North Korea Crisis

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

I am sure if I dig harder, most founders of their countries probably have a ton of skeletons in their closet. It come with the job.

You're going to have some nice ride ahead. Enjoy.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

More to the point about North Korea. I have heard that there are defectors, who, even after escaping and ending up in the much more prosperous ROK, still respect Kim Il Sung greatly. That's pretty Orwellian.

Nope, that is pretty pavlovian.

[AnimeFan188]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

edit: how come I haven't seen this thread before?

Because no one posted on it for awhile, and it disappeared from the front page.
So naturally, everyone promptly forgot about it.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Kim Il Sung is the grandfather right? Well, tbh, founder of any nation will be clouded in myth and power.

Mao is still glossed over his great leap forward that killed millions.

Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner.

George Washington killed thousands of Indians.

Simon Bolivar tried to turn his country into a dictatorship.

I am sure if I dig harder, most founders of their countries probably have a ton of skeletons in their closet. It come with the job.

How can you compare those people to each other? Mathematically its is already messed up. You said it yourself, Mao killed millions of people in the GLF, but all Jefferson did was own some slaves? It was normal to own slaves back then, I think we can excuse that to some extent, but it was certainly never normal to starve millions of your own people to death. You are comparing people whose crimes differ hugely in scale. People respect Mao because of the lingering effects of his personality cult and because it is convenient for the ruling CCP to have a founding hero. Mao was probably one of the shittiest choices for modern China's first leader. People respect Jefferson and Washington because of the undeniable accomplishments they achieved for the American nation. The USA wasn't ever a dictatorship and none of these figures got their own cult of personality, so the respect held for them is more or less voluntary.

Kim Il Sung is the same story as Mao, except he still has an ongoing cult of personality about him. Why is he respected? Because the people there have been forced to. He did rather little to actually help the Korean nation, and certainly did a great deal to damage it.
My point about the 1984 stuff is, the defectors who came from the crappy half of Korea and escaped to the better half should have seen and recognized immediately that Kim Il Sung and his son are complete country-destroying bastards. But no, they still held respect for him. That is similar to what Orwell described as doublethink. They saw at once one reality, that their country was poor and oppressed, and simultaneously another contradictory one, that Kim Il Sung was nevertheless their Eternal Leader.

In America, it is true that we may have some blind respect for our founding leaders or for our country in general, and overlook some of its faults. But almost none of us that that insane.

Russia had gotten close to 1984 under Stalin, but WW2 and de-Stalinization interrupted it. China achieved it under Mao, but then the Gang of Four was defeated when he died and it fell apart too. Cambodia probably achieved it but too many people died too quickly for it to be sustainable and it burned out. But North Korea has achieved something very similar to the state in 1984, and done it for longer than any other Communist country.

[Ridwan]

He wasn't talking about 1984, but fathers and builders of nations being usually not very moral. That indeed, is usually the case.

[Roger Rambo]

Does Kim Il Sung really count as the great founding father of a nation though? He honestly comes off as a small time guerrilla commander who got appointed to lead North Korea by the Soviet Union because it would be convenient. That hardly seems comparable to people like Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Washington or Jefferson, who wielded considerable autonomous political and military leadership in founding their countries.

Imagine if Washington had spent 6-7 years hiding out in Quebec or Louisiana by the time the French showed up and took Yorktown (and the rest of the 13 colonies) singlehandidly? And then the King of France arbitrarily decided to appoint Washington as President of the United States. Would America have nay business thinking of Washington as some legendary hero?


There's always a tendency to use propaganda to exaggerate the accomplishments of national heroes into feats out of legendary epics. But Kim Il Sung's reputation as a heroic founding father seems pretty much entirely manufactured from scratch.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

How can you compare those people to each other? Mathematically its is already messed up. You said it yourself, Mao killed millions of people in the GLF, but all Jefferson did was own some slaves? It was normal to own slaves back then, I think we can excuse that to some extent, but it was certainly never normal to starve millions of your own people to death. You are comparing people whose crimes differ hugely in scale. People respect Mao because of the lingering effects of his personality cult and because it is convenient for the ruling CCP to have a founding hero. Mao was probably one of the shittiest choices for modern China's first leader. People respect Jefferson and Washington because of the undeniable accomplishments they achieved for the American nation. The USA wasn't ever a dictatorship and none of these figures got their own cult of personality, so the respect held for them is more or less voluntary.

Kim Il Sung is the same story as Mao, except he still has an ongoing cult of personality about him. Why is he respected? Because the people there have been forced to. He did rather little to actually help the Korean nation, and certainly did a great deal to damage it.
My point about the 1984 stuff is, the defectors who came from the crappy half of Korea and escaped to the better half should have seen and recognized immediately that Kim Il Sung and his son are complete country-destroying bastards. But no, they still held respect for him. That is similar to what Orwell described as doublethink. They saw at once one reality, that their country was poor and oppressed, and simultaneously another contradictory one, that Kim Il Sung was nevertheless their Eternal Leader.

In America, it is true that we may have some blind respect for our founding leaders or for our country in general, and overlook some of its faults. But almost none of us that that insane.

Russia had gotten close to 1984 under Stalin, but WW2 and de-Stalinization interrupted it. China achieved it under Mao, but then the Gang of Four was defeated when he died and it fell apart too. Cambodia probably achieved it but too many people died too quickly for it to be sustainable and it burned out. But North Korea has achieved something very similar to the state in 1984, and done it for longer than any other Communist country.

Most great leader are sainted and beatified by their followers to justify their current rulership. Look at how many time the tea party praised the founding fathers as if they were saints. They were not. Yes, they didn't form a dictatorship like Mao, but they were not a band of saints. Not by a lot. The original constitution was written to the benefits of rich, white males who own land.

As for Mao's as a poor leader or not, many chinese still harken to the day of the Mao. Yes, he was stupid, yes his policies were moronic, but he was not corrupt. Most of China were not corrupt until his control. They had rampant economic failure and idiotic witchhunts, but no one was actually embezzling or stealing like today. People now complain we are not living in Mao's world anymore, but Chiang Kai Shiek's (You know that Pro-American/Japanese guy). A single party capitalist state in which the rich and government officials can do whatever they want.

Anyway, moving on. We are talking about North Korea after all. And I can say NK is nothing near Owellian yet. The economist did a great article on this, on how there is a New "rich" class developing in NK due smuggling from aboard, and how many work with the local government through bribery to get rich

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banya...0d4c3b12a5e227

http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...0d4c3b12a5e227

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Most great leader are sainted and beatified by their followers to justify their current rulership. Look at how many time the tea party praised the founding fathers as if they were saints. They were not. Yes, they didn't form a dictatorship like Mao, but they were not a band of saints. Not by a lot. The original constitution was written to the benefits of rich, white males who own land.

As for Mao's as a poor leader or not, many chinese still harken to the day of the Mao. Yes, he was stupid, yes his policies were moronic, but he was not corrupt. Most of China were not corrupt until his control. They had rampant economic failure and idiotic witchhunts, but no one was actually embezzling or stealing like today. People now complain we are not living in Mao's world anymore, but Chiang Kai Shiek's (You know that Pro-American/Japanese guy). A single party capitalist state in which the rich and government officials can do whatever they want.

Must be good to be young.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Does Kim Il Sung really count as the great founding father of a nation though? He honestly comes off as a small time guerrilla commander who got appointed to lead North Korea by the Soviet Union because it would be convenient. That hardly seems comparable to people like Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Washington or Jefferson, who wielded considerable autonomous political and military leadership in founding their countries.

Imagine if Washington had spent 6-7 years hiding out in Quebec or Louisiana by the time the French showed up and took Yorktown (and the rest of the 13 colonies) singlehandidly? And then the King of France arbitrarily decided to appoint Washington as President of the United States. Would America have nay business thinking of Washington as some legendary hero?


There's always a tendency to use propaganda to exaggerate the accomplishments of national heroes into feats out of legendary epics. But Kim Il Sung's reputation as a heroic founding father seems pretty much entirely manufactured from scratch.

It's not that simple. Kim Il Sung was the only commander who survived to the end in the guerrilla warfare, and as such he was the only "reliable" anti-Japanese fighter in Northern Korea at the time. Furthermore, while the Soviets did install him thinking he would be a puppet, Kim Il Sung managed to outmaneuver all factions to install his Manchurian faction as the builder of DPRK.

While just how heroic he was in itself were exaggerations, no one can deny that Kim Il Sung is the true founding father of DPRK.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

It's not that simple. Kim Il Sung was the only commander who survived to the end in the guerrilla warfare, and as such he was the only "reliable" anti-Japanese fighter in Northern Korea at the time. Furthermore, while the Soviets did install him thinking he would be a puppet, Kim Il Sung managed to outmaneuver all factions to install his Manchurian faction as the builder of DPRK.

While just how heroic he was in itself were exaggerations, no one can deny that Kim Il Sung is the true founding father of DPRK.

With his son and grandson behaving like that, I think he must have been rolling in his grave.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

Must be good to be young.

And were you around when Chaing Kai Shiek was doing his white terror/building his shinning capitalist utopia? grandpa?

It's not that simple. Kim Il Sung was the only commander who survived to the end in the guerrilla warfare, and as such he was the only "reliable" anti-Japanese fighter in Northern Korea at the time. Furthermore, while the Soviets did install him thinking he would be a puppet, Kim Il Sung managed to outmaneuver all factions to install his Manchurian faction as the builder of DPRK.

While just how heroic he was in itself were exaggerations, no one can deny that Kim Il Sung is the true founding father of DPRK.

If I recall correctly, there was a story that two U.S JR officers and two soviet officers took a copy of national geography and roughly drew a line ~the 38 parallel and said "that look right" and pass it to their superiors. Everyone expected Korea to be some backwater state so no one disagreed on the matter.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

If I recall correctly, there was a story that two U.S JR officers and two soviet officers took a copy of national geography and roughly drew a line ~the 38 parallel and said "that look right" and pass it to their superiors. Everyone expected Korea to be some backwater state so no one disagreed on the matter.

From what I learned that seems to be true as Soviet were interest in Hokkaido instead of Korea. US not wanting to lose Hokkaido just decided to give northern part of Korea and indeed cut Korea in to two without giving much thought.
However, it still doesn't negate the fact that Kim Il Sung is the founder of North Korea because of how he shaped North the way he wanted to.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

And were you around when Chaing Kai Shiek was doing his white terror/building his shinning capitalist utopia? grandpa?

More like you must be young to be so naive about Mao.

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

If I recall correctly, there was a story that two U.S JR officers and two soviet officers took a copy of national geography and roughly drew a line ~the 38 parallel and said "that look right" and pass it to their superiors. Everyone expected Korea to be some backwater state so no one disagreed on the matter.

No, it was in a different setting. Basically:

On August 10, 1945 two young officers – Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel – were assigned to define an American occupation zone. Working at extremely short notice and completely unprepared, they used a National Geographic map to decide on the 38th parallel. They chose it because it divided the country approximately in half but would leave the capital Seoul under American control. No experts on Korea were consulted. The two men were unaware that forty years previous, Japan and Russia had discussed sharing Korea along the same parallel. Rusk later said that had he known, he "almost surely" would have chosen a different line. Regardless, the decision was hastily written into General Order No. 1 for the administration of postwar Japan.

[Ridwan]

I've been around since Plevna

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

More like you must be young to be so naive about Mao.





No, it was in a different setting. Basically:

Mao couldn't win China if his opponent was pretty much an stereotypical dictator.

Chiang had American support, American Arms, American Intel, the Chinese treasury, the American treasury (He was able to blackmail Truman several times), the Japanese arms left behind from the invader, an army several times bigger than Mao...

And he still lost.

Mao may have done a shit-ton of harm after he got into power, but he was a good man while he was fighting for the country.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Mao may have done a shit-ton of harm after he got into power, but he was a good man while he was fighting for the country.

Perhaps you should have said so in your original post:

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

As for Mao's as a poor leader or not, many chinese still harken to the day of the Mao. Yes, he was stupid, yes his policies were moronic, but he was not corrupt. Most of China were not corrupt until his control. They had rampant economic failure and idiotic witchhunts, but no one was actually embezzling or stealing like today.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Perhaps you should have said so in your original post:

Nothing changed in my statement. He was stupid for ruining the economy and launching his witch hunts, but he was not corrupt. He was not lining his pockets like the current leadership. He did not hoard jewelery, oversea bank accounts, mistresses, build huge palaces, etc. Nor did the Chinese Communist political apparatus at the time. He did what he believe was good for the country.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Nothing changed in my statement. He was stupid for ruining the economy and launching his witch hunts, but he was not corrupt. He was not lining his pockets like the current leadership. He did not hoard jewelery, oversea bank accounts, mistresses, build huge palaces, etc. Nor did the Chinese Communist political apparatus at the time. He did what he believe was good for the country.

i will take he wsn't corrupt but he didn't do that witch hunt for the good of the country. The man was paranoid, the older he got the more paranoid he became. The purges were not instigated to help the country but to help him maintain power.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i will take he wsn't corrupt but he didn't do that witch hunt for the good of the country. The man was paranoid, the older he got the more paranoid he became. The purges were not instigated to help the country but to help him maintain power.

I don't disagree, and one could argue it put China back for 30 years when today's China could happened 30 years early.

But I am just pointed out his appeal only, and that was the appeal of

1) Not being a corrupt glutton that is plaguing the current leadership.

2) Able to stand up against America, Japan etc. There is a huge volume of chatter I read, all about Diayou island wouldn't even be an contested issue if old man Mao was still in charge.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

2) Able to stand up against America, Japan etc. There is a huge volume of chatter I read, all about Diayou island wouldn't even be an contested issue if old man Mao was still in charge.

selective memory

old man Mao was the one who agreed to shelved the Diayou island issue when Nixon came calling with japan and bags of cash.