| Summary/Abstract |
Article Type: Commentary Essay Purpose— This article examines English language historiography surrounding the 1956 august Plenum Incident. It identifies the widely held "traditionalist" and recent "revisionist" views and compares them to assess if the incident really was a "factional" struggle. Approach— This paper identifies and analyzes key secondary sources from the 1950s to the 2010s alongside relevant primary sources to deconstruct and better understand historical understandings of this event. By doing this, this paper can assess if the event was a factional struggle. Findings— Through the analysis of various secondary sources on this event, this paper identifies and explores the dominant "traditionalist" view in scholarship, that this event was indeed a factional struggle. This paper also identifies the recent "revisionist" view, that the incident was a policy dispute over de–Stalinization rather than an attempt to depose Kim Il-sung as North Korea's leader. This article concludes on the side of traditionalism that it was most likely a factional struggle, although it acknowledges that wider access to primary sources will be needed to draw any definitive conclusions. Originality— A careful consideration of both "traditionalist" and "revisionist" arguments, along with relevant primary source material, brings together previous and contemporary understandings of the 1956 august Plenum Incident.
|