How would Korea have developed over the last 70 years had North Korea managed to conquer South Korea in the early 1950s?

Jul 2016
9,544
USA
#11
Well, if it works then it can't be stupid.
LOL. Okay. A murderous repressive regime that is founded on hatred of capitalism adopts it to survive, but almost none of the good stuff to go with capitalism, and remains criminally totalitarian. Real top notch govt they got going over there, I'm sure the history books will review them with pride down the road.

Meanwhile, tell me how those reforms came about. What happened? Its almost as if the only way they could survive was to disobey their own ideology. Which is like the only way a Christian Church can survive is burning babies to appease Moloch. ROFL.
 
Sep 2016
544
天下
#12
LOL. Okay. A murderous repressive regime that is founded on hatred of capitalism adopts it to survive, but almost none of the good stuff to go with capitalism, and remains criminally totalitarian. Real top notch govt they got going over there, I'm sure the history books will review them with pride down the road.

Meanwhile, tell me how those reforms came about. What happened? Its almost as if the only way they could survive was to disobey their own ideology. Which is like the only way a Christian Church can survive is burning babies to appease Moloch. ROFL.
Is this thread about the merits and demerits of communism or the speculations about the Korean peninsula unified under the North?
 
Jul 2016
9,544
USA
#14
Is this thread about the merits and demerits of communism or the speculations about the Korean peninsula unified under the North?
So we're going to dish about North Korea, a communist totalitarian state, taking over South Korea and the results of that, but we're not supposed to talk about political ideology?

Nah, that's no fun.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,977
SoCal
#15
Probably be pretty much the same. Having more territory wouldn't change the incompetent and backward economic policies of the Kim communist system. South Korea was originally poorer than the north, communism wouldn't help that much. The added resources may slow down the collapse but not by much. They would instead focus their military threats and buildups toward Japan and America, this is especially evident by the fact that in real life North Korea is hostile to Japan, as is (to a far lesser degree) South Korea.
If the unified communist Korea moved its capital, then yes, Pyongyang would be much smaller.
Are a couple of disputed islands really worth consistently having and maintaining an enormous military and building nuclear weapons, though?

Also, can't NK economically reform earlier if it is already unified with the South and thus much more secure?
 
Apr 2017
1,387
U.S.A.
#16
Are a couple of disputed islands really worth consistently having and maintaining an enormous military and building nuclear weapons, though?

Also, can't NK economically reform earlier if it is already unified with the South and thus much more secure?
Communist states always need an enemy. Most of east asia still complain about Japan's actions during ww2, including both Koreas. Its not about worth, its about projecting your power. The Kim family has always been unstable (especially the last two), no reason to believe that would change in this scenario.
 

Similar History Discussions