Why did Park Chung-hee harbor such disdain for Syngman Rhee? This article delves into the profound ideological and psychological chasm between South Korea’s first president and the man who would become its longest-ruling strongman. Learn how their conflicting worldviews shaped Korea’s foundational history and leadership culture.
Park Chung-hee’s Contempt for Syngman Rhee: A Conflict of Revolutionary Ideals
Park Chung-hee viewed Syngman Rhee as a relic of Korea’s aristocratic past—a symbol of weakness and submission. In Park's eyes, Rhee embodied the outdated Confucian scholar-official mentality, more concerned with rhetoric and diplomacy than with direct action. Park, a man of militant conviction, placed higher value on armed resistance and revolutionary violence.
Park’s Revolutionary Upbringing and Military Vision
Born into a struggling rural family, Park came from a lineage that included Donghak revolutionaries and leftist activists. He idolized those who risked their lives in direct resistance—individuals like Ahn Jung-geun and Kim Gu, whom he saw as true patriots. Park despised Rhee’s reliance on diplomatic appeals to the United States and considered such efforts cowardly and ineffective.
Why Park Rejected Rhee’s Independence Legacy
To Park, true independence fighters were those who took up arms and were willing to die for Korea’s liberation. Rhee’s method—petitioning Western powers, writing letters, and building international support—was seen as passive and reliant. Park even mocked Rhee’s efforts, questioning whether “writing to Americans” could be considered a legitimate form of resistance.
Park’s Respect for Militant Patriots
Park respected figures like Ahn Jung-geun, who assassinated Ito Hirobumi and faced execution with unwavering dignity. He admired Kim Gu’s uncompromising stance against Japanese rule, despite the latter being labeled a terrorist by colonial authorities. These men, in Park’s worldview, were genuine “jisa”—a term referring to individuals who stake their lives on a cause.
The Cultural Disconnect: Scholar vs. Soldier
Rhee’s identity as a traditional Confucian elite clashed with Park’s modern, militaristic, and revolutionary mindset. Rhee valued intellectual strategy and diplomacy; Park idolized action, strength, and discipline. He saw Rhee’s leadership as a continuation of the Joseon Dynasty's weaknesses—fragile, self-serving, and out of touch with Korea’s future.
Personal Resentment Rooted in Class and Legacy
Park’s resentment was deeply personal. His father died in poverty, and his family suffered under the exploitative class system of late Joseon. Park blamed elites like Rhee, whom he saw as a privileged member of the establishment. While Park pursued a violent and transformative path, he viewed Rhee as emblematic of a submissive, decaying Korea.
Exile and Humiliation: Rhee’s Final Years
After the April Revolution of 1960 forced Rhee into exile, he lived modestly in Hawaii. Despite personal frugality and a lack of ostentatious wealth, Park denied his return to Korea—even in death. Rhee’s wife, Franziska, lived a life of humility, avoiding luxury in line with her husband’s values. Nonetheless, Park allowed only Rhee’s body to return, firmly rejecting any symbolic rehabilitation.
Park’s Lasting Message: “Let Him Die in Hawaii”
Park’s notorious remark—“Let that man die in Hawaii”—captured his enduring scorn. It was not simply a political rivalry; it was the rejection of everything Rhee represented. Park believed Rhee was not worthy of returning to a Korea he had helped found but failed, in Park’s view, to lead with strength or vision.
The ‘Nation-Building War’ Film and Historical Oversight
Contemporary films like “The Nation-Building War” attempt to honor both figures, often glossing over their antagonism to appeal to conservative audiences. This omission is seen by some as a disingenuous attempt to rewrite history. The truth is that Park respected independence fighters—but not Rhee, whom he viewed as a failure of courage and conviction.
Mutual Respect Among Fighters: Understanding Park’s Code
Park, despite his own controversial past, adhered to a code where those who sacrificed and fought were honored, regardless of ideology. Even among ideological opposites, a shared risk and willingness to fight for belief earned mutual respect. Rhee, in Park’s eyes, failed this test of sincerity.
Complex Legacy and Historical Lessons
Can we admire both men simultaneously? Possibly. But doing so without acknowledging their deep conflicts is misleading. Rhee laid foundations for modern Korea through diplomacy and anti-communist vision. Park transformed Korea through authoritarianism and industrialization. Their visions were not just different—they were oppositional.
History is multifaceted. While nonviolent diplomacy and militant resistance both played roles in Korea’s path to independence, their legacies are best understood when the context, conflict, and contrast are fully acknowledged.
