https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chollima_Movement
Citation #2 points to a book that collates many sources. Here's what it has to say:
Wikipedia is just a collection of opinions laundered by loosely-relevant citations appearing next to them (or in this case, completely irrelevant ones).
before you even consider the existence of intelligence service action in wikipedia you have to consider that, for every 10 well intentioned and knowledgeable persons online you have one insane person from a terminally nationalist country who has a bone to pick. that one person will crowd out everyone else by sheer sockpuppetry and persistence.
try editting something that is even tangentially connected to the balkans and you'll lose your mind.
Croatian wikipedia got infested with fascists to the point that the Ministry of Education issued a recommendation to not use it for educational purposes.
The irony is that framing economics in “rational” and “ideological” schools is itself an ideological incentive for the “rational” schools; you need to work hard in your job because it’s the rational, logical thing to do.
"Objectivism" and its consequences.
Just a bunch of bow-tie nerds running around waging their fingers at you, because you did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
The article is peppered with kernels of divine knowledge such as "The Kim Il Sung-directed economy undoubtedly needed alterations. Kim Il Sung however, had no economists who were willing or able to tell him that his economic plans needed to be changed."
The citation this time is by an author from the RAND corporation and the Institute for Defense Analyses, whose parents fled from the north in 1945.
vuvuzela no economists.
A friend of mine who works in DC suggested that if I wanted to really learn about the conflict in Korea, I should pick up a copy of Andrei Lankov's The Real North Korea: Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia. I'm leafing through the first couple of chapters, and I mention "Hey, it looks like he just breezes over the Bodo League massacre as the inciting incident of the war, what gives?" My DC friend had never heard of the Bodo League, the slaughter of around 200,000 Korean dissidents, or the response from the North.
As I pick further into the book, I note similar historical skips and stumbles. As I'm raising these points, I get more and more push back, because I'm supposed to be learning about the conflict not teaching it. That ends up being the end of our discussion on the topic.
How dare you already know more on the topic than the one book I read that told me dprk evil no food
shrug
This is where every leftist/liberal conversation tends to break down. At some point, you're going to say "Yeah, but what about..." or dismiss a source as nakedly embellished/untrue. And then the real argument devolves into "Who do you trust to do the leg work on primary sources?"
That's where the real divide emerges.
It pretty much always comes down to this, and because of the century of red scare that preceded us we are always on the disadvantaged side regarding the amount of good truthful sources that are in a language you can understand.
They can always pull the "goverment lies" card but when we do they scuff at us because we're apparently mindwashed by the USSR or some local communist org
the Bodo League massacre as the inciting incident of the war
Do you have a soviet/communist source I could read that frames it this way? I'm struggling to find something like this.
I think Blowback Season 3 gets into it. They cover the war end-to-end. I can't even remember what podcast went into it first... TrueAnon or maybe Lions Led by Donkeys... The Dollup?
It was so long ago, I honestly can't recall.
Lankov is very lib, but he wasn't yet caught at lying, just omission and selective emphasis, which is better than most liberal historians. Among Russian specialists on Korea Asmolov is the better one.
Also, Lankov currently works in South Korean university, so it additionally distorts the picture.
he wasn't yet caught at lying, just omission and selective emphasis,
I don't know about straight up lying, but at any point in which the historical record was slightly murky - most notably, in the early chapters, when there is some confusion as to whether Kim Sung Il or Stalin is calling the shots - Lankov consistently reaches for conclusions that belittle the Koreans and question their capacity for anything but cruelty.
Also, Lankov currently works in South Korean university, so it additionally distorts the picture.
The pitch I got was "He's a former Soviet, so he's not coming at Korea with a Western bias".
But Ayn Rand was also a former Soviet.
Also just the lack of context in the quote as if NK was like okay were communist now time to work in the 24/7 mines ceeceeepee 1984 style, it definitely wasnt the absolute devastation the war brought
We need an army of Coffmans.
https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/
They didn't even need the "er" after "hard" in the quote, it exists only to make the unnecessary quote wrong
Stakhanovite movement was chiefly about bottom-up approach to efficiency in production, not "work hard because of ideology" movement. You can't just string together socialist words and pretend that it's a valid sentence.
