theme throughout. People in power attempt to achieve personal gain and call it something else.
"A righteous cause" if you will but what we see repeatedly represented here is greed being the motivation and suffering of the masses as the outcome.
I don't think KBS has some hidden agenda to smear and slander the the entire history of their own country. I think part of the agenda is honesty and courage. In a country split in half for decades to even appear to take the side of the evil North would seem a fatal risk.
If the viewers on the very soil where the drama is produced were so outraged by the dishonesty of their views I seriously doubt KBS would be in business for very long.
Summing up - when I watch all of the historic dramas including this one I am always aware of the honesty and turning the spotlight of scrutiny inwards as something that needs to be applauded. I wonder what native Koreans feel having the world see their history, warts and all.
Which I think is the subject here.

But thanks for your opinion. It made me take time to think more of this subject.

Sorry I could not finish my post Friday.

What I was trying to say is that until recently Koreans only got to see one sided and sometimes biased views on Korea's recent history. It is not too hard for me to accept that communists also have emotions and S. Korean government also did many bad things, althought it is not fair to compare S. Korea with N.Korea). After 45 years of various dictators oppressing S. Koreans, I think S. Korea deserves democracy that finally works for them.

It is a typical Korean semi-historical drama where they introduce Korea's modern history with lives of several main characters. The theme of most of these dramas is about S. Koreans sufferings in modern history. Chaos is a not a good word to describe it, but close. Once again, I would be very surprised if the writer/director has an agenda and its agenda is spreading communism. Seoul 1945 does have a conspiracy theory going, and that is why Korean conservatives are so mad. THey know the writer has no proof for their theory.

It is ironic that N. Korea calls itself The People’s Democratic Republic of Korea (PDRK). Democratic, it is not! I don't have to explain to anyone that it is a living hell. If anyone watching Seoul 1945 in S. Korea somehow becomes a communist because of this drama, he/she deserve a living hell.