How one man escaped from a North Korean prison camp(utsalumni.org)
utsalumni.org
How one man escaped from a North Korean prison camp
http://www.utsalumni.org/news/how-one-man-escaped-from-a-north-korean-prison-camp-3549/
154 comments
The way I read it was that Shin only knew the virtues are betrayal and of being betrayed until he met the man who nursed him back to health and told him stories of freedom. Although these stories led him to "wake up", he was still steeped in the economy of betrayal when he used his naive friend's writhing body as a staircase to freedom.
I read elsewhere that a post-Juche NK would need one or two generations of special oversight before full reunification could take place due to the amount of mental trauma inflicted on the population (of ~20 million).
I read elsewhere that a post-Juche NK would need one or two generations of special oversight before full reunification could take place due to the amount of mental trauma inflicted on the population (of ~20 million).
“special oversight”? What does that mean?
How would such a reunification compare to, say, East and West Germany?
How would such a reunification compare to, say, East and West Germany?
East Germany was by far the most advanced and capitalist of the Communist states, and very close culturally to West Germany, but there is still the phenomenon of "Ostalgie", from Ost=East + Nostalgie=Nostalgia, yearning for the good ol' days of Communist suppression.
The movie 'The Lives of Others' was motivated by the filmmakers' desire to smack down the Ostalgie-types achieving popularity in Germany. It is common there to see shops selling East German themed stuff, and there is at least one chain of shops solely dedicated to East German paraphernalia. Polls suggest there is a real yearning in some areas to go back to the days where the secret police and rationing of basic goods were real things. It's bizarre.
The movie 'The Lives of Others' was motivated by the filmmakers' desire to smack down the Ostalgie-types achieving popularity in Germany. It is common there to see shops selling East German themed stuff, and there is at least one chain of shops solely dedicated to East German paraphernalia. Polls suggest there is a real yearning in some areas to go back to the days where the secret police and rationing of basic goods were real things. It's bizarre.
I spent 5 years in a small city in the former East Germany and I am still spending a lot of time there. The "Ostalgie" is especially the nostalgia of full employment and social bonding. People basically say, we went from communism to hard capitalism without the paternalism social democracy West Germany enjoyed. In 1994, 80% of the jobs in the industry were cut with a few emblematic cases of West German companies buying back the companies, removing the hardware, shipping it in China and resuming the production there. It was not a reunification, it was a take-over without respect for the good things in the East. For example everything with respect to employment of women, women/men pay equality, etc. Nowadays, Germany is figuring out that it was not that bad.
I was not able to find a single person saying, please send back the STASI, it was better with.
You must only accept that early 2000, the bubble crashed, the complete economy went out of track and that just 10 years after the reunification. They did not had the time to taste the good working capitalism.
I was not able to find a single person saying, please send back the STASI, it was better with.
You must only accept that early 2000, the bubble crashed, the complete economy went out of track and that just 10 years after the reunification. They did not had the time to taste the good working capitalism.
This.
My father lived in various bits of East Germany during the communist era. He had nothing to say but good things about the situation, until he pissed off a couple of Stasi in the late 1970s that was and was deported to the West after a fairly light telling off (fortunately versus locked up). The main thing that pissed him off about this is that he had just bought a new Robotron TV that he spent two years saving up for and had to leave it behind. He is bitter about this to the day :)
If it wasn't for the Stasi, it would have been a modern Utopia. Stable employment, manufacturing oriented economy (value added everywhere) and could pretty much stand alone. They even pushed family values and equality for all over conspicuous consumption, which is pretty much the entire facade of capitalism these days.
This ALL went down the shitter at reunification.
Perhaps someone should try it again (without the Stasi that is).
Some Ostalgie: I have three bottles of Vita Cola in the cupboard (that stuff rocks) and a Praktica MTL 5 camera which I use regularly - I find these to be the essence of the good bits of the GDR :)
My father lived in various bits of East Germany during the communist era. He had nothing to say but good things about the situation, until he pissed off a couple of Stasi in the late 1970s that was and was deported to the West after a fairly light telling off (fortunately versus locked up). The main thing that pissed him off about this is that he had just bought a new Robotron TV that he spent two years saving up for and had to leave it behind. He is bitter about this to the day :)
If it wasn't for the Stasi, it would have been a modern Utopia. Stable employment, manufacturing oriented economy (value added everywhere) and could pretty much stand alone. They even pushed family values and equality for all over conspicuous consumption, which is pretty much the entire facade of capitalism these days.
This ALL went down the shitter at reunification.
Perhaps someone should try it again (without the Stasi that is).
Some Ostalgie: I have three bottles of Vita Cola in the cupboard (that stuff rocks) and a Praktica MTL 5 camera which I use regularly - I find these to be the essence of the good bits of the GDR :)
> Perhaps someone should try it again (without the Stasi that is).
Perhaps there is a reason that a "Stasi" always ends up appearing in these kinds of societies?
Perhaps there is a reason that a "Stasi" always ends up appearing in these kinds of societies?
Your next door neighbour to the left (Netherlands) here. You're forgetting the part where under the commies you were not allowed to be a free indivudual. No creativity unless within the State's rules. Added value? Stolen / copied tech from the West, low quality stuff with no luxery. Everybody worked for the same pay. No incentive to become more. You're everybody's slave basically.
Versus socialist Britain for example? (where I live).
Dragged through the courts for using Facebook and Twitter, held indefinitely without trial under the Terrorism Act, all the technology is imported from the communist far East, low quality things with a contract attached, luxury as a form of class ego via conspicuous consumption, everyone works for the minimum wage in service industries, no incentive to do anything but live on state handouts.
Dragged through the courts for using Facebook and Twitter, held indefinitely without trial under the Terrorism Act, all the technology is imported from the communist far East, low quality things with a contract attached, luxury as a form of class ego via conspicuous consumption, everyone works for the minimum wage in service industries, no incentive to do anything but live on state handouts.
Really? thats why a lot of young people move to GB right? I agree with you we (the west) are heading in the wrong direction but (thankfully) we're not a commi State (yet).
Yes that is the reason. It's an easy ride once you get here.
Yet, although I think the EU would rather like us to be.
Yet, although I think the EU would rather like us to be.
I was actually referring to talented young people from other european states (France, etc) that are seen as startup/business unfriendly, but I get your point. GB -thankfully- is not a commi country but it is showing a socialist trend. If it were a communist State they would have shot Nigel Farrage years ago ;-)
They haven't shot him because everyone would notice :)
A Utopia? Perhaps you are setting the Utopian bar a bit too low?
There was very little, if any freedom of expression or freedom of speech. Not very utopian.
Average citizens had their exposure to the outside world limited. Not very utopian.
Citizens lived in a very tightly controlled society. A society controlled by the government and secret police. Not my idea of utopia.
Even if the modern internet had existed then, it's doubtful that a citizen would even be allowed to come to a site like this and even have this discussion.
As far as the Stasi go, you can't just say "without them it would have been fine" because they are completely intertwined with that society. That society required very little or no dissent to continue and that is why the Stasi existed: To crush dissent and keep everyone thinking how wonderful their "utopian" existence was....
There was very little, if any freedom of expression or freedom of speech. Not very utopian.
Average citizens had their exposure to the outside world limited. Not very utopian.
Citizens lived in a very tightly controlled society. A society controlled by the government and secret police. Not my idea of utopia.
Even if the modern internet had existed then, it's doubtful that a citizen would even be allowed to come to a site like this and even have this discussion.
As far as the Stasi go, you can't just say "without them it would have been fine" because they are completely intertwined with that society. That society required very little or no dissent to continue and that is why the Stasi existed: To crush dissent and keep everyone thinking how wonderful their "utopian" existence was....
To be fair it wasn't rationing - that was a load of crap apparently. It was fixed prices everywhere. Butter was X marks everywhere and there wasn't the luxury of choice (choice was defined to be the enemy which I do sort of agree with - I spend way too much time selecting products versus using them).
The reason for Ostalgie is that if you didn't piss off the Stasi, you actually had a reasonable life. Also, since reunification, the West Germans have treated the East like a second class lepper colony and closed all their businesses down resulting in much pissed-off-ness.
The reason for Ostalgie is that if you didn't piss off the Stasi, you actually had a reasonable life. Also, since reunification, the West Germans have treated the East like a second class lepper colony and closed all their businesses down resulting in much pissed-off-ness.
>Polls suggest there is a real yearning in some areas to go back to the days where the secret police and rationing of basic goods were real things. It's bizarre.
Not very bizarre. Other things were also "real things", like job security, food for everyone (even if little), a sense of belonging, etc. And a far better culture (including a vibrant counter-culture against the regime) than the BS that the media serve today.
If you visit some places full of dirt poor families, abandoned buildings and meth addicts, you'll get a nice glimpse why some might want it another way.
Not very bizarre. Other things were also "real things", like job security, food for everyone (even if little), a sense of belonging, etc. And a far better culture (including a vibrant counter-culture against the regime) than the BS that the media serve today.
If you visit some places full of dirt poor families, abandoned buildings and meth addicts, you'll get a nice glimpse why some might want it another way.
> If you visit some places full of dirt poor families, abandoned buildings and meth addicts, you'll get a nice glimpse why some might want it another way.
Do you really think complete control over another human being is morally acceptable, even if it prevents that person from becoming a drug addict?
I mean, we could cure all drug addicts today by sending them to a prison camp with violent punishment for carrying drugs. But would that be preferable to actually having drug addicts?
We can achieve a lot of things with force. The question is if the force itself creates more destruction than it prevents.
Do you really think complete control over another human being is morally acceptable, even if it prevents that person from becoming a drug addict?
I mean, we could cure all drug addicts today by sending them to a prison camp with violent punishment for carrying drugs. But would that be preferable to actually having drug addicts?
We can achieve a lot of things with force. The question is if the force itself creates more destruction than it prevents.
>Do you really think complete control over another human being is morally acceptable, even if it prevents that person from becoming a drug addict?
Do you really think a complex political system like in a former socialist country, can be reduced to "complete control over another human being"?
Do you really think a complex political system like in a former socialist country, can be reduced to "complete control over another human being"?
From what I hear in some places in eastern Germany, if you hire a contractor to get building work done, he will typically quote you a very high price. If you say that's too high, attempt to haggle, or say "I can go to So-and-so who will do it for cheaper", the contractor may become gravely offended.
The idea of capitalism, and with it the associated idea of having to compete for people's business, is still somewhat new to them, you see...
The idea of capitalism, and with it the associated idea of having to compete for people's business, is still somewhat new to them, you see...
[deleted]
[deleted]
> What a fascinating and engrossing read. Thanks for sharing.
An amazing, gripping story...and then I read a thread about Who hates on other platforms more - Android fans or Apple fans?
Here's a free idea, assuming it hasn't already been done in some form: In a Twitter-like interface, people with first world problems type in what's bothering them (eg "Didn't get an iPad for Xmas - my parents suck!") and when they hit submit, an algorithm returns either a brief story, picture or video from less fortunate countries that neatly correspond to their problem (eg, picture of a child begging a guard for something to eat).
It would be a great place to help us get over the little things that bother us more than they should. Seems http://www.firstworldproblems.com is already taken.
An amazing, gripping story...and then I read a thread about Who hates on other platforms more - Android fans or Apple fans?
Here's a free idea, assuming it hasn't already been done in some form: In a Twitter-like interface, people with first world problems type in what's bothering them (eg "Didn't get an iPad for Xmas - my parents suck!") and when they hit submit, an algorithm returns either a brief story, picture or video from less fortunate countries that neatly correspond to their problem (eg, picture of a child begging a guard for something to eat).
It would be a great place to help us get over the little things that bother us more than they should. Seems http://www.firstworldproblems.com is already taken.
I honestly think you are well-intended, but that is no solution to anything. Covering up your own emotions by witnessing other people's suffering solves nothing. Your suffering is still there when you stop thinking about other people's suffering.
You can't cover up thoughts with thoughts. Or emotions with emotions.
You can't cover up thoughts with thoughts. Or emotions with emotions.
Honestly, that sounds like a great social media campaign.
"Judy: I'm so thirsty" "@Judy Here's the story of Jamie in Zambia. Jamie is always thirsty http://link
"Judy: I'm so thirsty" "@Judy Here's the story of Jamie in Zambia. Jamie is always thirsty http://link
My grandfather escaped from North Korea during the 1950s by riding on top of trains and eventually riding a cargo boat into South Korea. Apparently the owner of the boat had to throw all the cargo overboard to accomodate everyone. He took a group of women from his village and escaped with his life, leaving behind his now-dead family. I am overwhelmed by the fact that if he didn't escape when he did, I would be in one of the prison camps doing hard labor and sorting through animal feces for undigested corn. Thanks for linking this article, now I have renewed my interest in the past and have requested family in South Korea to send me a copy of our family tree. Grandfather is now gone, and I wish he lived today, so I could say my thanks and hug him.
>>I am overwhelmed by the fact that if he didn't escape when he did, I would be in one of the prison camps doing hard labor and sorting through animal feces for undigested corn.
I wish more people had this perspective. Most Westerners I met take what they have for granted, completely oblivious to what goes on in other parts of the world.
I wish more people had this perspective. Most Westerners I met take what they have for granted, completely oblivious to what goes on in other parts of the world.
That this story ever got this much publicity is largely thanks to LiNK (Liberty in North Korea).
http://libertyinnorthkorea.org/
Please consider a small donation of money or even time (the "Get Involved" menu).
Or even just re-tweet, re-blog, and talk to your friends about this story.
http://libertyinnorthkorea.org/
Please consider a small donation of money or even time (the "Get Involved" menu).
Or even just re-tweet, re-blog, and talk to your friends about this story.
Well, that was depressing. To tell the truth I couldn't finish reading the article. It feels so much as a fiction novel that the idea that it chronicles the actual events is deeply unsettling. How the fuck can this happen in our time? And how do we stop it?
I guess the frustrating part is that we can't stop it without risking the entire population of Seoul. It just has to change on its own, hopefully over time.
Shin Dong-hyuk appeared in a Google talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms4NIB6xroc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms4NIB6xroc
This is not the same story, but this book is worth reading...
The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag [by Chol-hwan Kang]
http://www.amazon.com/Aquariums-Pyongyang-Years-North-Korean...
Author was nine years old when imprisoned at the Yodok camp in 1977. Inexplicably released in 1987, he states that the only lesson his imprisonment had "pounded into me was about man's limitless capacity to be vicious."
The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag [by Chol-hwan Kang]
http://www.amazon.com/Aquariums-Pyongyang-Years-North-Korean...
Author was nine years old when imprisoned at the Yodok camp in 1977. Inexplicably released in 1987, he states that the only lesson his imprisonment had "pounded into me was about man's limitless capacity to be vicious."
hacker news - this really bums me out. Last week HN was rightly all over Atlantic for shilling for Scientology.
This article is written by the unification church - right up in the same bat shit crazy neighborhood as LR Hubbard and his pals...
And the discussion - Korea is crazy and belligerent?
The country known as the hermit kingdom. Did not open to the west until ~ 1870s. The last time it was involved in trying to invade another country was as a vassal state of Kublai Khan. And yet such assertions go unchecked.
Korea is not belligerent and has much riding upon regional stability. We are talking about an economy that is roughly the scale of Italy's and a standard of living that is in many ways better than the US.
The biggest impediment to North South reunification is the immense disparity. The difference between East and West Germany was minute in comparison.
I am not Korean but love Korea. Have had the chance to work there (3 yrs) and know a slight bit of the history, language and culture.
There are many better sources of information on North Korea - don't give the Unification Church any more publicity. The Netflix documentary mentioned is a good one.
And stop with the misinformed ideas of Korea. It is not like China and Japan even though it is stuck in the middle. Korean language and culture compared to Chinese is roughly analogous to English with Latin. The base is completely different but Koreans borrowed Chinese philosophy and science.
Linguistically Korean has more in common with Mongolian and Hungarian than it does to Mandarin.
This article is written by the unification church - right up in the same bat shit crazy neighborhood as LR Hubbard and his pals...
And the discussion - Korea is crazy and belligerent?
The country known as the hermit kingdom. Did not open to the west until ~ 1870s. The last time it was involved in trying to invade another country was as a vassal state of Kublai Khan. And yet such assertions go unchecked.
Korea is not belligerent and has much riding upon regional stability. We are talking about an economy that is roughly the scale of Italy's and a standard of living that is in many ways better than the US.
The biggest impediment to North South reunification is the immense disparity. The difference between East and West Germany was minute in comparison.
I am not Korean but love Korea. Have had the chance to work there (3 yrs) and know a slight bit of the history, language and culture.
There are many better sources of information on North Korea - don't give the Unification Church any more publicity. The Netflix documentary mentioned is a good one.
And stop with the misinformed ideas of Korea. It is not like China and Japan even though it is stuck in the middle. Korean language and culture compared to Chinese is roughly analogous to English with Latin. The base is completely different but Koreans borrowed Chinese philosophy and science.
Linguistically Korean has more in common with Mongolian and Hungarian than it does to Mandarin.
Umm it's a book, and the piece was written by The Guardian... So not sure what you are talking about...
Also, there are 2 Koreas, you talk as if there is only 1. No one is suggesting that South Korea is crazy or belligerent. I didn't even see that assertion with North korea... What are you referring to?
Also I'm quite sure the standard of living is not better in North Korea (than in the US), or are you referring to the south? if so, why?
Also, there are 2 Koreas, you talk as if there is only 1. No one is suggesting that South Korea is crazy or belligerent. I didn't even see that assertion with North korea... What are you referring to?
Also I'm quite sure the standard of living is not better in North Korea (than in the US), or are you referring to the south? if so, why?
Obviously I don't mean both Koreas - North Korea is significantly worse than Haiti. And yes more than one commenter referred to Koreans as being warlike (speeder, etc).
And the piece is cited in the Unification Church alumni website - not the Guardian, so i do not know what you are talking about.
Reread this whole discussion and tell me that is is an accurate portrayal of Korea or the current state of relation s. It is not.
There are a few intelligent comments about East Germany but then a bunch of drivel about North Korea as a buffer for China against an imperialistic Korea.
There is not really one comment to attack here for factual wrongheadedness. Start from a Unification church review and spirals off from there. The discussion is completely off the rails.
And the piece is cited in the Unification Church alumni website - not the Guardian, so i do not know what you are talking about.
Reread this whole discussion and tell me that is is an accurate portrayal of Korea or the current state of relation s. It is not.
There are a few intelligent comments about East Germany but then a bunch of drivel about North Korea as a buffer for China against an imperialistic Korea.
There is not really one comment to attack here for factual wrongheadedness. Start from a Unification church review and spirals off from there. The discussion is completely off the rails.
It's clearly labeled as being reposted from The Guardian. Here's the page it used to occupy on the Guardian's website:http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/16/escape-north-kor...
The content is unfortunately no longer available, but a quick Google search reveals several places in addition to the OP's link you can find this text. I don't have time to do so but you should definitely review the text posted by the OP against other sources printing the same text, or even from the book itself.
The content is unfortunately no longer available, but a quick Google search reveals several places in addition to the OP's link you can find this text. I don't have time to do so but you should definitely review the text posted by the OP against other sources printing the same text, or even from the book itself.
Which parts of this account do you believe are untrue?
Most of the account sounds overblown (and specially crafted in the model of 1984, Nazi camps and such).
Any corroboration for this story? Because "escaped" people are known to say anything, especially since it can be very profitable outside their country.
For one, people like and buys survival stories (the harder the better), second, if they are nicely crafted they can serve as diplomatic pressure and propaganda (which is not the sole province of North Korea).
So, any actual evidence, outside what just one man says that we are supposed to take for granted?
Any corroboration for this story? Because "escaped" people are known to say anything, especially since it can be very profitable outside their country.
For one, people like and buys survival stories (the harder the better), second, if they are nicely crafted they can serve as diplomatic pressure and propaganda (which is not the sole province of North Korea).
So, any actual evidence, outside what just one man says that we are supposed to take for granted?
There is independent information to support that NK is this bad and worse. No question about that.
Well, any pointers? Because, I for one, question it.
If this sort of stuff intrigues you, as it does me, check out "Gulag" by Anne Applebaum. I listened to it in audiobook form (27 hours!) and it was both fascinating and devastating to hear how the Soviets imprisoned, tortured, and, frequently, killed millions in such encampments.
This made me physically sick to read. The sheer scale of this tragedy and the utter depravity of nearly everyone involved makes me weep for humanity. I lost sleep last night as this story haunted me, reminding me that this evil is happening right now, still, to hundreds of thousands more like Shin.
Eric Schmidt owes this man a visit (if he hasn't already). If he can fly halfway around the world to pay his respects to the architects of this abomination, buttressing their hateful regime, then he can use his powers of publicity to call attention to the plight of those like Shin.
Eric Schmidt owes this man a visit (if he hasn't already). If he can fly halfway around the world to pay his respects to the architects of this abomination, buttressing their hateful regime, then he can use his powers of publicity to call attention to the plight of those like Shin.
CBS/60 Minutes interviewed him; it was on TV a few weeks ago: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50136263n
Truely amazing story. I can not fathom the pain and suffering this man had to endure. It's odd that I was getting angry that he betrayed so many people, and betrayed one man that was trying to escape with him. But, in that situation, it really is a dog eat dog world and I'm sure Park would not have hesitated to leave Shin behind. Crazy article, makes you really wonder if NK will ever be able to rejoin SK or what will happen to the nation entirely
Wait, in the middle of the story Shin was to be executed, then wasn't? What happened there?
I found that kind of confusing as well.
I believe it was his brother and his mother who were executed. I believe his brother was named Shin as well, with the rest of his name different.
I think this is a family name / given name issue.
I believe it was his brother and his mother who were executed. I believe his brother was named Shin as well, with the rest of his name different.
I think this is a family name / given name issue.
Korean names are in the order Family Name then First name. They refer to him by his family name, so its easy to confuse him, his brother, and his father
The original story, from 2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/world/asia/09iht-korea.4.6...
I still remember it vividly from that day.
I still remember it vividly from that day.
"Citizen of the Galaxy," by Robert Heinlein, jumped to mind when I read this story.
The protagonist, Thorby, is a freed slave, and most of the people he encounters in the story are skeptical that slavery still exists.
The protagonist, Thorby, is a freed slave, and most of the people he encounters in the story are skeptical that slavery still exists.
There is a say in my language "Birds born in a cage too have wings". Sometimes its hard for me to digest how a society that has 99% literacy rate, could continue living like this, under NK regime.
There is a documentary on this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2149190/
Have not seen it yet, but I saw the cover browsing around on Netflix.
Have not seen it yet, but I saw the cover browsing around on Netflix.
[deleted]
It's Anthem all over again, times a thousand.
That these camps exist today is a giant pockmark on all of humanity.
Probably good to point to http://libertyinnorthkorea.org/
Thank you for posting this link. I have wanted to help the people of North Korea for a long time. This was all I needed to prod me into providing some financial support.
I know that donating some money won't fix everything, but I would have felt very bad if later in life someone asked me what I had done to help out people who lived lives like on the one described in the story and my response had been "nothing".
Everyone who has the ability to read HN is very blessed. It is so easy to forget how so many of this world's inhabitants are forced to live their daily lives. Human's don't seem to be very good at empathizing with more than a small group of people. If we could literally feel the suffering of our brothers and sister's world wide that live under such oppressive forces, I believe that the suffering would end swiftly as nobody could resist the call to arms that would ensue.
I know that donating some money won't fix everything, but I would have felt very bad if later in life someone asked me what I had done to help out people who lived lives like on the one described in the story and my response had been "nothing".
Everyone who has the ability to read HN is very blessed. It is so easy to forget how so many of this world's inhabitants are forced to live their daily lives. Human's don't seem to be very good at empathizing with more than a small group of people. If we could literally feel the suffering of our brothers and sister's world wide that live under such oppressive forces, I believe that the suffering would end swiftly as nobody could resist the call to arms that would ensue.
One thing you can be sure of is that integrating North Korean refugees is an impressively expensive endeavor. From having little to no useful modern education, to having literally no exchangeable currency.
They need job skills training, housing, clothes, everything. These organizations can use donations of all sizes, enough to buy socks to enough to bribe border guards, buy plane tickets or put down a cheonsae [1].
Here's some information on the typical escape path for many of the refugees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cVOrUMWaJ0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chun-say
They need job skills training, housing, clothes, everything. These organizations can use donations of all sizes, enough to buy socks to enough to bribe border guards, buy plane tickets or put down a cheonsae [1].
Here's some information on the typical escape path for many of the refugees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cVOrUMWaJ0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chun-say
This is still one of my favorite stories submitted to HN, even if it is devoid of technical content. The last time I saw it the new submissions swept it up like the rising tide.[0]
[0]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3716763
[1]: Going through my list of saved articles shocked me with how many I remember.
[0]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3716763
[1]: Going through my list of saved articles shocked me with how many I remember.
I strongly recommend reading the book that this extract was taken from. http://amzn.com/0670023329
I've read the book and it's an amazing read, both for details of what occurs in the camps, and for the issues Shin faces trying to assimilate in both South Korea and the U.S. Beyond symptoms much like PTSD, he has perverse difficulties with money and personal finance. At the same time as he expects to be cared for in a bare way (because the camp existed to give him a really shitty place to sleep and really shitty food), he's deeply suspicious of any largesse shown to him--it's either a bribe requiring action, or an unexpected windfall that he must consume immediately to avoid it being taken away from him by a stronger inmate, or the possession of which might be grounds for further punishment. He has trouble saving money or conceiving of budgeting his money. He has trouble planning beyond a few days in the future because, in the camps, nothing was in his control, so planning was not just immaterial, it was counterproductive and risky.
When Korea reunifies, the South is going to have to deal with 20 million people with similar symptoms (in most cases less severe).
Yes, and not just those symptoms, but a generation raised in a truly bizarre educational system, who believe that total corruption is the norm, and who are so economically backwards that they'll be largely unable to meaningfully participate in a re-united economy.
I suspect that, if reunification occurs, NK will be held apart as a special zone for a generation or two in order to educate a following generation for real reunification.
I suspect that, if reunification occurs, NK will be held apart as a special zone for a generation or two in order to educate a following generation for real reunification.
It's been done before. Germany hasn't had a smooth transition, and there are still problems, but it has been done.
The gap between the Koreas is far bigger than the gap between West and East Germany ever was. The latter was arguably ahead of the better parts of Third World (say Brazil or Mexico) in terms of education, health care, infra-structure, industrialization, etc. Compare to North Korea, which still uses mainly manual and animal labour for agriculture, and can barely feed its people.
I can't help but wonder if the world will look back on the situation in North Korea the same way it does the Rwandan Genocide and the Holocaust. The conditions in some of these camps are truly disgusting, and a former guard at one claimed that 1,500 to 2,000 of the workers at his camp were missing limbs[1].
I don't know what the answer is, but I think hindsight will lead future generations to condemn perceived inaction on our part.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_22#Conditions_in_the_camp
I don't know what the answer is, but I think hindsight will lead future generations to condemn perceived inaction on our part.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_22#Conditions_in_the_camp
In the case of Rwanda, a great deal of the breast-beating that followed had to do with the fact that Western nations could have done much more to prevent the genocide than they did (at least on paper). The strategic situation with North Korea mandates that the only thing to be done to relieve the suffering of North Koreans would be to restart and win the Korean War. China likes having North Korea as a buffer state on that border (which is why they intervened the first time), and at least in decades past, Russia and China had ideological reasons to prop up the regime.
More immediately, Seoul is within range of the DMZ, and North Korea has 80,000 pieces of artillery aimed directly at it. In the renewal of hostilities, Seoul would be flattened within hours, and Seoul has 15 million people living in it. More than Russia and China, that gun pointed at South Korea's head has always mandated extreme caution when dealing with the North (and allowed the North to get away with provocations that would have been crazy anywhere else).
More immediately, Seoul is within range of the DMZ, and North Korea has 80,000 pieces of artillery aimed directly at it. In the renewal of hostilities, Seoul would be flattened within hours, and Seoul has 15 million people living in it. More than Russia and China, that gun pointed at South Korea's head has always mandated extreme caution when dealing with the North (and allowed the North to get away with provocations that would have been crazy anywhere else).
> Seoul is within range of the DMZ, and North Korea has 80,000 pieces of artillery aimed directly at it.
Why didn't South Korea start, decades ago, relocating its capital to somewhere out of artillery fire, i.e. end all development in Seoul and build a new city in the south. It seems to be a bit thoughtless to build a major city where it is a hostage to the brutal and aggressive dictatorship next door.
Why didn't South Korea start, decades ago, relocating its capital to somewhere out of artillery fire, i.e. end all development in Seoul and build a new city in the south. It seems to be a bit thoughtless to build a major city where it is a hostage to the brutal and aggressive dictatorship next door.
A bit of a tangent here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C._in_the_America...
Despite being the nation's capital, Washington remained a small city of a few thousand residents, virtually deserted during the torrid summertime, until the outbreak of the Civil War.
"Of all the detestable places Washington is first. Crowd, heat, bad quarters, bad fair [fare], bad smells, mosquitos, and a plague of flies transcending everything within my experience... Beelzebub surely reigns here, and Willard's Hotel is his temple."
At the outset the U.S. Civil War, Washington D.C. wasn't just a stinking, festering, undefended podunk backwater; it was a stinking, festering, undefended podunk backwater bordered on the south by the most powerful bastion of Confederate sentiment and on the north by a state experiencing a crisis of North/South identity. So why didn't Lincoln pack up and move the capital to Philadelphia or New York? This question isn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious. Was it national pride? Would moving the capital have been viewed as an act of implicit defeat? Whatever the reason, perhaps the South Koreans felt the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C._in_the_America...
Despite being the nation's capital, Washington remained a small city of a few thousand residents, virtually deserted during the torrid summertime, until the outbreak of the Civil War.
"Of all the detestable places Washington is first. Crowd, heat, bad quarters, bad fair [fare], bad smells, mosquitos, and a plague of flies transcending everything within my experience... Beelzebub surely reigns here, and Willard's Hotel is his temple."
At the outset the U.S. Civil War, Washington D.C. wasn't just a stinking, festering, undefended podunk backwater; it was a stinking, festering, undefended podunk backwater bordered on the south by the most powerful bastion of Confederate sentiment and on the north by a state experiencing a crisis of North/South identity. So why didn't Lincoln pack up and move the capital to Philadelphia or New York? This question isn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious. Was it national pride? Would moving the capital have been viewed as an act of implicit defeat? Whatever the reason, perhaps the South Koreans felt the same.
Given this story http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/sites/uscapi...
During the war construction costs for the new dome [for the Capitol building] other parts of the building drew unfavorable remarks. Lincoln, however, stressed the importance of continuing the work, saying, "If people see the Capitol going on, it is a sign we intend the Union shall go on."
The same reasoning would explain keeping the capital in DC.
During the war construction costs for the new dome [for the Capitol building] other parts of the building drew unfavorable remarks. Lincoln, however, stressed the importance of continuing the work, saying, "If people see the Capitol going on, it is a sign we intend the Union shall go on."
The same reasoning would explain keeping the capital in DC.
This is an interesting question, and one that a few brief minutes searching the usual sources doesn't turn up an obvious answer (or even much discussion). Moving the capital doesn't appear to have been seriously considered at the time.
It is easy to find lots of information on Washington DC's civil war defenses - some ~70 forts, 400 emplacements for field guns, and unmatched transportation/communication infrastructure. The resources devoted to protecting the capital instead of campaigning were a regular source of contention for Lincoln, his generals, and public opinion - many opportunities were missed by Army of the Potomac commanders who feared leaving DC vulnerable.
On the other side, the Confederate capital was originally in Montgomery, Alabama, and moved to Richmond, Virginia when Virginia seceded following Fort Sumter. Like Washington, this put the capital remarkably close to the front lines, but the existing industry, infrastructure, political weight, and defensibility seemed to make the position worth the risk.
Hoping someone with knowledge chimes in :).
It is easy to find lots of information on Washington DC's civil war defenses - some ~70 forts, 400 emplacements for field guns, and unmatched transportation/communication infrastructure. The resources devoted to protecting the capital instead of campaigning were a regular source of contention for Lincoln, his generals, and public opinion - many opportunities were missed by Army of the Potomac commanders who feared leaving DC vulnerable.
On the other side, the Confederate capital was originally in Montgomery, Alabama, and moved to Richmond, Virginia when Virginia seceded following Fort Sumter. Like Washington, this put the capital remarkably close to the front lines, but the existing industry, infrastructure, political weight, and defensibility seemed to make the position worth the risk.
Hoping someone with knowledge chimes in :).
The world was bigger and slower back then. If southern troops were mobilized, there would be days or weeks of warning before they got to DC. By that time, the politicians could retreat, and replace themselves with union soldiers.
They actually have been trying to move the government functions to Sejong City(which is 120km south of Seoul), but the courts stopped it from happening:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18670195
I don't follow Korean politics, so I don't know if the motivations were to escape NK artillery or some other reason, but it seems like organizing a massive move is just one of those things democracy is bad at.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18670195
I don't follow Korean politics, so I don't know if the motivations were to escape NK artillery or some other reason, but it seems like organizing a massive move is just one of those things democracy is bad at.
They didn't build it after the Korean War, it's been there for 2,000 years. While they could relocate the government to Pusan, the millions living there would likely have stayed, resulting in the same situation.
What was the population of Seoul just after the war ended? Would I be right in guessing it was a lot less than it is now, and that most buildings in modern Seoul post-date the war?
Seoul means very much for them. If I understand right, "Seoul" is a word for capital.
They took traditions seriously and traditionally it's THE capital. Even North Korea considered Seoul the capital for decades, calling Pyongyang "the capital of revolution" or something like that.
Also, it was a very poor and unstable country post-war and didn't feature much strategic thinking. And obviously USA wanted their military bases near the border, i.e. in Seoul.
They took traditions seriously and traditionally it's THE capital. Even North Korea considered Seoul the capital for decades, calling Pyongyang "the capital of revolution" or something like that.
Also, it was a very poor and unstable country post-war and didn't feature much strategic thinking. And obviously USA wanted their military bases near the border, i.e. in Seoul.
At what point was this a good idea or even remotely feasible? For most of the 20th century South Korea was comparatively poor and a developing nation. They've only reached a level of wealth comparable to the western world in the last few decades.
Also, an attempt to move people out of the capital would have been a provocative act to North Korea, at any time. Because it would have been seen as an obvious prelude to an invasion.
Also, an attempt to move people out of the capital would have been a provocative act to North Korea, at any time. Because it would have been seen as an obvious prelude to an invasion.
Would relocating the capital really change the strategic situation much? North Korea possesses missiles whose range could (supposedly) hit any other piece of ground in South Korea.
It would change it a lot, but maybe not enough. As it stands now the combination of civilian population density and quantity of North Korea artillery means that millions of people would die in even a single hour of shelling.
However, even if all of Seoul was evacuated it wouldn't necessarily make things so much better as North Korea has missiles with enough range even to hit Japan or the US, and potentially nuclear weapons to go with them. Potentially one could imagine banking on anti-missile systems to nullify that threat but that's a pretty big gamble.
However, even if all of Seoul was evacuated it wouldn't necessarily make things so much better as North Korea has missiles with enough range even to hit Japan or the US, and potentially nuclear weapons to go with them. Potentially one could imagine banking on anti-missile systems to nullify that threat but that's a pretty big gamble.
During the cold war, the same could be said of Washington D.C. Even now, a surprise SLBM salvo can turn DC into a smoldering crater before you can say "get the president to the bunker".
It's prohibitively expensive to move a city, especially if the justification is "if we get really f-d, then we'll be a little less f-d".
The U.S.'s defense against an attack on D.C. was the assumption of a rational enemy, nuclear hardened command and control bunkers very far from shore, nuclear hardened ICBM silos very far from shore, continuously airborne nuclear bombers, and very stealthy SSBNs.
Really, South Korea's strongest defense is that an invasion by the North would instantly kill enough US troops to guarantee massive US retaliation against all military bases in NK, and would instantly kill enough civilians that China wouldn't retaliate as long as no US troops crossed the DMZ. Hopefully this is a big enough threat that a significant number of high-level and mid-level military leaders would stage a coup d'etat rather than follow orders to invade SK.
Edit: one would hope that the U.S. and China already have negotiated how much retaliation China will tolerate in response to various acts of war by NK. One would also hope that these details have been leaked to NK.
It's prohibitively expensive to move a city, especially if the justification is "if we get really f-d, then we'll be a little less f-d".
The U.S.'s defense against an attack on D.C. was the assumption of a rational enemy, nuclear hardened command and control bunkers very far from shore, nuclear hardened ICBM silos very far from shore, continuously airborne nuclear bombers, and very stealthy SSBNs.
Really, South Korea's strongest defense is that an invasion by the North would instantly kill enough US troops to guarantee massive US retaliation against all military bases in NK, and would instantly kill enough civilians that China wouldn't retaliate as long as no US troops crossed the DMZ. Hopefully this is a big enough threat that a significant number of high-level and mid-level military leaders would stage a coup d'etat rather than follow orders to invade SK.
Edit: one would hope that the U.S. and China already have negotiated how much retaliation China will tolerate in response to various acts of war by NK. One would also hope that these details have been leaked to NK.
This is a question I've had as well -- but since I can't think of any examples of this happening in any country ever, despite the timelessness of the plight, my hunch has always been that it's essentially impossible for some reason that's not readily apparent. (My money's on the impossibility of mustering political will to do something so destructive that reeks so much of defeat and desperation).
Maybe submit this to xkcd's 'what-if'?
Maybe submit this to xkcd's 'what-if'?
If the West really cares that much about South Korean civlians, why doesn't North Korea use their threat to extort stuff from the West? Say things like the following:
"Lift the US embargo or we'll kill 15 million South Korean civilians."
"Give us $10 billion a year or we'll kill 15 million people."
"Give us an aircraft carrier or we'll kill 15 million people."
"Give us some better technology or we'll kill 15 million people."
"Give us 10,000 South Koreans to us as slaves every year or we'll kill 15 million of them."
What's stopping North Korea from making these demands?
"Lift the US embargo or we'll kill 15 million South Korean civilians."
"Give us $10 billion a year or we'll kill 15 million people."
"Give us an aircraft carrier or we'll kill 15 million people."
"Give us some better technology or we'll kill 15 million people."
"Give us 10,000 South Koreans to us as slaves every year or we'll kill 15 million of them."
What's stopping North Korea from making these demands?
Well, it has been doing essentially that for decades, and they are getting food and oil 'gifts'.
There is a lot of negotiation by South Korea and USA with North Korea all the time about where exactly the line will be drawn, with all kinds of negotiation chips.
They don't have N * 15 million people.
But they did use the "give us a hundred thousand tons of grain or 100,000 people will starve" tactic pretty effectively thru all the 90-s
But they did use the "give us a hundred thousand tons of grain or 100,000 people will starve" tactic pretty effectively thru all the 90-s
>What's stopping North Korea from making these demands?
That they are an actual country, and not some comic book villain's brotherhood?
I mean, WTF? People in the West really believe those kind of things can be demands or that those kind of BS passes through North Korean people's minds?
That they are an actual country, and not some comic book villain's brotherhood?
I mean, WTF? People in the West really believe those kind of things can be demands or that those kind of BS passes through North Korean people's minds?
Let's remember that several western countries do not want a united Korea either.
Koreans have shown already that they sometimes still think of themselves as one people, with north and south koreans being friendly toward each other and wanting a reunion of the country (the way of the reunion that is the disagreement).
North Korea has the biggest standing army of the world. South Korea also has a huge army.
Also both of them have huge amounts of military equipment.
And finally, Korea in general (both from north and south) and very belligerant, or was at least, in the past, Korea history is filled with wars that they caused, and crazy conquest attempts.
Other asians are still very wary of ethnic Koreans, in Japan for example it is known that while there are several non-japanese citizens, ethinic Koreans rarely get citizenship.
The united Koreas, maybe will just awesomely advance the world technology... Or maybe they will start another crazy war and attempt to conquer Japan or China.
There are several countries that don't want to risk the second option, and thus every time one Korea is losing advantage in the stalemate, that Korea gets some sort of clandestine or official help, in a way to force the stalemate to continue, and the biggest army of the world divided in half and turned into itself.
I am not saying I agree or condone that, but this is how it works.
Koreans have shown already that they sometimes still think of themselves as one people, with north and south koreans being friendly toward each other and wanting a reunion of the country (the way of the reunion that is the disagreement).
North Korea has the biggest standing army of the world. South Korea also has a huge army.
Also both of them have huge amounts of military equipment.
And finally, Korea in general (both from north and south) and very belligerant, or was at least, in the past, Korea history is filled with wars that they caused, and crazy conquest attempts.
Other asians are still very wary of ethnic Koreans, in Japan for example it is known that while there are several non-japanese citizens, ethinic Koreans rarely get citizenship.
The united Koreas, maybe will just awesomely advance the world technology... Or maybe they will start another crazy war and attempt to conquer Japan or China.
There are several countries that don't want to risk the second option, and thus every time one Korea is losing advantage in the stalemate, that Korea gets some sort of clandestine or official help, in a way to force the stalemate to continue, and the biggest army of the world divided in half and turned into itself.
I am not saying I agree or condone that, but this is how it works.
Your entire post feels very ill-informed.
> Let's remember that several western countries do not want a united Korea either.
Name one.
> North Korea has the biggest standing army of the world.
No, it doesn't. The US, China and (India, IIRC) all have larger standing armies.
> Other asians are still very wary of ethnic Koreans, in Japan for example it is known that while there are several non-japanese citizens, ethinic Koreans rarely get citizenship.
This is a poor and complex example. Several quite Japan-specific cultural issues are at play here. It's also not as welcoming to non-Korean foreigners as you seem to imply.
> The united Koreas... maybe they will start another crazy war and attempt to conquer Japan or China.
This is ridiculous.
> ...every time one Korea is losing advantage in the stalemate, that Korea gets some sort of clandestine or official help, in a way to force the stalemate to continue, and the biggest army of the world divided in half and turned into itself.
Aside from the factual inaccuracies ("biggest army of the world"), this feels like a half cooked conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence whatsoever?
> Let's remember that several western countries do not want a united Korea either.
Name one.
> North Korea has the biggest standing army of the world.
No, it doesn't. The US, China and (India, IIRC) all have larger standing armies.
> Other asians are still very wary of ethnic Koreans, in Japan for example it is known that while there are several non-japanese citizens, ethinic Koreans rarely get citizenship.
This is a poor and complex example. Several quite Japan-specific cultural issues are at play here. It's also not as welcoming to non-Korean foreigners as you seem to imply.
> The united Koreas... maybe they will start another crazy war and attempt to conquer Japan or China.
This is ridiculous.
> ...every time one Korea is losing advantage in the stalemate, that Korea gets some sort of clandestine or official help, in a way to force the stalemate to continue, and the biggest army of the world divided in half and turned into itself.
Aside from the factual inaccuracies ("biggest army of the world"), this feels like a half cooked conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence whatsoever?
Division of the Korean peninsula was as a matter of fact a capitalism vs communism thing. Its a cold war baggage.
North Korea was a proxy for the USSR and South Korea a proxy for the US.
US wants a strong presence in the area given how Chinese are growing on the world scene currently. I am not saying that the Kim family are saints, but US is not present in South Korea for charity work. Everyone in the game is for their interests.
North Korea was a proxy for the USSR and South Korea a proxy for the US.
US wants a strong presence in the area given how Chinese are growing on the world scene currently. I am not saying that the Kim family are saints, but US is not present in South Korea for charity work. Everyone in the game is for their interests.
It looks like he got the "biggest standing army" from Active military + Reserve military + Paramilitary. Just sort descending by the "Total" column: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...
It's still a misleading stat, The North Korean stats are essentially a "Total War" stat (as that reservist number is the ~ number of Males). To suggest that any countries are scared of another's simply by it's population is ridiculous. Let alone suggesting that "The West"s combined forces would be intimidated by that...
"Human Wave" [1] Tactics didn't work very effectively in the Korean war, they would work even less in a modern combat theater.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack
"Human Wave" [1] Tactics didn't work very effectively in the Korean war, they would work even less in a modern combat theater.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack
> "Human Wave" [1] Tactics didn't work very effectively in the Korean war, they would work even less in a modern combat theater.
The Chinese were quite successful in the Korean war. But yeah I do not think those tactics would work today.
The Chinese were quite successful in the Korean war. But yeah I do not think those tactics would work today.
You seem to be looking for evidence that this is actually true.
Wasn't speeder explaining why people wouldn't want a united Korea, probably based on faulty assumptions and stupid theories?
Not that I found his comment very convincing anyway but things like this do not have to be true to be the reason for policies.
Wasn't speeder explaining why people wouldn't want a united Korea, probably based on faulty assumptions and stupid theories?
Not that I found his comment very convincing anyway but things like this do not have to be true to be the reason for policies.
The point is that no-one actually has those faulty assumptions. They are make-believe, and thus do not form the basis for any decisions that have been made (or will be made in the future).
Historically societies have based foreign policy on equally or more ridiculous assumptions so I'm not so quick to dismiss the idea of fear, prejudice or historical animosity being a factor.
Regardless, you clearly were not making the point that no one has those faulty assumptions, you were pointing out that they were faulty. That was my entire point.
Regardless, you clearly were not making the point that no one has those faulty assumptions, you were pointing out that they were faulty. That was my entire point.
> Historically societies have based foreign policy on equally or more ridiculous assumptions so I'm not so quick to dismiss the idea of fear, prejudice or historical animosity being a factor.
As a generality, sure. However, "fear of a united Korea" is not a driving factor behind any "Western" plot to keep them divided. It's preposterous to anyone who knows anything about geopolitics in the region.
> Regardless, you clearly were not making the point that no one has those faulty assumptions, you were pointing out that they were faulty. That was my entire point.
You're interpreting my post a little narrowly.
The "assumptions" are faulty to the point of being ludicrous. It's implied that no-one actually believes it to be true.
It's a bit like saying terrorists "hate us for our freedom".
As a generality, sure. However, "fear of a united Korea" is not a driving factor behind any "Western" plot to keep them divided. It's preposterous to anyone who knows anything about geopolitics in the region.
> Regardless, you clearly were not making the point that no one has those faulty assumptions, you were pointing out that they were faulty. That was my entire point.
You're interpreting my post a little narrowly.
The "assumptions" are faulty to the point of being ludicrous. It's implied that no-one actually believes it to be true.
It's a bit like saying terrorists "hate us for our freedom".
> It's a bit like saying terrorists "hate us for our freedom".
Excellent example!
My point is that that preposterous assumption is widely believed by people who vote and is therefore a large factor in foreign policy, even if those who are using it as a talking point have other motivations and don't actually believe it.
Then there are also those that are in office and do believe this kind of stupidity, optimists generally feel these types of politicians "can't exist" because how would they get into office without being smarter than that. As I got older and actually met a decent number of politicians I realized they were normal people who can be just as stupid and confused as the public in general, especially when it's in their interests to believe these things.
Excellent example!
My point is that that preposterous assumption is widely believed by people who vote and is therefore a large factor in foreign policy, even if those who are using it as a talking point have other motivations and don't actually believe it.
Then there are also those that are in office and do believe this kind of stupidity, optimists generally feel these types of politicians "can't exist" because how would they get into office without being smarter than that. As I got older and actually met a decent number of politicians I realized they were normal people who can be just as stupid and confused as the public in general, especially when it's in their interests to believe these things.
I agree in general with what you write here, with a big caveat: Korea is at the cross-roads between China and Japan, and throughout their history have been the battlefield between those two. Most recently, Korea suffered under a long and incredibly oppressive Japanese occupation up to the end of WW2. While Koreans are militarily ahem enthusiastic, it's not that Korea is the crazy man of Asia, prone to belligerence and expansionism. There's a long history there and a lot of justified anger on the part of Korea towards her neighbours.
> it's not that Korea is the crazy man of Asia, prone to belligerence and expansionism.
As a Korean-American, I'd say that's accurate, but it would be more accurate without the phrase after the comma and without the negative in the part before the comma.
As a Korean-American, I'd say that's accurate, but it would be more accurate without the phrase after the comma and without the negative in the part before the comma.
> Let's remember that several western countries do not want a united Korea either.
This might be true of China and Japan -- though I'm not sure I'd call them Western -- but I doubt if any European country would be the least bit bothered.
This might be true of China and Japan -- though I'm not sure I'd call them Western -- but I doubt if any European country would be the least bit bothered.
> Other asians are still very wary of ethnic Koreans, in Japan for example it is known that while there are several non-japanese citizens, ethinic Koreans rarely get citizenship.
Almost ALL Foreigners living in Japan rarely get citizenship in Japan. Havent you been told ? Your example means NOTHING.
As for the crazy conquest/wars started by the Koreans, feel free to substantiate, please. And let me laugh at the idea of Korean conquering Japan/China. Where in the world can they even dream to do so ?
You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.
Almost ALL Foreigners living in Japan rarely get citizenship in Japan. Havent you been told ? Your example means NOTHING.
As for the crazy conquest/wars started by the Koreans, feel free to substantiate, please. And let me laugh at the idea of Korean conquering Japan/China. Where in the world can they even dream to do so ?
You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.
> North Korea has the biggest standing army of the world.
It's big, but not quite biggest according to Wikipedia. Or are you using a more specific definition of "standing army" than the amount of active servicemen? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...
(Just a nitpick though, I appreciate your input.)
It's big, but not quite biggest according to Wikipedia. Or are you using a more specific definition of "standing army" than the amount of active servicemen? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...
(Just a nitpick though, I appreciate your input.)
I think South Koreans don't want the united Korea either (not on the words but in practice).
It will pose a huge burden of organizing and assimilating a huge and a very strange country.
Regular North Koreans will be eager to join but then they won't be so happy in fifteen years seeing how their life quality won't nearly match the "historical south" and only jobs available to most of them will be of low prestige and pay.
Regular North Koreans will be eager to join but then they won't be so happy in fifteen years seeing how their life quality won't nearly match the "historical south" and only jobs available to most of them will be of low prestige and pay.
South Korea has already sunk billions of dollars into trying to help the people of the DPRK without even considering unification, and is promising even more than that in exchange for certain concessions from the government. There are still many families that have yet to be reunited with each other across the border, including parts of my extended family. The Korean War hasn't ended so long ago that there aren't still plenty of people that remember what it was like before this split, or even back to WW2 and earlier.
Nobody is saying unification will be easy for anyone, but they're family members. They were friends. They were neighbors. They are not strangers just because the burden is a lot to shoulder.
Not to mention it's not South Korea blocking the development of North Korean workers at the moment.. there have been attempts to work together (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaesong_Industrial_Region) but between the batshit crazy government up north and everyone else scared shitless of what they can do it's not possible to manufacture and import/export a lot of technology instead of just mass-manufacturing clothing with cheap labor. Pretty frustrating.
Nobody is saying unification will be easy for anyone, but they're family members. They were friends. They were neighbors. They are not strangers just because the burden is a lot to shoulder.
Not to mention it's not South Korea blocking the development of North Korean workers at the moment.. there have been attempts to work together (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaesong_Industrial_Region) but between the batshit crazy government up north and everyone else scared shitless of what they can do it's not possible to manufacture and import/export a lot of technology instead of just mass-manufacturing clothing with cheap labor. Pretty frustrating.
Part of what makes the "wait it out" solution particularly troublesome is that as generations pass, the "hey're family members. They were friends. They were neighbors. They are not strangers" thing will gradually become less and less true.
Right now there are families in which people who were once together are now divided, but those generations are rapidly aging. How many generations can these two groups of people be relatively isolated before those bonds start to falter?
Right now there are families in which people who were once together are now divided, but those generations are rapidly aging. How many generations can these two groups of people be relatively isolated before those bonds start to falter?
South Koreans just want to keep playing Starcraft and League of Legends.
I can't blame them for that. I'm sitting on the couch in a warm room with new year tree and 47" TV right now and I certainly won't want to go outside in the snow and cold to fix the agriculture or restore the order of some remote and unhospitable land.
Also won't want to have my lifestyle degrade because my country suddently have 20 million unproductive mouths to feed.
Also won't want to have my lifestyle degrade because my country suddently have 20 million unproductive mouths to feed.
So to break the stalemate, china would have to invade north korea?
> China likes having North Korea as a buffer state on that border (which is why they intervened the first time)
That seems somewhat similar to the logic that the US used to decide that Vietnam was strategically important; some sort of minor variation on the domino theory.
Interesting to consider it like that.
That seems somewhat similar to the logic that the US used to decide that Vietnam was strategically important; some sort of minor variation on the domino theory.
Interesting to consider it like that.
As I understand it (I could definitely be wrong) China's concern isn't geopolitical but pragmatic: the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the DPRK would be a gigantic flood of refugees into China.
It would be easy to underestimate the importance of "sphere of influence" doctrine to (post) Communist states
Why would it not result in a flood of refugees to S. Korea (ROK)? Unless you're saying that the indoctrination is such that they would rather flee to another (more moderately) centrally-controlled regime versus a free democracy - one that shares their culture (ignoring the most recent 60+ years) and language?
That is how I also understand their position currently, but I'm not sure that makes sense as their reasoning initially before the situation was so extreme (I'm assuming it wasn't, though I suppose war refugees of any sort can present an issue).
The conduct of the war in Vietnam makes it easy to laugh at the notion of "containment", but it made a lot of sense to a generation who had just witnessed the slaughter of WW2.
The Soviets had no warm water ports on the Pacific, and Vietnam was smack the the middle of key US allies and strategic trade routes for rubber and oil. It was a strategic place.
That said. This isn't an excuse for the insanity of US policy in Vietnam from 1945 onwards.
The Soviets had no warm water ports on the Pacific, and Vietnam was smack the the middle of key US allies and strategic trade routes for rubber and oil. It was a strategic place.
That said. This isn't an excuse for the insanity of US policy in Vietnam from 1945 onwards.
Except that North Korea is a bordering country to China (by a land border no less). A little different to Vietnam, not very close to the US.
From my own reading, it seemed that China's involvement was largely due to the Russian, and Chinese push for more "Red States" (which is why they were also involved in Vietnam). There was the notion that Capitalism would fall by the hand of "Global Revolution"...
From my own reading, it seemed that China's involvement was largely due to the Russian, and Chinese push for more "Red States" (which is why they were also involved in Vietnam). There was the notion that Capitalism would fall by the hand of "Global Revolution"...
If Seoul is within range of the DMZ, wouldn't that mean that a first air strike with very heavy gas bombardment would be relatively easy? After all the planes wouldn't have to fly very far and whatever radar NK has is properly a joke, or nonexisting.
The problem with nukes is that it only takes one. One that SK/US intelligence didn't know about and bomb in the first strike.
If a war opened with a surprise attack against that artillery position, could the attack be strong enough to save Seoul?
Does this change if the attackers are allowed to use nuclear weapons?
(This is a strictly academic question. Nuking North Korea seems like a move that'll likely start a war that will end civilization.)
Does this change if the attackers are allowed to use nuclear weapons?
(This is a strictly academic question. Nuking North Korea seems like a move that'll likely start a war that will end civilization.)
As I understand--and please be aware I'm only working off public information here--no. North Korea is well aware they cannot wage a war of aggression nor can they sustain a defensive posture. They've been aware of this for 40+ years and have had time to prepare. Their only effective military option is to make the cost of defeating them so prohibitively high that no nation will dare. To this end they've riddled the mountains near the DMZ with tunnels for logistic resupply and as firing positions. These tunnels admit the movement of men and material out of sight of overhead spy planes and, now, satellites. The DPKR easily has thousands of tunnels at its disposal.
It's entirely possible that the US and its allies have mapped the endpoints of these tunnels and _could_ simultaneously bombard them all, but if even 10% were missed Seoul could be absolutely decimated. (There are reports that South Korean and US special forces make incursions into the North to discover and map tunnels, so I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of unknowns is much higher than 10%.)
Interestingly, if Seoul and other populated areas were to be moved--that is, its 15 million citizens collectively abandoned the city and rebuilt, say, 100 miles away from the DMZ--this strategic advantage of the DPRK would be voided. Ignoring the staggering cost of this, it's probable that the North would view such action as provocation to war and act accordingly.
From the field of possible responses to North Korea it's entirely possible that waiting for it to burn itself out may well be the least costly tactic, measured by unnatural human deaths. That means, of course, that the DPRK's concentration camps and system of repression must be tolerated until such horrors lead to the destruction of the government from internal forces. Personally, I find this morally repugnant and I pity any world leaders that must choose the waiting game.
It's entirely possible that the US and its allies have mapped the endpoints of these tunnels and _could_ simultaneously bombard them all, but if even 10% were missed Seoul could be absolutely decimated. (There are reports that South Korean and US special forces make incursions into the North to discover and map tunnels, so I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of unknowns is much higher than 10%.)
Interestingly, if Seoul and other populated areas were to be moved--that is, its 15 million citizens collectively abandoned the city and rebuilt, say, 100 miles away from the DMZ--this strategic advantage of the DPRK would be voided. Ignoring the staggering cost of this, it's probable that the North would view such action as provocation to war and act accordingly.
From the field of possible responses to North Korea it's entirely possible that waiting for it to burn itself out may well be the least costly tactic, measured by unnatural human deaths. That means, of course, that the DPRK's concentration camps and system of repression must be tolerated until such horrors lead to the destruction of the government from internal forces. Personally, I find this morally repugnant and I pity any world leaders that must choose the waiting game.
The Imnam Dam on the Bukhan River is North Korea's "I win" button. It's holding back roughly 3 BILLION gallons of water and wired with explosives that can be remotely detonated from Pyongyang. If it were to fail or be destroyed Seoul would look like New Orleans within the hour.
The south spent $500 million dollars building the Peace Dam downstream in an attempt to defend against flooding, but it is still a very credible threat.
General consensus of American boots on the ground in South Korea is that the North Koreans will be in Seoul (or what is left of it) within 48 hours. Everyone drills for rapid evac. The picture we like to paint is that they are inept starving fools, but they have been planning and drilling non-stop longer than some other countries have even existed.
The south spent $500 million dollars building the Peace Dam downstream in an attempt to defend against flooding, but it is still a very credible threat.
General consensus of American boots on the ground in South Korea is that the North Koreans will be in Seoul (or what is left of it) within 48 hours. Everyone drills for rapid evac. The picture we like to paint is that they are inept starving fools, but they have been planning and drilling non-stop longer than some other countries have even existed.
Well, the tunnels near the border aren't really an offensive threat to SK, but regardless I'd be willing to bet that technologies like SAR(Synthetic Aperture Radar) and others we don't know about have already been used to map the majority of their tunnels near the border. Considering the massive defense expenditure by the South, I'm equally sure they are keeping close tabs on the activities of the DPRK military in general. I think the real concern is the dam mentioned in another comment combined with boots-on-the-ground invasion, attempting to overwhelm through sheer numbers(would be short-lived as the preparations for which would no doubt be noticed beforehand).
If Seoul installs an Iron Dome-like system similar to Israel(but on a much larger scale) it would render any remaining artillery bombardment from the North mostly ineffective(as SK and US forces would likely hit the majority of their installations very quickly):
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=10007...
If Seoul installs an Iron Dome-like system similar to Israel(but on a much larger scale) it would render any remaining artillery bombardment from the North mostly ineffective(as SK and US forces would likely hit the majority of their installations very quickly):
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=10007...
Absolutely decimated. And the remaining 90% was unscathed.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. You might mean one of two things:
1. There could be some confusion as to what is left undestroyed by 10%. I intended that figure to refer to the DPRK's tunnels, but especially the artillery capable tunnel mouths, not Seoul itself.
2. You may be employing a single definition of 'decimate', namely 'to take a tenth part of, tithe'. I doubt you mean the historical Roman practice of killing every tenth man, chosen by lot, of a legion. I kindly note that 'to destroy a large percentage of' is a a commonly accepted English usage of 'decimate'. It may be the most common usage, especially as knowledge of latin roots is not widespread.
1. There could be some confusion as to what is left undestroyed by 10%. I intended that figure to refer to the DPRK's tunnels, but especially the artillery capable tunnel mouths, not Seoul itself.
2. You may be employing a single definition of 'decimate', namely 'to take a tenth part of, tithe'. I doubt you mean the historical Roman practice of killing every tenth man, chosen by lot, of a legion. I kindly note that 'to destroy a large percentage of' is a a commonly accepted English usage of 'decimate'. It may be the most common usage, especially as knowledge of latin roots is not widespread.
The second one is a pet peeve of mine. For anybody who's familiar with the traditional meaning, the newer meaning is actively confusing, since both mean destruction, but only differ by degree.
Are there really not enough words for destroy/crush/obliterate/etc, that another one needs to be created?
Are there really not enough words for destroy/crush/obliterate/etc, that another one needs to be created?
Isn't it horrible to be surrounded by people who do not notice the evil that goes around them? I mean, the problem is not in the disgusting conditions of the camps, but in the belief that there is a justification to put people in camps anywhere in the world. It is absolutely disgusting that the worse examples of institutionalized violence do not ring any bell in the heads of western people when they have to solve their own problems of violence.
Consider: why is that when we talk about P != NP, everybody needs a super-strong proof on 200 pages, but when it comes to pushing and killing people, it is enough to believe a word of a bunch of random people regarding ethics, democracies, laws etc.
Consider: why is that when we talk about P != NP, everybody needs a super-strong proof on 200 pages, but when it comes to pushing and killing people, it is enough to believe a word of a bunch of random people regarding ethics, democracies, laws etc.
Some problems are hard to solve and some are too hard to solve. It's depressing.
> I don't know what the answer is, but I think hindsight will lead future generations to condemn perceived inaction on our part.
If only.
The Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rowanda, North Korea... History is replete with examples were the current generation know the consequences of inaction of the prior generation, yet did nothing to stop genocide in their generation.
I don't know what would change things, but I have little hope for future generations being motivated by condemning our inaction.
If only.
The Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rowanda, North Korea... History is replete with examples were the current generation know the consequences of inaction of the prior generation, yet did nothing to stop genocide in their generation.
I don't know what would change things, but I have little hope for future generations being motivated by condemning our inaction.
I'm all for action but I think people are cautious for a reason.
There are approximately 20 million brainwashed individuals, a lot of whom have absolutely no idea what the rest of the world is like. They will defend NK to the death if they think they'll be killed not doing it.
If you go there and start a war, which is the only likely way to stop the oppression, do you think we can actually win it?
Incremental political change is the only way to go and the current leadership realise that, but if they change it suddenly, they'll all hang as well.
Don't forget the last Korean war killed a LOT of people.
There are approximately 20 million brainwashed individuals, a lot of whom have absolutely no idea what the rest of the world is like. They will defend NK to the death if they think they'll be killed not doing it.
If you go there and start a war, which is the only likely way to stop the oppression, do you think we can actually win it?
Incremental political change is the only way to go and the current leadership realise that, but if they change it suddenly, they'll all hang as well.
Don't forget the last Korean war killed a LOT of people.
I think we could liberate North Korea by creating a handheld TV/radio that received South Korean and Chinese stations and distributing them inside North Korea. I think the existing regime would change or collapse in a couple of years. It would cost us a couple billion, but we'd get a better return on that investment than a lot of our military expenditures.
On the potential downside, if this were done in the numbers needed to incite revolution, this would be interpreted (correctly) as a foreign attempt to destabilise and change the regime; essentially, interpreted as war through means of inciting revolution. Whatever happens at the point the DPRK authorities realise this would probably be bad news for everyone.
this book could possibly change a bit your utopian view of liberating through radio waves and so. especially the historic examples about communism times in europe.
http://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp/...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jan/09/net-delusion-mor...
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/books/review/Siegel-t.htm...
http://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp/...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jan/09/net-delusion-mor...
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/books/review/Siegel-t.htm...
They have TVs, video tape players, DVD players and smuggle enough South Korean TV shows and films.
It does help to educate them about the world around them but not much else.
It does help to educate them about the world around them but not much else.
I think you're possibly overestimating the extent foreign media has proliferated throughout North Korea.
It's true that some families do have televisions; but they're only issued to the most trusted families as gifts from the State and are tuned to only government broadcasts which are heavily censored and controlled.
Regarding increased smuggling from China, you really cannot extrapolate widespread proliferation from the western press published regarding the crackdowns on the smuggling by the government.
Punishment for possessing smuggled devices is so draconian that most people privileged enough to live in Pyongyang (only ~10% of the population) wouldn't risk their lives or that of their families. Electricity is also tenuous in Pyongyang so I think it's reasonable to assume that the situation is orders of magnitude worse throughout the rest of the country where the government invests much less in infrastructure.
It's true that some families do have televisions; but they're only issued to the most trusted families as gifts from the State and are tuned to only government broadcasts which are heavily censored and controlled.
Regarding increased smuggling from China, you really cannot extrapolate widespread proliferation from the western press published regarding the crackdowns on the smuggling by the government.
Punishment for possessing smuggled devices is so draconian that most people privileged enough to live in Pyongyang (only ~10% of the population) wouldn't risk their lives or that of their families. Electricity is also tenuous in Pyongyang so I think it's reasonable to assume that the situation is orders of magnitude worse throughout the rest of the country where the government invests much less in infrastructure.
As far as I understand you can buy an used chinese TV set or DVD player. It's legal. It costs thru the nose, but if the family has means of income (the most common way is small business/trading on the market) it can be done. People are also very social so they manage to catch a glimpse.
The punishment may be draconian but I guess you can reliably evade it by the means of a small bribe.
Pyongyang is kind of special but also nothern regions usually have some niceties due to their proximity to Chinese border (and therefore trade/smuggled goods).
I'm basically parrotting a blogger that writes a lot about both Koreas so I might be not entirely accurate. http://tttkkk.lj.ru/
The punishment may be draconian but I guess you can reliably evade it by the means of a small bribe.
Pyongyang is kind of special but also nothern regions usually have some niceties due to their proximity to Chinese border (and therefore trade/smuggled goods).
I'm basically parrotting a blogger that writes a lot about both Koreas so I might be not entirely accurate. http://tttkkk.lj.ru/
Thanks for the "translation" then! Wouldn't mind to read more.
He writes for Western media occassionally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Lankov
Look up the articles from the "external links" section, a lot of interesting stuff there. Googling might help too.
How about solar charging low power devices with e-ink screens? (Also have an option of running on batteries?) Maybe have them capable of receive-only from a satellite and a radio that only turns on once a day to save juice. These could support a number of feed channels.
Radios are still way cheaper.
Radios are still way cheaper.
The device you're describing would be both very illegal and not very useful as an entertainment device. And that's what people want in any country.
> would be both very illegal and not very useful as an entertainment device.
Imagine being trapped somewhere you have no Internet. Then a fellow traveler lets you borrow something like a Kindle, which has a color screen and the ability to search for subscribe to any RSS feed. Now imagine what it would like to be a native who never had real Internet access and then get such a device.
There's still much more bang for buck for Radio and The Voice of America.
Imagine being trapped somewhere you have no Internet. Then a fellow traveler lets you borrow something like a Kindle, which has a color screen and the ability to search for subscribe to any RSS feed. Now imagine what it would like to be a native who never had real Internet access and then get such a device.
There's still much more bang for buck for Radio and The Voice of America.
Imagine a North Korean in his thirties. He's a citisen of a paternalistic state. He mostly wants to get by, then entertainment and no trouble.
For him, Internet is a very abstract thing and RSS means nothing. And you won't be able to supply a reliable connectivity.
And anyway (s)he's at the cultural stage where one (moving) picture is worth a thousand words. Consider South Korean news feed (North Koreans don't know any other language) - 95% of topics would seem abstract and arcane.
And anyway (s)he's at the cultural stage where one (moving) picture is worth a thousand words. Consider South Korean news feed (North Koreans don't know any other language) - 95% of topics would seem abstract and arcane.
> Imagine a North Korean in his thirties.
Reduces your point almost to straw an level right there. You don't try to reach him. You go for the young people. You don't sell such devices, you make sure they wash up on the shore or get smuggled in through China. It's the (mid) 21st century equivalent to propaganda pamphlets.
> For him, Internet is a very abstract thing and RSS means nothing.
Of course it doesn't. Just show him the screen. Hell, the things would be heavily used for porn anyhow.
> And you won't be able to supply a reliable connectivity.
Remember I said satellite. Or are you saying that the North Koreans would jam the signal? This could be worked around. For one thing, it would be very hard to jam a spread spectrum signal. Also, you can have the device figure out the jamming has happened and have it listen on a separate channel for information on how switch to the next signal. All of this could be reverse engineered, but the state of the art has it possible to delay the reversing might of the whole internet for an entire year. The NK government would probably take two years, by which time, you're distributing the next version.
> And anyway (s)he's at the cultural stage where one (moving) picture is worth a thousand words.
E-ink screens are capable of video, though this would kill the battery.
> Consider South Korean news feed (North Koreans don't know any other language) - 95% of topics would seem abstract and arcane.
For many, especially the young, that would be an attraction.
(mid) - But like I said earlier, you still get much better bang for the buck with radio. However, you can take the time when price point of such technology becoming inexpensive enough to be practical to manufacture and fling these as propaganda or marketing tools as the time limit for oppressive regimes.
Reduces your point almost to straw an level right there. You don't try to reach him. You go for the young people. You don't sell such devices, you make sure they wash up on the shore or get smuggled in through China. It's the (mid) 21st century equivalent to propaganda pamphlets.
> For him, Internet is a very abstract thing and RSS means nothing.
Of course it doesn't. Just show him the screen. Hell, the things would be heavily used for porn anyhow.
> And you won't be able to supply a reliable connectivity.
Remember I said satellite. Or are you saying that the North Koreans would jam the signal? This could be worked around. For one thing, it would be very hard to jam a spread spectrum signal. Also, you can have the device figure out the jamming has happened and have it listen on a separate channel for information on how switch to the next signal. All of this could be reverse engineered, but the state of the art has it possible to delay the reversing might of the whole internet for an entire year. The NK government would probably take two years, by which time, you're distributing the next version.
> And anyway (s)he's at the cultural stage where one (moving) picture is worth a thousand words.
E-ink screens are capable of video, though this would kill the battery.
> Consider South Korean news feed (North Koreans don't know any other language) - 95% of topics would seem abstract and arcane.
For many, especially the young, that would be an attraction.
(mid) - But like I said earlier, you still get much better bang for the buck with radio. However, you can take the time when price point of such technology becoming inexpensive enough to be practical to manufacture and fling these as propaganda or marketing tools as the time limit for oppressive regimes.
[deleted]
Smuggling firearms by the tens of thousands would do a lot more good.
This has reminded me to go back and re-read Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Day_in_the_Life_of_Ivan_Den...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-Denisovich-Penguin-Modern-Class...
http://www.shmoop.com/ivan-denisovich/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Day_in_the_Life_of_Ivan_Den...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-Denisovich-Penguin-Modern-Class...
http://www.shmoop.com/ivan-denisovich/
I'm reading the Gulag Archipelago right now. In it he says that many Russian authorities were actually relieved when they read Ivan Denisovich, because the all new of prison camps with conditions far worse than those depicted in the novel.
Indeed the conditions described in the novel were more unpleasant than horrid (if I remember right). My favorite section though was regarding day light savings time. Ivan estimates the time based on the position of the sun and is corrected by one of his fellow inmates that high noon is no longer noon as per "Soviet Decree."
Gulag by Anna Applebaum is a good gulag history too.
I also recommend to read "The Kolyma tales" by Varlam Shalamov:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kolyma_Tales
http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-Twentieth-Century-Classics-ebo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kolyma_Tales
http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-Twentieth-Century-Classics-ebo...
Another story about life in prison and subsequent escape
http://www.dailynk.com/english/sub_list_last.php?page=1&...
What I found most remarkable was that despite NK's best efforts at total and complete isolation of the prisoners -- Shin was born into the camp and knew nothing of the outside world -- the human soul still inherently wants to be free. You can "nurture" a miserable existence all you want but it won't keep.
And in the end, what cracked the walls of the prison (metaphorically speaking) was an outsider with nothing more than stories.
No wonder dictatorships fear things like free speech and dissidents. Even the slightest hint of a better place (through words alone) can start the chain reaction.