Korea as of 2010

So I'm guessing we're settled on a unification. I like the idea of North Korea getting pummelled by Chinese refugees and eventually abandoning conquest of the south in exchange for aid. The south had been campaigning for democracy for a while so they would want a democratic government, while the leaders of the north would want communist. Maybe settling for a federal system, giving the north and south regions autonomy, with the federal government responsible for defense and foreign policy. Kaesong would be designated the federal capital due to historical significance, and its central location. Regional autonomy would allow some measure of heavy socialism in the north, without violating the constitution, and allow the south its capitalist ideals. Initially this deal would seem fine to the north but as time goes on and the south prospers more it would eventually begin shifting economically.
I agree that Chun is probably dead. in fact, I would dare say that most of the South Korean National leadership dies in the attacks. As I wrote, south Korea would be one of the first nations hit due to its proximity, and it gets pounded. I see the south falling into the hands of the military. North Korea, on the Other hand, is one of the few nations with an Ideal warning, deliverred in the form of the detonations in South Korea being visible all over the Penisula. I have Kim Il survive the attack. However, the military might of the south might would still be enought, and eventually I see the above mentioned senario, with perhaps more military intervension. A Corperate take over could be possible, but I think it would be a slow de facto effect of highly localized government being dwarfed locally by the coorperations. And the North-South split should still be there. Desert viking 14:21, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of talking in maps--- though I'm thinking a little more upheaval... kind of like this:
Redrawn koren administrative zones
North Korea would have to loose a lot of land before unifying, and the northern border would be a pain to defend, the battle zone would
Korean political zones OCT 83
be differently administered, and the nuclear "dead Zones" are larger than aboveDesert viking 18:49, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the North would lose that much of the Northeast, most of the strikes and population of china would have been along the coast, and the northern border is mostly mountains, so most of the refugees would be concentrated to the west. The map I posted is more of a "Korea today" map. Yours looks would be accurate at the time of unification, leading up to my map in modern day Korea.Oerwinde 19:15, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

here is a new map modified to your recomendations. I noticed the incrediable proximity of Vladistok to North Korea, and changed the map to account for more sea driven conquest I like the Idea of a federation, though I would give each province a great degree of independence, not just the two former nations. I must admit though, I'm not sure that the "modern map should have Pyongyang as an "emergancy zone"--unless of course the strategy was just to contain the area-- but I see Korea being very agressive against "barbarians" meaning those without a nation and putting an emphasis on border maintainance. They must also find a place for the Chinese to stay once the mauraders are driven out. the Harsher part of me says to drop them off in Japan or whatever that Island to the south is. Camps are also an option, but temporary, and as the dominant political force will be nationalism, the Chinese will have difficulty assimilating. Also, the Koreans must draw the line somewhere.

I just had the areas still overrun with refugees and the nuked sites as emergency zones. I didn't feel like carving up the Pyongyang so I just filled in the whole administrative zone. So the Pyongyang emergency zone would be smaller. I figure reconstruction of the nuked sites would go on the backburner while the federal government is established and the refugee situation is contained.
New map is good. Having the south affected by the refugee problem as well gives more reason why the south would join forces with the north. The south island is Jeju, its heavily populated already. Possibly the refugees could be forced northward, and a new border fence type thingy could be built since the north/south border would not need to be manned anymore. The refugees could be used as something of a slave labor force for reconstruction. A select number are allowed entry to work on the reconstruction of various sites and are promised citizenship and a residence once reconstruction is completed. Others are shot on site if attempting to cross the fence.Oerwinde 08:28, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

I like the flag, where did you get the idea (its a little counter to the old south korean "ying and yang", but whatever, I assume it expresses unity) Just documenting some of my steps here--- south Korea's rice imports in OTL peaked at over 2 million tons of rice in 1981, then dramatically dropped to around 0 in 1984. I was worried about food before for the korean people, but with the loss of life from the bombing, I don't think it will be an issue.--- though the North Korean loss of land could change that. Also-- what happened to the american soldiers? most of them would be gone, but would they attach themselves to a group? would they become reclusive and set up some fort somewhere and sit in it? I also think we might get some US soldiers from Japan leaving the decidedly anti-american island. what do you thinkDesert viking 16:29, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

The flag is a bit of a combo of the North Korean and South Korean flags, only instead of a taegeuk, it has a sam-taegeuk. Where the red stands for earth, the blue stands for heaven, and the yellow stands for humanity. I believe the major agricultural area of North Korea is near the south Korean border, but I'm not entirely sure. Food will still likely be a major issue, even though S.Korea loses about a third of its population. While the US Navy, Airforce, and the leadership of the army were all taken out, its major troop concentration I think was still along the border, so they would either join up with the South Koreans, or evacuate to Australia.Oerwinde 18:14, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

but which one? in the beggining they will feel that it is their duty to keep on fighting, and the south korean generals will beg them to stay to continue the fight. It will be fairly difficult for them to get out unless a ship is sent for them or they make contact and find out where to go. On the other hand, They will be alone in a land where they don't speak the language, with no real "home" remaining, and may feel betrayed by the unification under what could be percieved as Kim Il-sung's leadership. I suppose what they will do depends on contact with the outside. If they fall under the command of a strong leader, they could end up forming a colony in on of the central provinces or on an Island. If they remain led by individual leaders, they will get out if they can find out where to go, or form a special division in the Korean Army. I don't think they would assimilate though. Even if they all ended up marrying locally, the resulting community would still hold together and have a peculiar flavor. If they end up staying, They will probably be joined by the US troops in Japan.

Initially I think they would stick with the S. Korean military, and likely aid in reconstruction for the first while. Possibly late 80's they find out about the American Provisional Administration in Australia, and some choose to stay, while others choose to leave. Or if they don't discover it until after it disbands in 1994, more would stay as they would have established a life in Korea by then. It takes approx 6 months to become fluent in a language when immersed in it, so within a couple years those who don't already speak Korean will.Oerwinde 20:42, January 30, 2010 (UTC)


so far we have run Korea under a federal government. I haven't stated this, but I've been assuming the general commitee has 2 delegates per province, giving us 44 delagates: 16 for the North, 10 for the cities (who I imagine acting as a unit politically), 6 for the generals (of which two are northern votes, but act independent of Kim Il-sung on ocasion), and 12 delegates loyal to the old south Korean Autocracy. I worked out that nine votes from the delgates would select one member of the executive council, where the real power lay: two from the north, one each from the cities and the south Korean old structure, and a constantly changing member that the more independent middle generals and the rest of the south worked out amoung themselves, sometimes affected by a spare North Korean province. Are you planning on changing this stucture and centralizing, or reforming on a more regional level?Desert viking 22:43, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Originally I was going to do 4 levels of administration, Federal, Regional(North/South), Provincial, and Municipal. Basically the same as US/Canada divisions with the addition of Regional. When looking up Kim Il-sung and seeing that OTL he died of a heart attack in 94, it screwed up my idea for why the regional level was created in the first place. I don't see a reason for it anymore, so I was thinking just a federal level, responsible for common national laws, defense, and foreign relations. This would have an elected senate, leader of the ruling party being the consul, and an elected president. Provincial level would have a provincial assembly and elected provincial governor. Municipal would be standard mayor/city council, and differ depending on the municipality.Oerwinde 23:01, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

how..... boring. Not the first Idea, but the second--- the same old system that everyone has. sorry if that came out wrong. yes, it makes it more likely than any other given system, but the system is one that has a heavy western history, and I wonder if the new government would follow the same form without western prodding. though I must admit, mine simply makes everything bulky by turning a selected consul and an elected president with a five man "executive council". I see the new country as still very different in its different areas, and slow to make one man "head" of Korea. I do agree that they would write a new constitution though, historically when Korea changes presidents it gets a new constitution (meaning south Korea, seeing as the north has had but two). there will also probably be a good deal of change to make the other areas look like each other as well. also, would they keep the two per province system for the senate or go to a more population oriented system? I think they would switch to population, but that's just an ideaDesert viking 23:31, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

I went with the western style system because thats what I know and didn't want to get too creative with a governing system. If you want to go ahead and do something different thats fine. Oerwinde 04:43, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Research repository

this section is for the storage of research for this page:

Current reported South Korean Troops strength: 650,000 active duty, 3 million reserve

US Korean troop strength in 1987: 43,000

Current active North Korean Troop Strength: 700,000

Desert viking 21:33, January 30, 2010 (UTC)


I was wondering how you would incorporate any sort of meeting or relationship with Siberia, seeing as that Korea and the USSR share a close border. The Siberian article also mentions, before I started writing on the article, that the Siberians had established some bases stretching all the way down to North Korea. I was wondering what your take was on the situation. What kind of relationship would these two nations have now?--Vladivostok 08:51, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

well, from what I understood of maps and such, siberia had a presence in but not control of the southern part of manchuria. I think that unofficially at least, there are going to be mixed feelings, particuarly as Korea is the succesor state to both north and south Korea. A good part of the population is going to blame the USSR for bombing their country, and also for causing the refuge problem,while siberia could look upon the North Koreans as traitors. However, I also think that their will also be some good feelings left over from north Korea. In both cases, the situation would be heavily modified by Korean Nationalism. however, I don't see a huge amount of immediate tension between the two, seeing as neither nations is able to control southern manchuria, the USSR does not currently claim Korea, and The size and experience of the Korean military would make the contest long and difficult, particuarly with the supply lines that must run over the ocean or through manchuria. I don't think I quite have the feel of siberia though, so I'll need to read thatDesert viking 14:15, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

I would expect that the Korean-Siberian relations would be a more intensive version of the Siberian-Tibetian relations (friendly-respected, main trading partners). Additionaly, they would work together to solve the "Chinese question". Obviously, it is a big issue in Korea and the post-DD USSR is essentially the PRC successor state in Northeast China. How about a joint Korean-Siberian military intervention to restore order in the parts of Manchuria and Russian Far East outside of the new USSR? Grand Prince Paul II. 14:51, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

You do make a valid point Paul, the Chinese influx would probably force the USSR and Korea to work closer together. However, Desert viking also makes a good point. There would be some anymosity between them, at least at first, lets say the eighties. Perhaps the initial anymosity could be a catalyst for the Koreans to stop thinking about the north-south rift. I'd be glad to incorporate the first meeting between the two nations into the history of Siberia, as soon as the article becomes canon.--Vladivostok 19:41, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
In southern Korea many people would certainly have negative feelings towards the Siberians, but I simple do not expect them to last for some reasons. Grand Prince Paul II. 22:36, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I've made this clear, but the are deffinately concerned about the Chinese. However, I don't think they would accept siberia as the successor to china, and would probably treat the claims as a joke, as in "Why can't you keep YOUR people out". this aside, I do think that they would trade soon after contact, whenever that may be--- I was actually thinking that would be pretty early on, due to location. The two nations would here about each other via rumors through manchuria. As I see it, the Korean-Siberian relationship would be subject to swings according to politics--- however, there would be a good deal of freindly respect (apart from jokes about the claims to china). I think permament contact would be made in say 1986?Desert viking 05:45, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I do not expect that the new USSR would claim to be the successor state of PRC when they first contact the Koreans, but when the USSR will be starting to claim former PRC territory and even annex the northern corners of the former PRC, the Koreans will hardly deny the fact that the USSR is the successor state of PRC in the part of China next to the Korean Union and treat them accordingly. Grand Prince Paul II. 22:36, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I guess the point is that Siberia DOESN'T control the area of China next to Korea, It controls regions farther north, with scattered bases throughout Manchuria-- also, the ruins of Bejing are close by sea to Korea-- as close as siberian mancuria is, as far as I can tell. Also, while the Koreans know perfectly well that the USSR attacked China in the war. the only real claim siberia has on china is conquest, which from the Korean's point of view, is far from accomplished, even the parts around Korea. This will particularly be important if the two nations work together on the "Chineese Question".Desert viking 01:35, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I must not have seen the replies. The 1986 meeting would work fine and is a reasonable date. I didn't realize that the Koreans claimed any part of China, or did I miss that in the discussion? I any case, I agree with the stronger relationship later on. I'd like to just throw an idea out there: Would the Koreans be a part of the CSTO when it forms, not necessarily, perhaps an observer or a regional partner. Like Yugoslavia and its role in the COMECON, for example--Vladivostok 22:27, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
Korea may start to claim Korean-settled territories of former China like Yanbian after they regained the control in all recognized, refugees-overrun Korean territories. Regarding the CSTO-question; I think the Koreans are too focused on their independency to join the CSTO but being observer or regional partner seems plausible. Both sides have common threats, hostile survivor states in former China and Japan.Grand Prince Paul II. 22:48, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
Fell, that's settled then. As soon as it's graduated I'll update Siberia and the CSTO alliance, as soon as it is formally created,of course.--Vladivostok 19:28, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

The Economy

In your article you state that "the Korean economy found itself producing the wrong goods for the wrong markets." How is this? Heavily industrialized even in the early eighties, South Korea was producing machinery and clothing for much of the civilized world. It's largest markets (Japan and the US) were destroyed, but they would have inherited the markets that those very competive markets had previously had. If it had not been for the period of war -- which South Korea ended up winning in TTL -- those markets would have opened up a lot quicker.

The government that ended up ruling the peninsular was far more in tune with the democracies of the pacific rim than with the communism of Siberia, so I don't see how Siberia would become Korea's primary trading partner. Instead the ANZC would have moved quickly to provide of its vast resources (in Australia) and the resource rich SAC would likewise be a willing trade partner. The fact that Siberia is nearby, and thus a handy partner, does not outweigh the large difference in ideology -- at least in the beginning. After a while, of course, the Siberian leader does make moves toward international trade, but even then he is working mostly with those of like political minds.SouthWriter 03:37, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

well, the way TTL is set up, widespread contact doesn't happen until the early 90's, marked by the famous voyage of the Benjamin Franklin. this means that through the 80's, the only possible partner is...Siberia, which is rich in natural resources, while Korea has more industrial power than it needs-- or indeed can afford. I'm assuming that global trade routes are disrupted, which means that the things Korea is trading all these manufactured foods for are cut off, and Korea is caught producing the wrong goods, in the short run. In the long run, it will give Korea a major boost into the civilized world, but not until each nation has learned to produce the things other nations used to produce for it. So eventually Korea will have lots of Partners, but the Origonal networks, seven years earlier and hundreds of miles shorter, are with siberia.

Ideology--- I need to make this clearer, and I'm not sure if this is my project or a group project that I just happen to write most of (and not the democratic takeover in 1998,after trade patterns are becoming a little better established), but Korea's politics is subject to swings (lots of them), and different areas harbor different Ideologies. (Of particular notice are the Federal Cities). They are also wary of joining blocks of nations. One principle that holds the Koreans together is a refusal to side with one power over the other, and they are somewhat paranoid of reviving the old North-South Split.Desert viking 04:01, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

While the South would favor trade with the ANZC and SAC, the north would favor trade with Siberia, so staying neutral economically would be ideal. If it came down to having to choose though, economically it would make more sense to side with the SAC and ANZC as the market is larger.Oerwinde 07:49, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Korea would chose neither side. The SAC market is larger (ANZC's trading importance for Korea is more questionable) but rather remote and offer less ressources for Korea. Grand Prince Paul II. 07:59, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
ANZC's trading importance would be large. It would be a major market for manufactured goods. Siberia may have a larger population, but communist policies mean lower disposible income for the populace. I think Taiwan would be a major economic partner for Korea. Oerwinde 08:08, February 9,
2010 (UTC)

Seeing this arcticle is in neglect, can I be the caretaker for this arcticle for the time being? It has alot of potential, as well as other articles which are made and then never edited again, but since the Korean peninsula was often viewed as a dangerous reigon due to the presence of North Korea, and viewed as a hopeful economic power in the area of South Korea, I believe that a very interesting story can be written up here. Arstarpool 15:08, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool--- this article doesn't have one primary author. my name shows up the most in the edits, but this article was very litterally argued into being. different people have different ideas about what Korea should be doing. Orewinde is the second most proliffic writer, and he pushed the nation in a south Korea direction. I have pushed it in a North Korea direction. The CareTaker of Siberia has done his best to nudge it towards being a satalite of that nation. This is the "Middle Course" nation we have ended up with. feel free to add, but please respect the feel that we have given it so far. A couple of particular points:

  1. Korea is neither pro nor anti communist. Different Regions vary an incredible amount, and no one political party has the power to do much.
  2. Korea is anti-foreigner. They will resist joining political blocks, though trade is wide spread. The main thing they will enter is trade agreements and anti-chineese military collilation.
  3. This is not the Korea we have today. North Korea is very much a part of it, and if anything, weathered Doomsday better than the south.

I'm glad you like this article though, and if you really want to watch over it and add to it and protect it from foreign aggression and conniving (ha ha), do so. I think the main reason it hasn't been growing is that we feel that basics are done. I do try to keep an eye on here, particuarly to make sure that siberia or the ANZC doesn't try and turn it into a puppet (and they have)

but go ahead, have fun, bring the Korean Union to life.Desert viking (sorry, this is just copy and paste, so no time signature)

So, my plot to take over Korea was that aparant? Dammit! Well, I guess it's back to the drawing board for me.;-)--Vladivostok 16:57, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Politics and parties

This is the first I've actually read this page, and I love it! A very realistic transition to democracy and unification. The process was messy and incomplete, but turned out OK... just like real life! It's one of those really good althist pieces that follow completely logical steps but end up someplace totally unexpected. The one thing that feels missing is what happened to the Communists and Communisn: the legendary North Korean propaganda machine probably left a lot of people who still believed in Communism, despite the new democratic structure. At the very least I'd expect the Commies to be a significant political party, like OTL India or Germany. 17:44, February 9, 2010 (UTC) (Benkarnell)

They would likely be important provincial parties in the north. Possibly forming the government in a couple of the provinces, while federally the Socialist party would get the majority of the votes in the north.Oerwinde 18:29, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Back to your evil lair Vlad! Here's hoping that your next "evil" scheme will pay off!

Yankovic270 17:17, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

You said it Yank, back to Skullcrusher Mountain(cough-cough, vague pop-culture reference). But in all honesty, as a newly dubbed evil Overlord, I'm torn between a evil, Pinky-esque villain or a more suave Don Corleone-type of criminal. Ok, now I'll stop ranting before it starts getting silly.=)--Vladivostok 17:32, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Independant Jeju

Here's some food for thought: What if the Koreans allowed Jeju to declare idependance? It's filled to the brim with people (Chinese, Japanese, Americans) that the uber-nationalist government (apparently) wants nothing to do with. 03:25, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Its population is still mostly Korean, it just has a large chinese minority as well as a sizeable American one. This blend of cultures would make Jeju a ripe area for economic development. While the foreign presence there makes the ultra nationalistic government not want to grant it provincial status, the economic and cultural benefit of it would make it valuable to the government. Once the global economy stabilizes it would likely be a major tourist destination for Korea.Oerwinde 08:15, February 8, 2011 (UTC)


In the ethnic section of the info box, may I suggest that you replace "American troops" with "American".

Enclavehunter 00:07, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting Korean Names

I'm Korean, and I edited the strange name(somethin' like 'Korean Language Union?') to current name. Korean is very complicated language, and translation from english is also very complicated. The name, 'Union of Korean Peoples', could have various translations.

Close translations are, '한국인 연합국 - '국' means Sovereign State in Korean.(國 in Chinese.) It's presence is like difference with 'European Union' and 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.' So, current name is 'Korean state + people's union' or somethin' in english.

'조선 인민 연합국' - Joseon is official name of North Korea(조선민주주의 인민공화국) in Korean language. It refers to old dynasty of Korea. Also, there were suggested name of united Korea by North Korea, '고려 연방 공화국' - Federal Republic of Korea, but could be 'United Korea'. The name Korea itself has came from '고려', 'Goryeo', So '고려 인민 연합국' is possible. Also, 'Peoples, People's Republic', usually used as 'Socialist-Communist governments. meaning Chinese 人民. That's why we dont use 'Korean Peoples' usually. North Korea's official name has 'People's Republic...'

'한민족 연합' - '민족' means ethinic group. Korea has very low ethnical presence of foreign people, especially during 1980's.

'대한 인민 연합국' - Suggested before, current South Korean official name is Republic of Korea in english, but '대한민국' in Korean. It's more closer translation is actually  'Greater Korean Republic', but 'Greater' is actually never used.

Leemys2004 (talk) 05:24, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

...The translations of those Korean names you've come up with aren't even close in meaning to the name of this nation. Your logic and argument doesn't, either. Lordganon (talk) 10:29, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, LG, but my logic also going indifferent with Lee. I think the use of "Hanguk", instead of "Daehan" will be ridiculous since "Daehan", or just simply "Han", is a demonym of Korea in Korean language. This case exactly similar with my own act when I edited the page of Bahasa Confederation one years ago because "Bahasa" referred to the Indonesian language, instead to the nation or the country itself. FirstStooge (talk) 11:17, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

...What on earth are you going on about? I realize that English isn't your native language, but you're saying two very different things in that post. Doesn't make any sense, FS. Lordganon (talk) 11:52, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

I think what he means is the google translate version of Union of Korean Peoples gave us the translation of Korean Language, rather than Korean as an ethnicity. So to a Korean it would look like Union of Korean Language Peoples. Which is a stupid name. When it gets translated into english, it just says Korean, since we use the word to describe the people, culture, and language, while in korean they would have 3 different words.Oerwinde (talk) 20:06, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

FS is correct, to a degree. Hanguk is the informal name of Korea, but a better name would be Daehan. Flag of South Korea PitaKang- (We are the Emperor's Chosen|Ave Imperator!) 20:10, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

Also, Lee is correct. Those names do mean "Union of Korean Peoples" And they're better than the current name. Flag of South Korea PitaKang- (We are the Emperor's Chosen|Ave Imperator!) 20:11, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

...I really need to remember to not use simple arguments around here.

The original name, upon examination, was even odder than "Lee" indicates - one of the words can even be used to mean "English" as well as "Korean." Some sort of obvious generalized term for language, by the looks of it.

If you looks at FS's post, the majority of it is entirely irrelevant. And the remainder doesn't seem much better. Really, it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with the matter at hand.

Something you all have not noticed is that "Lee" doesn't seem to have looked at the article beyond the top of the infobox. A fair portion of what he's said in that post is wholly negated by it. Much of the remainder seems to be biased, at least to some degree.

The name of the Korean state - Union of Korean Peoples - does not mean what he thinks. Simply put, look at the history, and it's obvious. A short glance at how this formed would show you that. And, for that matter, there is large - for the region, anyways - Chinese and American minorities in Korea now, atl.

The word "Peoples" does not indicate what he thinks it does. None of his suggestions are, as a result, close. The third especially so.

Lordganon (talk) 11:01, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

I have a new suggestion of Union of Korean People. In real history, Kim Ill-sung actually proposed Koryo Federation (고려 연방) as one of method to reunite Korean people. In this timeline, Korea was reunified by Kim Ill-sung, therefore 고려 연방 for Union of Korean People seems fit. And most importantly it doesn't harms English name, since historically "Korea" was originated from Koryo.

AK46ers (talk) 02:17, February 7, 2017 (UTC)

I think the spelling could be 'Corea' instead, since actual Korean is pronounced that way. The Korean Name, in my proposal, is the Coryo Federation (고려연방, North Korean 'Munhwaeo' version is 고려련방)

KoreanChimek (talk) 13:58, August 6, 2017 (UTC)

Korean National Anthem

As you know both Koreas have national anthems of same name (The name of North and South Korean national anthem is Aegukga). I suggest that in this timeline, since North Korea led the reunification effort, Union of Korean People should use North Korean version of Aegukga. What do you think about that?

AK46ers (talk) 02:21, February 7, 2017 (UTC)

I can't really praise the country currently using the anthem (illegal in SK to praise anything like that, not using the VPN) BUT, considering actual melody and verses and all that, it is a better alternative to the SK one. SK one is still good though.

KoreanChimek (talk) 13:58, August 6, 2017 (UTC)

Well...can not you make your sockpuppetry less obvious?

FirstStooge (talk) 17:47, August 7, 2017 (UTC)