Korea ruled by the Kims

samcster94

Banned
How would a unified Korea, ruled by Kim Il Sung work??? This is in a timeline where the Korean war was a North Korean victory. I want to know how this dystopian Korea would develop, given the whole country would think like North Korea now.
 

GI Jim

Banned
I could see a united Korea being less agressive than the North is today. They would have no serious external threat or legitimacy questions.
 

nbcman

Donor
How would a unified Korea, ruled by Kim Il Sung work??? This is in a timeline where the Korean war was a North Korean victory. I want to know how this dystopian Korea would develop, given the whole country would think like North Korea now.
You'd have a better chance for a unified and more stable / less Juche Korea if the US didn't occupy southern Korea at the end of WW2. Maybe this Korea could be a Pacific Albania when the Soviet / PRC split occurs?
 
Last edited:
Surprisingly, probably not as much as you think. A unified Korea early on under the Kims would be a lot better than the madness we have now.

North Korea was actually a better place economically and more stable than South Korea until the 80s. Here, it’d remain a bit better without the US presence, besides probably more military presence in Japan (the loss of Korea would have US intervene in Vietnam sooner, but surprisingly averting the worst aspects of the Vietnam War.)

Of corse, once the Sino-Soviet split happens and the Cold War ends, Korea under the Kims may drift closer to the US since there is no bad blood between them (and Korea may find China to be a bit insufferable or at least the old bad blood may cause trouble.)
 
I'm not inclined to the idea that North Korea would be less aggressive than as they are now, Japan is just right there next to the Korean Peninsula, and the Tsushima Island is only 30 miles away from Busan.

Entire the legitimacy of the North Korean regime developed out from Kim's anti-Japanese guerilla activities during the 1930s. So long as American troops are in Japan I don't see full Kim-American reapproachment a la OTL Vietnam-America relationship happening.
 
You get a less paranoid regime without the existential threat of ROK and US troops just across the DMZ. The question would become whether Korea follows China in drifting towards state capitalism and having better relations with the US and its allies post Cold War.
 
If there’s no Korean War, the US will distrust them for the same reason they distrust any communist power of any kind, but after the fall of the USSR, relations may warm. I say “may” because Kim Il-Sung isn’t doing shit to warm up to the US, and his kid may do so if the US scratches his back during the 90s famine (I assume that still goes off since the fall of the USSR precipitated it and the PRC obviously didn’t stop things.)

Of course, warming to the US may mean more military and business presence from the US - Uncle Sam isn’t doing shit for a communist country unless he can wet his beak in the process. This would mean reforms are on the horizon, though it’s less “free and fair elections” and more “ease up on the travel restrictions, close the concentration camps, stop talking shit about the US and put a McDonald’s on every fifth street corner in Pyongyang.”

And forget any sort of friendly relations with Japan. The DPRK just straight-up hates them with the fire of a thousand suns, and no amount of an absence of a border enemy is going to change that.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
How do they win and how long does the war last?


That would make a lot of a difference.

Scenario one: North Korea conquers the entire peninsula before UN troops can land.
Without a bridgehead there is no attempt of a naval landing. Cease-fire.

Scenario two: same as above, naval landing attempt fails big time. Cease-fire.

Scenario three: as #3, but the USA and allies start a bombing campaign similar as to OTL, only this time the entire country is reduced to bricks.
Eisenhower stops the bombings after assuming office. No formal cease-fire

Scenario four: even more successful Chinese campaign, taking the entire peninsula, with potential air war afterwards.
 
Surprisingly, probably not as much as you think. A unified Korea early on under the Kims would be a lot better than the madness we have now.

North Korea was actually a better place economically and more stable than South Korea until the 80s. Here, it’d remain a bit better without the US presence, besides probably more military presence in Japan (the loss of Korea would have US intervene in Vietnam sooner, but surprisingly averting the worst aspects of the Vietnam War.)

Of corse, once the Sino-Soviet split happens and the Cold War ends, Korea under the Kims may drift closer to the US since there is no bad blood between them (and Korea may find China to be a bit insufferable or at least the old bad blood may cause trouble.)
Still doesn't avoid the issue of oil prices, famine+drought, lack of Soviet aid, and stagnation in industrial production that sank North Korea in the first place. Things might be better for the North Koreans but the peninsula as a whole won't see the Miracle of the Han while maintaining a level of totalitarianism on par with or worse than China (due to proximity to US bases in Japan). While the South's human rights record isn't clean, it's come a long way and protests are a common scene in the streets of major metropolitans (particularly Seoul, where there were hundreds of thousands of people protesting against former president Park Geun-hye), something that we don't see in many past or existing communist regimes.

North Korea was economically better off, true, but not dramatically. Gapminder.org has the average North Korean refugee's height as shorter than an average South Korean's (not true before the partition) as early as in the 1970s so there's some evidence that things weren't as good as the Kim regime would want people to believe. The gap between North Korea and South Korea's GDP per capita in the 1960s, when it was the largest, is puny compared to the gap that formed in the 1980s (which has only widened every year).

While Kim Korea might take issue with the Chinese border (Jiandao/Gando and Mt. Baekdu), it still has Daemado and Dokdo as contested regions with Japan (and a regime like the Kim regime depends on having enemies to unite against).

I'd argue it's not clearly that much better than OTL. Overall, it might be better for the 25 million people in North Korea, but it's worth noting that 2/3rds of the Korean people live in the South. An additional 50+ million people would be under totalitarian rule which, though perhaps milder than what is present in OTL's North Korea, isn't likely to be too kind, based on the models of other Soviet aligned states. American presence in Japan means extreme xenophobia and militarism isn't ruled out, the economic issues of the 1980s onward still aren't dealt with, and human rights are definitely not a concern in any case.
 

samcster94

Banned
Still doesn't avoid the issue of oil prices, famine+drought, lack of Soviet aid, and stagnation in industrial production that sank North Korea in the first place. Things might be better for the North Koreans but the peninsula as a whole won't see the Miracle of the Han while maintaining a level of totalitarianism on par with or worse than China (due to proximity to US bases in Japan). While the South's human rights record isn't clean, it's come a long way and protests are a common scene in the streets of major metropolitans (particularly Seoul, where there were hundreds of thousands of people protesting against former president Park Geun-hye), something that we don't see in many past or existing communist regimes.

North Korea was economically better off, true, but not dramatically. Gapminder.org has the average North Korean refugee's height as shorter than an average South Korean's (not true before the partition) as early as in the 1970s so there's some evidence that things weren't as good as the Kim regime would want people to believe. The gap between North Korea and South Korea's GDP per capita in the 1960s, when it was the largest, is puny compared to the gap that formed in the 1980s (which has only widened every year).

While Kim Korea might take issue with the Chinese border (Jiandao/Gando and Mt. Baekdu), it still has Daemado and Dokdo as contested regions with Japan (and a regime like the Kim regime depends on having enemies to unite against).

I'd argue it's not clearly that much better than OTL. Overall, it might be better for the 25 million people in North Korea, but it's worth noting that 2/3rds of the Korean people live in the South. An additional 50+ million people would be under totalitarian rule which, though perhaps milder than what is present in OTL's North Korea, isn't likely to be too kind, based on the models of other Soviet aligned states. American presence in Japan means extreme xenophobia and militarism isn't ruled out, the economic issues of the 1980s onward still aren't dealt with, and human rights are definitely not a concern in any case.
I never would expect kindness when all of Korea is an oversized North Korea.
 
Top