Or the mini-Taiwan in Jeju-do, for that matter.A united Korea under the communist would basically be the Cuba of Asia under the dynasty of the Kim family with refugees crossing in boats to Japan on a regular basis.
Or the mini-Taiwan in Jeju-do, for that matter.A united Korea under the communist would basically be the Cuba of Asia under the dynasty of the Kim family with refugees crossing in boats to Japan on a regular basis.
regardless of who wins korea, a united korea would do better than a divided one. Now back then south korea was the mental one, but over time they switched, south becoming less fascist and north becoming a neo korean style monarachy. If communist korea owns all of korea then thatd butterfly the kims, doesnt mean some other wack shit wont happen tho. id wager that korea would be the least mental of the asian communists comparable to some members of the eastern block.
... what would have been different? Would it mean that a unified Korea would have become just another version of Kim Il-sung's North? To an extent, yes. The 1960s would have been a time of frantic mobilization drives, mass brainwashing and political persecution on a grand scale. However, two things would have been different.
First, without bitter war experience, without an ample supply of the battle-hardened zealots and without daily confrontation with the rival (and also increasingly successful and free) South, the all-Korean communist regime might have been somewhat less murderous, although this might not have been the case in the 1960s, when insanely radical plans were in vogue across East Asia.
If simultaneous Chinese experience is a guide, I would suspect that those times would have added another few tens of thousands or so dead people to the regime's body count. Without the South across the border, the Pyongyang leaders would have behaved a lot more recklessly in the 1960s, as China did in the bloody decade of the Cultural Revolution. But in the course of time, liberalization would have come easier - as happened in China.
Second, without a powerful South sitting just across the border, the North would have been more willing to experiment and reform. Perhaps it would have started Chinese-style reforms at an early stage - maybe even earlier than China itself. In real history, the North has been afraid that its populace would learn too much about South Korean prosperity and that this would result in the regime's collapse. Without the South hanging around and being so provocatively prosperous and free, bolder domestic policies would have become possible.
In the long run, it is a big question whether the regime would have collapsed around 1990, or would have survived, like those of China and Vietnam. I suspect that the second option would have been more likely.
What would Seoul have looked like? Pretty much as Shenyang or Hanoi looks now (or as Seoul looked in real history back in the 1970s): crowds of cyclists on dirty streets, a few highrise buildings, an occasional slogan about the greatness of "socialism with Korean characteristics", and an occasional chauffeured car of a local cadre-turn-capitalist: light-years behind the current South Korean prosperity, light-years ahead of the current North Korean destitution.
it would probably just liberalize and introduce capitalism like vietnam, laos, and china did.
It's my understanding that the Kims sided with Moscow in the Sino-Soviet split, and as a result enjoyed Warsaw Pact aid until that group fell apart. Assuming they made the same choice around 1960, why would they subsequently switch to Beijing, before it was obvious that the CCP would survive where the USSR wouldn't?
either they adopt juche, like OTL (which i find realistic with better material circumstances), or they liberalize. they might recognize that continuing Marxist-Leninist policies is no longer feasible and switch to capitalism. OTL, the only reason they didn't do so was because of alienation from South Korea. just look at how eager the north korean leadership is to introduce McDonalds as soon as a compromise is reached.
it would probably just liberalize and introduce capitalism like vietnam, laos, and china did.
Yeah I'm a man who could not run a haberdashery store decided to take control of the war himself which is why we have the mess we are in now. Previous poster indention Russia had 40 to 50 bombs in 1950 I would like to see a source for that because everything I've seen shows them having one or two. As far as the first part of my reply don't let it stop you from answering thank you.With no SK (assuming Jeju becomes TTL’s Taiwan) Kim Il-Sung can only beat the “fuck America and Japan” drum so hard, and the second that sweet Soviet support dries up, all that’s left is China and they won’t put up with the Kim dynasty’s shit anymore. So realistically, Papa Kim gets to run Korea like his own personal playground until the 90s, and then when he dies and the famine sets in, expect China to be pretty heavy-handed about reform and for Deng-style reforms to kick in by 2000. A new leader will industrialize the shit out of Korea, and you can expect a lot of cheap goods to be made there a la China or Vietnam.
I’m sure there will be a similar “one Korea” policy that includes Jeju much as one China does Taiwan, and you can expect that reforms will include capping the number of children people can have - even Vietnam fines parents who have a third.
I don’t see Korea being especially devastated or much worse than OTL simply because Truman wouldn’t stand for it. MacArthur was thiiiiiiiis close to nuking Korea back to the Stone Age and Truman fired the shit out of him for it - no reason to believe he won’t do the same here.