[People Met Through Books] "General Hong Beom-do Defended the Free City Incident? The Statement Was Forged"

Controversy Over Removal of Army Academy Statue
Questions on Book Purchases and Fact-Checking Follow
Research on Russian Activities Still Insufficient
Lenin Gift Controversy to Be Supplemented in Revised Edition
No Government Advice on Statue Relocation
From Historian's Perspective, a Feeling of "Why on Earth"

General Hong Beom-do, remembered as a hero of the Battles of Bongodong and Cheongsanri, first took up arms against Japan in 1895 when he organized a militia. He fought against the Japanese army with a matchlock gun and continued armed resistance for about 28 years. For him, his family was comrades in the anti-Japanese struggle. His wife, Dan-yang Lee (real name unknown), died under torture resisting Japanese coercion in 1908 when they forced her to write a letter to persuade her husband. His two sons also died fighting in the anti-Japanese resistance. In June and October 1920, he participated as a battalion commander in the Battles of Bongodong and Cheongsanri in Manchuria, leading a great victory. After the Japanese retaliated by massacring Koreans in the Jiandao region, he moved in 1921 to Svobodny in the Amur region of the Far Eastern Republic (present-day Svobodny, Amur Oblast, Russia) to seek alliance with other independence army units but became embroiled in conflict, culminating in the “Svobodny Incident.” After the incident, he operated collective farms in the Primorsky region but was forcibly relocated to Kazakhstan in 1937, where he worked as a hospital and Goryeo Theater guard until his death in 1943. The Republic of Korea, established later, recognized General Hong Beom-do’s contributions to the independence movement by posthumously awarding him the Presidential Order of Merit for National Foundation in 1962, and in 2021, repatriated his remains to Korea and awarded him the Grand Order of Merit for National Foundation. His remains were interred at Daejeon National Cemetery, and a bust was erected at the Korea Military Academy. However, recently, controversy arose when the Ministry of National Defense announced plans to relocate his bust within the academy due to his past membership in the Soviet Communist Party. The argument is that his Communist Party affiliation during the anti-Japanese struggle before the establishment of the Republic of Korea is inappropriate for the academy. But is the Communist Party of that time the same concept as today’s North Korean Communist Party? Regarding the bust relocation, the Ministry’s spokesperson said there was no need to consider academic opinions, but what do scholars actually think? We posed these questions to Ban Byung-ryul, a professor emeritus of history at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (67, pictured), author of the book “General Hong Beom-do” (Hanul Academy), and a leading domestic authority on General Hong Beom-do.

- The issue surrounding General Hong Beom-do has been heated. Books about him have also attracted great interest. Do you feel any changes?

▲ The publisher said book sales have increased. Although it is close to an academic work and sales are not very high, many people seem to want to learn the historical facts. It is commendable that people want to judge by looking at primary sources rather than relying on others’ words. Even at public lectures, there is high interest in topics related to Hong Beom-do. Many questions demand fact-checking, especially regarding explanations from the Ministry of National Defense.

- The controversy has brought renewed attention to General Hong Beom-do’s life, but conflicting evaluations have emerged. How much research has been done academically on him?

▲ Some research has been done on the Battles of Bongodong and Cheongsanri, but studies related to Russia, where General Hong Beom-do mainly operated, are lacking. After his exile in 1908, he was mainly active in Russia, but few domestic scholars fully understand Russian history during the Russian Revolution and Soviet era. For example, some scholars mistakenly use the term “Red Army” regarding the Svobodny Incident, which is incorrect. The Red Army refers to the military of the Soviet (post-1922) state, but the Svobodny Incident occurred in 1921 before the Soviet Union was established. At that time, Svobodny belonged to the Far Eastern Republic, a capitalist system influenced by Russian revolutionary forces behind the scenes. Saying the independence army was massacred by the “Red Army” is wrong. The forces that disarmed the independence army during the Svobodny Incident were the Far Eastern Republic’s People’s Revolutionary Army and the Caucasus cavalry under Commander-in-Chief Kalandarishvili of the Korean Revolutionary Army. There are many cases of incorrect terminology. Sometimes it is due to lack of background knowledge, but sometimes incorrect terms are deliberately used to paint General Hong Beom-do as a “communist force.”

- As for the Svobodny Incident, I understand General Hong Beom-do was not directly involved but participated as a trial commissioner punishing captured independence fighters.

▲ On June 28, 1921, about 70 officers of the Sakhalin Volunteer Corps were arrested during the Svobodny Incident. Of those being transported to Irkutsk, some escaped or died, and 50 were tried. It is true that General Hong Beom-do was a trial commissioner. He believed the incident was carried out with the approval of the central (Russian Communist Party). He seemed to think it was an inevitable event and focused on managing the aftermath. That does not mean he sided with the perpetrators. About three months after the incident, in October 1921, Shumyatsky, head of the Far Eastern Secretariat of the International Communist Party, and the Irkutsk faction of the Korean Communist Party sent Heo Jae-wook (Heo Geun) and Lee Byung-chae, a former aide to Hong Beom-do, to Moscow (International Communist Party Executive Committee) to justify the armed suppression. Contrary to the perpetrators’ intentions, they revealed the sacrifice of the independence army and demanded a fact-finding investigation. A report containing this information is currently stored in the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History.

- The independence fighters arrested during the Svobodny Incident faced possible death sentences for “counter-revolutionary” charges, but in the trial, eight received 1-2 years imprisonment and 24 were given suspended sentences. Can General Hong Beom-do’s participation as a trial commissioner be seen as influential?

▲ At that time, General Hong Beom-do did not hold a position to influence the trial. In fact, he was somewhat used by the perpetrators. Among independence army commanders, he was the only one who participated in both the Battles of Bongodong and Cheongsanri, so the perpetrators tried to exploit that symbolism. Hong Beom-do accepted the Svobodny Incident as an event carried out with central approval and complied. However, about two weeks before the trial, the International Communist Party’s Korean Affairs Committee issued a “Resolution on the Korean Communist Party Factional Struggle and the Svobodny Incident” (November 15, 1921), ordering a thorough investigation and punishment of those responsible. The perpetrators thus proceeded with the trial to quickly close the case.

- However, many statements justifying the armed suppression issued by the perpetrators include the names of independence leaders, including General Hong Beom-do.

▲ I also found that puzzling, but I found an answer in the “Report on the Korean Guerrilla Movement” discovered in 2021 at the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History. According to the report submitted in February 1922 to the Soviet government’s Military Council Chief of Staff by General Hong Beom-do, Choi Jin-dong, and Kim Dong-han, the independence commanders refused to sign the statements, but the perpetrators arbitrarily inserted their names. The report strongly condemns this forgery. The existence of these statements had made understanding the actions of Hong Beom-do and other commanders difficult, but recent Russian materials have revealed new facts.

Report on the Joseon Guerrilla Movement written by Hong Beom-do and Choi Jin-dong [Photo provided by Professor Ban Byeong-ryul, held at the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History]

- Are there any other new facts revealed through Russian materials?

▲ The Svobodny Incident has often been described as a “fratricidal conflict,” but that is inaccurate. The incident occurred on June 28, 1921, from around 4 p.m., lasting from about 4.5 hours to as long as 12 hours. It involved about 1,000 troops of the Far Eastern Republic’s 2nd Corps, 29th Regiment, armed with armored vehicles, machine guns, and artillery, along with 500 cavalry under Commander-in-Chief Kalandarishvili of the Korean Revolutionary Army, disarming the independence army (Sakhalin unit). The suppression forces wrote very detailed reports by time, including which units were deployed, how many soldiers were involved, and how armored vehicles and cavalry pursued fleeing troops. There is no mention of any independence army involvement in the suppression.

- Regarding the Svobodny Incident, General Hong Beom-do reportedly went to Moscow to “report” to Lenin and received gold coins and a pistol as gifts. Some evaluate this as Lenin’s commendation for his role in the incident.

▲ General Hong Beom-do met Lenin in late January 1922 at the Far Eastern National Revolutionary Organization Representatives’ Meeting (Far Eastern National Congress). However, in November 1921, the International Communist Party’s Korean Affairs Committee had already decided to investigate the incident and release the arrested independence fighters. Some criticize General Hong Beom-do’s “Hong Beom-do Diary” for showing a brief response to Lenin’s questions about the incident, suggesting a passive attitude, but that is not true. Lenin already knew about the Svobodny Incident when they met. The gifts were not given because Hong Beom-do was praised by the perpetrators. These details will be elaborated in the revised edition of “General Hong Beom-do.”

- Still, it seems General Hong Beom-do’s actions caused backlash among independence fighters. The “Hong Beom-do Diary” mentions he shot and killed Kim Chang-su and Kim Onam, who criticized him.

▲ The victims probably felt resentment. According to the “Hong Beom-do Diary,” in August 1923, when Hong Beom-do came to Khabarovsk via Irkutsk from Moscow, former Sakhalin Volunteer Corps members Kim Chang-su and Kim Onam tried to harm him, and he shot them. It was not because he sided with the perpetrators, but from their perspective, they felt he was indifferent.

- After meeting Lenin in 1923, General Hong Beom-do seems to have lived in the Primorsky region without much interaction with other independence activists. Lee Beom-seok, a comrade from the Battle of Cheongsanri, wrote in his autobiography that Hong Beom-do died shortly after the Svobodny Incident.

▲ At that time, General Hong Beom-do was in his late 50s, quite old for that era. Rather than engaging directly in armed struggle, he seemed to inspire young people to continue the independence movement. Joining the Provisional Government was not practical due to differing circumstances and paths.

- General Hong Beom-do joined the Soviet Communist Party in 1927. This fact has been used as a pretext to attack him ideologically.

▲ That was during the transitional period after Lenin’s death in 1924 when Stalin was gaining power. It was before Stalin’s dictatorship began in the 1930s. The Soviet Communist Party Hong Beom-do joined was far from the Stalinist Communist Party that started the Korean War. At that time, the Soviet Union was allied with the United States against Germany, Italy, and Japan. For the elderly Hong Beom-do, who could no longer continue armed anti-Japanese struggle, joining the Communist Party was a natural choice within Soviet society.

- Have you or other historians been consulted by the government, the Korea Military Academy, or the Ministry of National Defense regarding relocating General Hong Beom-do’s bust? From a historian’s perspective, how do you view the relocation?

▲ I have not heard of any consultation requests from the government, historians including myself, or others. They say the bust is being moved to give it better treatment, but I want to ask if it is right to relocate it after stigmatizing him with the “Communist Party” label that should be rejected. They should have first understood the historical facts and then explained and persuaded accordingly, but they did not. It feels like they decided first and then forced the narrative. Whether for political reasons or pride, it is clearly against historical facts. As a historian, I am left wondering why this is happening.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.