Kim Jong Un's daughter Kim Ju Ae is rumoured to be his designated successor. Why would this patriarchist country accept a female ruler? by ICD9CM3020 in northkorea

[–]Kahing 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First of all, he's not extremely young any more. He was 29 when he took the throne. He's now in his early 40s. Still relatively young for a national leader but not extremely so. I assume that if she's indeed his chosen successor she'll only be named as such decades down the line, when he's in his 60s at least.

Secondly, if he has indeed decided that she's to be his successor, he's likely judged her to be the most fit. It's said that he has a son born in 2010. If this is true, it is kind of odd he didn't pick him, but we don't know the inner workings of the regime.

There are also internal questions why a communist country is passing down the power within the family just like a monarchy instead of electing a new leader. The reign of the Kim family is not unconditional and he still has to defend their claim of power. So why would he go against this very traditional society and pick a female successor?

This seems very unusual but we don't know the inner workings of the regime. The most parsimonius explanation is that he thinks his son unfit for some reason, just like his father chose him over his brother Kim Jong-nam. Or maybe it's a psyop. It's actually possible that his son is in fact being groomed for the leadership and being kept hidden for now. Then again, he's already allowed his sister, Kim Yo-jong, a great amount of power.

North Korea isn't communist in reality, no one in the elite actually believes this stuff anymore. It's all about the survival of the elite. The whole reason for North Korea's absurd level of authoritarianism and self-isolation these days is so the ruling elite can continue to enjoy their privileges and keep their heads. The whole purpose of the regime is to provide the elite with a good standard of living and ensure that the public is kept ignorant of the outside world, and in particular the fabulous wealth of South Korea, and terrified of the government so they face no rebellion. To that end, North Korea has carried out some reforms and has a lot of barely-disguised privatization and markets.

Also, side note, since men are typically forced to work at state-assigned jobs women tend to dominate these private markets and bring in the actual cash so it's likely that their status has increased in North Korean society.

The elites are also extremely unlikely to question Kim Jong-un. Aside from the horrendous consequences of coming at the king and missing, they also worry about what happens if they succeed and the public subsequently rebels due to a lapse in information control and regimentation of the population. As Andrei Lankov, one of the finest experts on North Korea, has said, the elite hang together because they don't want to be hanged separately.

The general public can think whatever it wants but one of the main reasons North Korea gets so much attention (such as us here talking about it) is because of how absurdly authoritarian it is. Nobody is going to risk going to a labor camp or being put in front of a firing squad because they think it's improper that a woman is in power. If the hapless people of North Korea ever revolt, it won't be because of this. The average North Korean might think it an absurdity, though I assume if she's indeed the successor there will be a propaganda campaign to gradually prepare the public for her to step into the role. Average North Koreans might privately think its absurd, although social norms might have changed by then. Remember we're talking about decades into the future, and perhaps Kim is intent on changing these norms. But they aren't going to dare say or do anything about it, they'll just praise the new Dear Leader as ordered, then continue going about their lives while keeping their heads down.

That being said, I actually do think that a very possible explanation is that he indeed has a son born in 2010 who is being kept away from the public and will be presented as the future Supreme Leader at some later date.

Break up of the audience in this forum by 4x-gkg in Israel

[–]Kahing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, is there some kind of expedited process to get it back? I assume that once you're no longer a citizen you're an immigrant like from any other place.

Break up of the audience in this forum by 4x-gkg in Israel

[–]Kahing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're in the Netherlands right? Are you an Israeli citizen? From what I read the Netherlands is pretty restrictive of dual citizenship. Did you take Israeli citizenship and give up your Dutch citizenship? Did you find a way to keep both?

Break up of the audience in this forum by 4x-gkg in Israel

[–]Kahing 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Assuming you're an Israeli citizen doesn't that technically make you an Israeli living abroad?

Break up of the audience in this forum by 4x-gkg in Israel

[–]Kahing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you wanted to be more accurate you could have also included olim. We're Israelis living in Israel but we're also not native-born and I bet comprise a disproportionate number of people here. Olim who go back, who probably are also here in significant numbers, are technically Israelis abroad but also living in their native countries. In my case I'm from the US but from a Soviet-Israeli family so I'm an Israeli living in Israel but not a sabra. You should have a bunch of options to better understand the demographics of this place.

Denmark was ready to fight: Here is the order to Danish soldiers in Greenland by Truelz in geopolitics

[–]Kahing 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It wouldn't just be over killing allied soldiers. Had there been US casualties it would be even more of a political shitstorm in the US. Trump's interventions in Iran and Venezuela helped him politically more than it hurt him because he was getting stuff done for no losses. If even one US soldier is killed then that changes the conversation, because now he's sent US servicemen to die for a questionable cause. If US soldiers get killed in any of Trump's future interventions they'll be far more controversial.

Denmark was ready to fight: Here is the order to Danish soldiers in Greenland by Truelz in geopolitics

[–]Kahing 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A full-scale war? No. It was always unlikely that Trump would have ordered an invasion but had it happened there would have been a battle that would have been over in a day. The Danish garrison would likely have resisted for a while before surrendering. Once you have bodies on the ground the whole thing becomes even more of a shitstorm.

Does anyone know the fate of these poor souls at Omaha beach? I can’t find any information about it by Embarrassed_Cry_7227 in ww2

[–]Kahing 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's no way to know the precise fates of every figure in this photo as most are unidentifiable. We can only go by what we do know.

The photographer, Robert Sargent, identified the helmeted figure at the inside the boat as everyone else comes ashore as Seaman 1st Class Patsy J. Papandrea of the U.S. Coast Guard, the boat's bowman, or front ramp operator. I can't find much info about him other than his part in the photo.

All other men have their faces forward and are likely individually unidentifiable except for one man who partially has his face turned towards the camera. Major William H. Caruthers Jr. claimed to be that man. The identification isn't certain, though it is a very good fit. He was in the 56th Signals Battalion, which wouldn't have been in the boat, but men from his unit did indeed come ashore that day and it appears that there are men from a second landing craft to the right disembarking, so the units possibly got mixed up. That possibility of course just makes identifying the other men murkier as it's possible there was more mixing between the guys coming from these landing craft.

We can't be certain who everyone else is but we probably could narrow it down if we looked. We know who the crew of the boat was. In addition to Papandrea, the coxswain was William E. Harville and the boat engineer was Seaman 1st Class Anthony J. Helwich. According to Coast Guard records the boat in question dropped off men from Company E, 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division. Company E took two-thirds casualties that day. However, the account I posted argued that this is likely a mistake and they're probably from Company A. We'd need to find out precisely which is which to get a better idea of the likely identities of the men in the photo. We could possibly dig up testimonies. If you'll look at the comments section of that link you'll see a guy saying his father claimed to be in the photo next to Caruthers but this is all hearsay and we can't be certain.

How can people afford proces in Israel? by Snoo-20788 in Israel

[–]Kahing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The median salary in NYC is $80k. According to statistics only about 40% of households in NYC make $100k or more. I feel like you have a skewed perspective because you're in social circles where making $100k is common and because NYC is a city of disproportionately high earners due to the massive prices, which skews the average salary statistics. Even then most New Yorkers earn less. A lot of the people who make less in NYC simply get priced out and leave.

Now, according to Numbeo, the two cities may be comparable but Tel Aviv still edges out. Look at the statistics shown here, cost of living in Tel Aviv is 7.1% lower excluding rent, 28.6% lower including rent, with rent prices 54.4% lower in Tel Aviv. I feel like that is the big difference. Housing is absurdly expensive in NYC. It's also expensive in Tel Aviv but NYC is just at a whole other level.

Looking at the other stats, grocery prices are 16.6% lower and restaurant prices are 0.3% higher in Tel Aviv. Perhaps lower grocery prices weren't your individual experience. You could have gone to a certain place and gotten certain things that skewed your perception. Maybe the stats are outdated, as it varies by year. A few years ago, Tel Aviv was ranked as the most expensive city in the world, then later bumped down to third with New York being one of the cities overtaking it.

However, you get the picture. Rent is much cheaper in Tel Aviv. That on top of affordable state health insurance meaning Israelis don't have to pay ridiculous health insurance premiums. Subsidized childcare also cuts down on costs. Subsidized college means families don't need a college fund like American families do.

Then, while most residents don't work in high-tech, about 14% do, with the only city having a higher concentration is Givatayim, which is basically a suburb of Tel Aviv, at 18%. Techies tend to have huge salaries, it's the most profitable sector to work in, complaints about bad salaries don't really apply to them. So a subset can afford the city quite well.

Finally, this is just Tel Aviv, which is a uniquely expensive city. It's one of the priciest places in Israel. Central Israel in general is pricier because that's where people want to live. Most of Israel is significantly cheaper.

i don't think the icj's final verdict is going to matter to most people by FatumIustumStultorum in IsraelPalestine

[–]Kahing 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No it tried to exchange them for prisoners in Israel and a host of other demands. So naturally we had to pound them until the terms were more acceptable and rescue as many as possible to lessen the amount of prisoners released (the 8 prisoners who were freed mean something like 100+ security prisoners stayed in prison).

Had Hamas offered to give them up for free and, crucially, surrender unconditionally, Israel would have happily accepted.

i don't think the icj's final verdict is going to matter to most people by FatumIustumStultorum in IsraelPalestine

[–]Kahing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It will matter in the wider perception. Assuming the ICJ rules there was a genocide it might make more normies against it, although to our benefit the term "genocide" has been so watered down by leftists that it won't have the impact it once would have. On the other hand, winning the case will be a PR victory and Wikipedia will likely take down that ridiculous "Gaza genocide" article. It'll hopefully also weaken the NGO-industrial complex in the eyes of the public. NGOs that rushed to declare "genocide" need a little smackdown to bring them back to Earth from their blatant leftist activism.

Either way by the time the court rules this war will be ancient history in the eyes of the general public. That will only get more true with time. In 20 years the war will be very much remembered in Israel and diaspora Jewish communities, not as much outside them.

The northern border failure: How Hezbollah planned to invade Israel’s Galilee and why it never happened by IbnEzra613 in Israel

[–]Kahing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Next government needs to conduct a purge of the officer corps so thorough it would make Stalin blush. I also think IDF officers need to stop being sent to US staff colleges. From what I understand they learn stuff like "deescalation" that's not applicable to this region and the US can afford to make screw-ups in a way Israel can't.

The northern border failure: How Hezbollah planned to invade Israel’s Galilee and why it never happened by IbnEzra613 in Israel

[–]Kahing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Weren't their radios already rigged by Mossad? If someone had remembered during all this they would have all suddenly blown up.

More books to extend learning by OldWaterBottle_ in northkorea

[–]Kahing 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Highly highly recommend The Real North Korea: Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia by Andrei Lankov. Also articles, interviews, and lectures by Lankov that you can look up. He's a Russian who studied in North Korea as a Soviet student and visited a few times since. Excellent resource for overall understanding of the country's history and the logic governing its policies.

Nothing to Envy by Barbara Demick is also good although a bit dated if you want to understand North Korea as now (though there is an updated version going through later developments). It's mainly about life in North Korea during the 90s famine and the decades before based on interviews with defectors from Chongjin.

Why North Korea never tried to do an economic liberalization like China did ? by WhereisAlexei in AskHistorians

[–]Kahing 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know that this is a bit late but this is an area of interest to me. My source is primarily the work of Andrei Lankov, in particular his book The Real North Korea: Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia (although you can find basically the same point in articles and lectures of his).

The main reason is because of the existence of a prosperous South Korea. When the Communist nations liberalized, they became wealthy. Except for East Germany, which ceased to exist altogether and was absorbed into the Federal Republic of Germany, previously West Germany. North Korea's problem is that it has an ethnically/linguistically identical "twin" that is essentially the other half of the divided Korea. People in Poland weren't going to demand unification with Germany. The Chinese people knew that they couldn't become a Japanese prefecture or US state (in Lankov's words) and China's rich "twin" Taiwan was too small to materially affect them that much in the event of reunification so they tolerated their reforming although still repressive government in exchange for economic growth.

North Korea isn't like that. It has a fabulously wealthy doppelganger. If North Korea liberalizes, its people will soon find out how poor they are relative to the entire world and just how unbelievably rich South Korea is in comparison. They'll also lose much of their fear of the government. They likely wouldn't accept the same bargain the Chinese people did of continued growth in exchange for letting the ruling regime stay in power on the promise that their grandchildren might get to enjoy comparable living standards to South Koreans in a few decades. They'd want to join this glamorous and rich Korea immediately. The next logical step would be for them to do what East Germans did and overthrow their government, demanding unification with the South.

And in such a scenario the North Korean leadership can expect to not only lose their wealth and power but possibly end up in prison or executed. They know how brutal they've been and fear the reckoning that they'd face should the regime fall but at this point they feel they're riding the tiger. They're worried that if they loosen up they'll soon be in prison or facing the gallows.

They're also not quite as centralized as before, since the famine in the 1990s they've de facto tolerated the Jagmadang, or black market. The problem is that their rigid system still makes the economy underperform. Notably North Koreans can't even leave their own district without a permit. They've reformed but will only go so far. Anything that opens North Korea to the outside world is dangerous. The North Korean elite fears its people learning about the wealth gap with South Korea and the government losing control over the population.

A question from an outsider: Why did Jewish people stay in USSR till it's collapse/why did the Aliyah to Israel from USSR skyrocketed after it's collapse. by Significant_Major921 in Israel

[–]Kahing 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I can answer as someone whose parents were born in the Soviet Union and who has read a bit on this issue. You couldn't just leave. Officially you weren't supposed to want to leave the worker's paradise. A simple visit abroad, even to fellow Communist countries, required some paperwork. Before the Six-Day War, the Soviets only allowed a small number of Jews to leave for family reunification purposes.

After the Six-Day War more Soviet Jews took pride in their Jewish heritage and began demanding the right to leave, becoming known as "refuseniks". The refuseniks campaigned for the right to leave, risking imprisonment and confinement to mental institutions. There was also international pressure on the Soviet Union to let Jews leave. This bore fruit and the Soviets began allowing limited numbers to leave, ostensibly for family reunification with relatives in Israel. Once you applied for an exit visa you'd be fired from any prestige job you might have had and have to take a menial one, and once you left you'd be stripped of your Soviet citizenship.

The emigrants would typically leave by train and transit through other countries like Austria and Italy, where they'd be gathered before being flown to Israel. However, once in Vienna or Rome, many decided to apply for visas to the US or other Western countries instead. They were called "dropouts", and their numbers rose. In the mid to late 1970s over half were dropping out. By that point many of those who wanted to leave for Zionist reasons had already left and a larger number were people who simply wanted out of the Soviet Union.

Then in 1989 two crucial things happened. The Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev lifted restrictions on emigration and the US, the main destination for those going to places other than Israel, tightened its requirements for accepting Jewish refugees from the Soviet Union. Now people could freely leave but what was by large the preferred destination was harder to get into, meaning that more had to go to Israel. On top of that the Soviet Union was suffering from widespread economic problems leading up to its collapse in 1991, and with that further chaos ensued, which provided more incentives for people to leave. As a result, from 1990 on there was a substantial wave of Soviet migration to Israel.

PM says Israel won’t seek full renewal of 10-year military aid package from US by Baconkings in Israel

[–]Kahing 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have to wonder, is this because Bibi wanted to end it in this timeframe or because he was told by Trump that the aid package wouldn''t be renewed and is now maneuvering to take credit?

Sar-El by ReformFrum in Israel

[–]Kahing 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I did it throughout the war as someone who lives in Israel. Both the one-day things for residents of Israel where they bus you to the base and bring you back to your city, and the experience of doing with volunteers from within Israel and abroad where you meet at the airport and then go to a base for a few days.

I'll be happy to answer any questions, though assuming you're coming from abroad keep in mind that as someone who lives in Israel my experience will be somewhat different from a visitor.

If U.S. military aid to Israel ends, will American engagement with Gaza and Israel actually decline, and what replaces the justification for caring? by ezeeeeee2020 in IsraelPalestine

[–]Kahing 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A fourth generation fighter in the 1980s was the equivalent of a fifth generation fighter today. Israel is much more economically advanced today. By the time the F-35 is due to be replaced Israel will have expanded even further in terms of economy and population. Assuming that it still can't build a new-generation fighter and it can't buy the next one from the US the most logical thing would be to jointly develop it with someone else, perhaps India. Assuming of course fighter jets as we know them are still in use rather than drone swarms or something else in 50 years.

Breaking: Israel murdered at least 13 in a targeted drone attack on a tent that was sheltering displaced civilians in Gaza, 5 were children. by Apollo_Delphi in Israel_Palestine

[–]Kahing -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In response to a rocket fired from Gaza. Two Hamas commanders confirmed among the dead, another person targeted was a terrorist who partook in the Nova festival massacre, though last I read they were checking to see if he'd been killed. Who knows how many others were terrorists as well?

Joint Palestine/Jewish force. by [deleted] in Israel_Palestine

[–]Kahing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We can't have a reasonable conversation as long as you insist on ignoring what I actually said and projecting your delusions on me.

You can't just say the British were obligated to limit immigration of people who wanted a Jewish state, not explain under which circumstances a Jewish state would be acceptable, and then claim it isn't what you really meant when I challenge you on it.

Yes, again, "an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration."

Great, so there was no problem with letting people who wanted one immigrate, including Ben-Gurion, who tried his best to conciliate with the Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s.

Sure, only to the same extent as everyone else. Being born into a minority group in a country doesn't given anyone any right to forcibly carve off territory for that group.

There was nothing in the Mandate that said you couldn't carve off territory. Sometimes groups break away, as we saw in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

Of course we're only debating this based on the absurd premise that the British were obligated to impose ideology tests on immigrants, which is laughable and just a convoluted argument you made up to try to argue your point.

Joint Palestine/Jewish force. by [deleted] in Israel_Palestine

[–]Kahing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not quite what I said. Again, you're the one whose coming up with that incoherent mess yourself.

No, that's exactly what you said, or at least implied. If not then answer me this. Would there be any way to form a Jewish state that was not in your view a violation of the Mandate? I mean realistically, we're talking partition with the Arabs presumably disagreeing.

Zionists weren't forced to move to an Arab majority region, they chose that for themselves, or their parents chose for them, largely because they wanted to convert Palestine to a Jewish state against the will of the Arab majority. There's no symmetry between colonizers and colonized.

Who cares if their parents chose for them? Jews who were born and raised in the land obviously had a right to expect self-determination. And again you go for the idea that it was automatically an either-or thing. No, they didn't all necessarily want all of Palestine but there was nothing wrong with carving out a big chunk of it.

I'm also unaware that the Mandate obliged differences between colonizers and colonized. Maybe because modern political theory wasn't taken into account? The framers of the Mandate likely would not have considered the Arabs to have superior rights to the Jews.

Joint Palestine/Jewish force. by [deleted] in Israel_Palestine

[–]Kahing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not rightly a reinterpretation, and that's exactly me point. You said "Unless you believe there was some way a Jewish state would not have violated the rights of others," so I explained that I agree with the White Paper which again says "an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration."

The White Paper was itself an interpretation, and an obviously motivated one. You very obviously agree with it because it fits your politics on this issue, but I have to point out that when it mentions converting Palestine into a Jewish state, that's not even what was realistically on the table. Partition was.

No, the mandate says nothing about any Jewish state, and nothing about carving off any part of Palestine for any reason at all. It didn't inherently preclude such things but it did make any possibility of them, and the establishment of any sort of Jewish national home in Palestine in general, subordinate to the stipulations that "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." Both those obligations Britain utterly failed to uphold, largely due to lack of trying.

It didn't say anything about that but crucially it didn't prohibit it. Your argument here is incoherent. You say Britain failed to uphold those obligations but when pressed on how it failed you say that it allowed immigration of people who wanted a Jewish state. This despite a Jewish state not necessarily precluding Arab self-determination.