North Korea: Another Country

by Bruce Cumings

Depicted as an insular and forbidding police state with an "insane" dictator at its helm, North Korea―charter member of Bush's "Axis of Evil"―is a country the U.S. loves to hate. Now the CIA says it possesses nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, as well as long-range missiles capable of delivering them to America's West Coast. But, as Bruce Cumings demonstrates in this provocative, lively read, the story of the U.S.-Korea conflict is more complex than our leaders or our news media would have us believe. Drawing on his extensive knowledge of Korea, and on declassified government reports, Cumings traces that story, from the brutal Korean War to the present crisis. Harboring no illusions regarding the totalitarian Kim Jong Il regime, Cumings nonetheless insists on a more nuanced approach. The result is both a counter-narrative to the official U.S. and North Korean versions and a fascinating portrayal of North Korea, a country that suffers through foreign invasions, natural disasters, and its own internal contradictions, yet somehow continues to survive.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Asia, Race, Economics, Ebooks

256 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

A specialist in the history of Korea, Bruce Cumings is the Gustavus F. and Ann M. Swift Distinguished Service Professor in History, and former chair of the history department at the University of Chicago.

Reviews

[alexis · Rating 4 out of 5]

From a left perspective this is a pretty tame defense of the DPRK, but for a book published in 2004 with a mainstream liberal audience in mind, this feels like an extremely cutting edge breakdown of how the United States actually helped create and then push North Korea into their supposed political extreme, and how North Korea’s actions aren’t nearly so irrational when viewed in historical context of all the atrocities that have been committed against them.

I had a lot of issues with some weird, one-off minutiae (Cuming’s jokes never, EVER land), and I think he often gives more lip service than necessary to the uncontroversial “look at how WEEEIIRD their lives are!!” perspective before finally getting around to his point ten pages later. Most of my real frustration with this book came from Cumings’ obvious unwillingness to discuss political ideology, though, which always comes off as an irrational fear of accidentally seeming TOO sympathetic to communism, especially when Cumings is always quick to remind us that don’t worry, he hates communists, too!! And while he definitely positions himself as more of a Korean War-era history expert than a modern political analyst, I think I was also expecting maybe a little more in-depth criticism of Bush’s unfounded North Korea/Iran/Iraq axis of evil, and how fear-mongering around North Korean nukes played into helping rationalize the WMD excuse for the Iraq War.

But the stats and research are all there, and nearly impossible to argue with, even if it’s left largely up to the reader to draw larger political conclusions about trade sanctions, Korean reunification, etc. For any normie democrat or even self-proclaimed leftist who finds themselves parroting mainstream anti-DPRK rhetoric without really understanding why, though, this book is extremely enlightening.

Side note: how weird was it when he referenced his wife Meredith Jung-En Woo’s academic study as the best source for a specific number without even like?? mentioning her by name, he literally just called her “my wife” lol

[Cody · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a difficult book for me to enjoy, owing to a variety of reasons. Firstly I'll start out with what I liked about it. Mr. Cumings has written an academic analysis diving into what really drives North Korea as a country (at least in his eyes). He supports his arguments with a number of good analytical sources, which I found fair, however his opinions on North Korea as a whole I found deeply disturbing. When I picked up this book I was hoping for an objective view of what makes the hermit kingdom tick. Instead I got a far left view that practically begs that nations such as Japan, South Korea, and the USA apologize and beg forgiveness for their wicked ways against North Korea. While one can understand the need to recognize the atrocities of the Korean War caused by the USA, Mr. Cumings goes beyond that to continually criticise USA and South Korean politics and Japanese historical imperialism, while romanticising both of the first two Kim leaders. I could actually visualise the hissy fits he was throwing when speaking of the USA, and the strange sort of euphoric persona he put on when he told of his visits to North Korea in the 80's. He only dedicates three pages to the gulags of North Korea, and doesn't really acknowledge the human rights violations of these, instead labelling them as "beneficial reeducation camps." If there is something North Korea is doing wrong, he'll make the excuse that the USA is doing something far worse. He faults Japanese families of kidnapped victims of North Korea for delaying peace plans because of their outrage over taken loved ones, as if those Japanese families are the real villains. He is hardly objective at all in this book, and those are the type of academics I tend to disagree with in approach. This book is out of date being written in 2004, but I was hoping to learn new bits of history from it. To that credit I did learn a little bit, but I would recommend readers looking for insight into North Korea look elsewhere. Real rating: 1.5/5

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Relatively objective and well-researched account of various aspects of North Korea. I have already read Bruce Cuming’s short essay about the DPRK in the ‘axis of evil’ essay collection; this book reiterated the hypocrisy and imperialism of the US in its advance into and total destruction of North Korea in the Korean War. It also went over the development of nuclear weapons in the Dprk, likening it to a game of cards in which a hand would be quickly flashed.
It also goes through the effects of the famine due to the excessive floods of the 90s, struggle of trade after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its structure as a military power.
It is also the first book I’ve read that attempts to detail daily life in the DPRK; it is all based on visits in the 1980s as well as one person’s account of life as an English translator in Pyongyang. Overall Cumings creates a sense of a national pride which refutes imperialism and embraces collectivism in its core. Although there is an undeniable centralisation of history and military struggle around the Kim family, there is also a uniquely Korean identity that has emerged in North Korea, which the term ‘Juche’ refers to. Cumings explains the difficulty of defining ‘Juche’ (or self-reliance) in its completeness as it is so distinctly Korean.
It is also relatively tame and pretty surface level for anyone who already has some knowledge about the DPRK. There was also an emphasis on Western perspectives- both American historical accounts and the reader’s/ an American’s own account of what they experienced there. As the author can speak Korean, that seems strange. Some anecdotes were also strange/ downright cringe in the context- for example, the anecdote about his Korean tour guide’s English accent which he burst out laughing at and also a time where he was sitting with a few Koreans drinking in a restaurant who were all wearing pin badges of Kim Jong Il, and then looked at some goldfish in the tank and thought ‘At least they don’t have to wear badges.’. For someone who pointed out the intersection of racism and imperialism in America’s treatment of North Korea, likening Koreans to goldfish and making fun of their accents doesn’t seem like the best path to go down.
It also feels a little disjointed in parts because the chapters do have vastly different subject matter and don’t flow into each other so well. I also thought it was strange that he tried to introduce passages from Nietzsche, making what was supposed to be an objective historical account into some kind of philosophical analysis about the nature of good and evil? When people try and use the stance of ‘no objective good’ in politics, to me it’s a way to deny imperialist violence and also a very typical American liberal perspective. I definitely got that at times here- he throws in lots of smattering criticisms which are all mostly based on anecdotes and source less. It kind of feels like it’s supposed to be digestible to the American reader. So that is something to keep in mind.

[Mark Desrosiers · Rating 5 out of 5]

You will learn little about North Korea from reading the American press. Or the European press. Or National Geographic. Or the North Korean press. You will learn lots here, a thorough backwards-chronology demolishing of myths by a scholar who clearly thinks the country is weird, tragic, and sometimes hilarious, but always fully comprehensible. Essential and illuminating. Here's one central argument:

"Those who live a particular history know it in their bones, both because they have to, and because of the venerable argument that there is no theory without practice. Thereby the concentrated logic and action of the weak can trump the logic of the powerful, which must be abstract by virtue of the number of abstractions it has to deal with. Robert Manning, a State Department official in the Bush and Clinton administrations, remarked that 'the North Koreans had a very weak hand, and they played it brilliantly.' But then they had done so in the fall of 1950 as well, when their country was occupied, and they got Chinese troops to bail their chestnuts out of a very hot fire. They continue to do so today. The leaders of North Korea are formidable people; they should not be overestimated. This is the story of the Vietnam War too. I do not think, however, that it is a story that Americans have yet learned, or want to learn."

[isaac · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall a very solid introduction for those who know little (or nothing) about the DPRK. It lacks a level of depth that I would have liked, and it sometimes veers more into personal anecdotes/evaluations than careful history, but these are relatively minor demerits. The most annoying part is the scattered comments that betray a (seemingly disingenuous) personal prejudice that is incongruous with and unsupported by preceding evidence and point of view. It makes me think that the editor was worried this book would be too controversial for American readers and so requested (or required) some inflammatory commentary in line with the dominant view. This is extremely unnecessary as the book is middling at best in its ideological point of view. The most that can be said is author is very critical of the US military and contemporary (Bush era) policy around North Korea, but his presentation of DPRK ideology often waffles between objective (if detached) praise and rote anti-communism. Again, I feel these oddities can be mostly overlooked and are mostly noticeable to those with more background knowledge about DPRK or a stronger ideological position.

[Valarie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I hate leaving a book unfinished, but after reading the first half of this very long editorial, I couldn't justify the time it would take to read the rest. Published in 2003, a lot of the information in this book is outdated or irrelevant - not the author's fault, but something to consider before you pick it up. The writing itself varies, from personal opinions, to mocking world leaders, to random tangents and the occasional helpful take on history. Cumings keeps trying to connect the United States's handling of North Korea to other historical events, but it always seems like he is pushing his political beliefs onto the reader. There is definitely some valuable insight here, but you have to wade through a lot of bullshit to get to it.

[Pi · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this honest, yet unpopular history of the 'rogue state' known as North Korea, Cumings successfully combines well-researched facts about the recent (last 60 odd years) developments on the Korean peninsula with his personal experience visiting the country in the 80s and 90s. The result is a political analysis with focus on the historical context leading up to the formation of North Korea--especially the role played by USA--and the effects this had on Korean people. I particularly enjoyed the author's writing style, his discussion on the background logic of North Korean ideology--its transcendental view of the state and its focus on personal and cultural hygiene. At the end, North Korea emerges as, indeed, just another third world country, ravaged for a whole century by atrocities and imperial (think Japan, USA, China and USSR) interests, and thus forced into a solipsistic, isolationist politics aimed at preserving the only thing remaining: the nation's sovereignty and cultural identity.

[Velvetink · Rating 4 out of 5]

Awesome. Debunks the standard propaganda about Korea.To understand where and why Korea is where it is now is to look back to "the holocaust that the North experienced during the Korean War [1959-53:].” & holocaust is not an exaggerated term...for instance the number of napalm bombs dropped there outnumbered the Vietnam war. It cannot be understood apart from a terrible fratricidal war that has never ended, the guerrilla struggle against Japanese imperialism in the 1930s, its initial emergence as a state in 1945, its fraught relationship with the South, its brittle and defensive reaction to the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and its interminable daily struggle with the United States of America.”

[Maggie Wong · Rating 3 out of 5]

thought this was a decent read, but i definitely did not like it as much as i thought i would have. i was initially quite excited to start reading this, as i haven’t encountered many academics sources/writers that were committed to providing a more comprehensive account of North Korea’s historical trajectory and present as Bruce Cumings seems to be, but i thought that this book, in addition to honestly being quite dry, despite Cumings’s attempts at making the text more personable, fell a bit short of my expectations.

though the book is split into six chapters each covering a different aspect of the DPRK and the chapters don’t seem to connect or flow into one another very smoothly, making for a bit of a disjointed read, there is a clear through line in the whole book that Cumings references again and again in each chapter. the main argument he seems to be making is that although the dominant narrative regarding North Korea is that all of its leaders act in irrational and violently unpredictable ways, everything the government does can be read as logical consequences of the country’s history of colonial and imperial occupation and violence. the dominant narrative regarding North Korea is neatly summed up by Hazel Smith as the “mad/bad actor” paradigm, which argues that all of North Korea’s actions/policies often get interpreted in two ways: as irrational (mad) or evil/immoral (bad). however, Cumings pushes back against this binary, arguing with this book that North Korea’s policies are not evidence of a country run by an immoral madman but instead evidence of a country that is simply trying to defend itself against even more foreign interference and imperial violence. whether or not one agrees with North Korea is irrelevant to the purpose of this book; what’s more important is the reconfiguration of North Korea from a country/government that is irrational to one that is quite predictable, which Cumings argues is an important perspective for analysts and other officials looking to ‘understand’ and work with North Korea to internalize.

in addition to Cumings’s main argument, there are two other themes that i thought undergirded the majority of this book. the first is that the overly punitive perspective the West, particularly the United States, has towards North Korea’s nuclear development and other military/defense actions is hypocritical, as practically everything that North Korea does and is then accused of being immoral for the United States also does as well. the second is that the way that North Korea gets represented in the United States is often blatantly racist–Cumings very candidly wrote, “Prominent Americans lose any sense of embarrassment or self-consciousness about the intricate and knotty problems of racial difference and Otherness when it comes to North Korea and its leaders” (49). this matches up with the observations made in Gauthier (2015) that the media often portray North Korean through an Orientalist lens. in this way, because he illuminates the narrow way that North Korea often gets represented and understood rather than continuing this tradition of representation, this book can be considered counter-hegemonic—that is, Cumings is presenting an alternate perspective of North Korea for his audience.

as Cumings is a historian—his research specifically focuses on the Korean War and East/West relations—and an academic, his audience is similar, as gleaned from the academic style this book is written in. as someone who honestly isn’t as well versed or interested in history than some, this book was definitely a tough read, and was very obviously not meant for a layman’s audience, or at least not written with one in mind. though I think Cumings’s writing style is more prosaic than most academic writing I’ve encountered, the book was still quite dry and difficult to get through. Cumings’s attempts at dispersing personal anecdotes or jokes throughout were honestly more eyeroll-inducing than genuinely humorous, and often felt straight up racist—one anecdote about the accented and ‘inaccurate’ English skills of the North Korean guide that accompanied him on one of his trips to North Korea sticks out in particular. this resulted in a weird feeling of tension as i read on—as this is one of the only counter-hegemonic representations of North Korea in academia that i’ve come across, should i turn a blind eye to Cumings’s questionable rhetoric for the maybe larger mission of representing North Korea more fairly and not only with the limited frameworks that are available? reading reviews of this book by academics and non-academics alike, it seems as though the attitudes towards this book and Cumings more broadly are quite mixed. some think that this book is a crucial, critical addition to the literature available regarding North Korea; some think he’s too sympathetic towards North Korea and too “anti-American”. still some think he doesn’t take his critiques far enough, as there is an undercurrent of anti-communism that Cumings references again and again throughout the book, as though reminding us of his personal beliefs in order not to be fully alienated from the canon or his academic field, which gets at a larger issue of anti-communism and defanging of radical/revolutionary politics in academia as a whole.

alongside his reluctance to stray too far from the mainstream perspective regarding North Korea, Cumings also relies heavily on the limited list of sources that are seen as acceptable evidence in academia—namely newspapers, historical records, and government documents (but only those originating in the US) and his own observations during his trips to North Korea. this privileging or reifying of American sources—even with, or maybe in spite of, the acknowledgement that Western media is often skewed in their reporting of North Korea that Cumings centers in this book—perpetuates the feeling of distrust regarding North Korea in the West, a feeling that considers all North Korean records as fictionalized propaganda and does not allow the country to define itself, instead holding that American perspectives, biased as they may be, still hold more weight and ultimately form truths. this aligns with a larger Orientalist framing of North Korea/ns as dishonest and unable to think or act for themselves that Gauthier (2015) talks about, representing North Korea as a country in perpetual need of foreign intervention.

additionally, his usage of his own personal experiences in North Korea as evidence adds to this denial of North Korean self-determination as it perpetuates the idea that Western visitors have a better understanding/view of North Korea than North Korean themselves because of their non-North Korean identity. in short, Americans/Westerners are allowed to use their personal experiences as objective evidence because their American identity is tied to notions of objectivity.

in sum, although Cumings’s goal for this book was to provide a more nuanced understanding of North Korea that doesn’t fully fall into pre-existing narratives regarding the country, ones that are often problematic, he is only able to achieve this to a certain extent, as the rest of the book is bogged down by a recurring undercurrent—that is sometimes made quite explicit—of anti-communism and Orientalism/racism that Cumings seems to espouse simultaneously as well.

[Allen Soberanes · Rating 3 out of 5]

The hardships that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has gone through are unfathomable, and the fact that they have endured them is something to respect. Although not mentioned in this book, they also support the Palestinian cause and have had a history of good relations with Latin American countries, including Mexico.

I've had no exposure to Bruce Cumings before this book, but he's...interesting? A man rife with contradictions in his thought and who is not funny at all. How he can at the same time have such an open mind to the reality of the DPRK and then turn around and say things that are very dismissive about Korean people and their culture is a mystery.

[Javier · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some parts, especially the first chapter on the Korean War and the chapter on Kim Il Sung's origins were interesting. Overall, not a very enlightening read.

I don't think it's bad, I am just not the target audience. Reading some of the other low-score reviews from this site makes me believe that this book may be relevant for most of people though.

[Dovide · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fantastic primer on North Korea, if a bit outdated. Cumings—a preeminent scholars on the country—deftly sorts through fact and fiction and helped dispel many misconceptions I had about the hermit kingdom going in.

I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting a relatively short but captivating introduction to one of the most enigmatic states on the planet.

[Kuu]

is the radical leftist tankie in the room with us

[Cheryl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting inside view of what the root of the problems between America and North Korea actually are. Also, I believe people's perspective of North Korea as one of the "axis of evil" countries will be changed by reading this. It becomes discouraging to me as an American to learn more and more about how little we practice what we preach...it is not okay for Saddam Hussein to use chemical weapons upon people, but it okay for the U.S. It is okay for us to have nuclear weapons pointed at North Korea, but not okay for them to have the same. Of course, we believe that they have an insane person running their country...we certainly would never worry about that because we do not have those kind of eglomaniacs running our country....Eye-opening and told by an expert on Korea.

[Noah · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel like Cumings has a pretty constant thread in most of his work - every valid point he makes is undermined by either a totally unsubstantiated analytical comment or questionable research. For instance, he is harsh on the West's reporting on N. Korea, which I can generally understand, but he then claims that the N. Korean media is completely trustworthy and reliable. I don't care how sympathetic you are to the Kim dynasty...their national news service is ridiculously self serving and untrustworthy.

[Sherri Molen · Rating 5 out of 5]

North Korea: Another Country is very informative for such as easy read. Everyone should read this book!

[Daya4goal · Rating 1 out of 5]

this book keep you always from 1952 to 1991 then again to 1960 then 1970 then 1920.
this book is written in haphazard way.

[Maia Olive · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is an extremely strange book. While the preface led me to believe that Cumings' purpose was to 'humanise' the DPRK for an American audience relentlessly blasted with anti-DPRK propaganda, I am unsure whether he really achieved his goal. The most successful aspect of this book was the first two chapters, within which Cumings utilises various American sources to detail the lying, manipulation, racism, brutality, and arrogance that has characterised American involvement in Korea. So I was surprised to find, when I arrived at page 76, that Cumings' true feelings had slipped through the cracks: he concluded that it was Pyongyang whose policy was to 'pile lie upon lie, exaggeration upon exaggeration, even when it would be more convenient to tell the truth. But that is what we have learned to expect from communist regimes.' Is it what we have learned to expect? I would be willing to accept this, had the previous 75 pages been detailing the lies and exaggeration of the DPRK, but not once did Cumings produce evidence to support this argument. From this point onwards the book falls apart. It mostly relies on anecdotal evidence from Cumings himself, as well as some testimonies of North Korean defectors, and is frustratingly sparsely cited (though he doesn’t fail to cite his South Korean wife’s opinion…who was at one time a director at the Open Societies Foundation…). He also falls into one of the most damning cliches of liberal academics and journalists: namely, X country that the West doesn’t like does Y thing that is undeniably good - but at what cost? In this case, it manifests as: Pyongyang is a well managed, clean, and beautiful city - ‘but at what cost?’. Cumings never enlightens us to this ‘cost’ and instead concludes that Pyongyang is a ‘Stalinist Disneyland’. Further, despite detailing the free healthcare, education, and housing that North Koreans receive and South Koreans lack, it is not the North Koreans, but the South, that have ’sacrificed everything for strong democracy and civil society.’
The more I progressed through this book, the more I became acutely aware of Cumings’ lack of respect towards the Korean people. For someone who apparently admonishes American racism towards Koreans, Cumings makes many extremely racist, extremely weird remarks. These remarks include describing Kim Il Sung's children as his 'turdlike offspring' in a strange tangent where Cumings claims the DPRK is an ‘Oedipal state'. He mocks at his tour guide whose English pronunciation isn't up to his standards: 'I dissolved into hysterics and could not stop laughing as she continued to intone her mantra without dropping a single (mangled) syllable.' He makes relentless fun of Kim Jong Il's appearance, not just of his stature or his ‘pear-shaped’ fashion choices, but by repeatedly describing him as being just like Mao in his 'feminine mouth and curiously soft face'. Amongst these strange remarks Cumings props up many of the stereotypes which dominate Western media coverage of the DPRK; these include an extended description of the North Koreans allegedly strange 'obsession' with their hair. And of course Cumings doesn't miss a chance to make sure he beats the dead horse some more by poking fun at Kim Jong Il's hairstyle. I understand that many of these are comments are supposed to be 'jokes’, but the problem with this is that racist jokes don't work when you are (supposedly) trying to ‘humanise’ a people.
I wouldn’t recommend this book. There are better sources of information on the DPRK elsewhere that are far less absurd.

[Douglas Kim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps because it was written during the time of the Iraq War to appease an already war hungry public audience, but Cumings does seem a bit more anti-DPRK than his other books. While he is still ultimately more sympathetic than anyone else regarding the DPRK in America, the book does seem to fall into some propaganda and even subtly racist tropes about the country, even while pointing out the even more obvious racist tropes of the American media.

An interesting read, however, as it gives a glimpse into Kim Jong Il's North Korea, during the time when the DPRK was going through some of its toughest challenges as a country. After Kim Il Sung's death in 1994, historical floods and famines hit the country, which was already dealing with economic struggles after the fall of the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly, the negative impact on the people in rural communities was unavoidable, but was likely amplified by the US media to paint the DPRK as a communist hellhole just as the ROK was starting to hit its stride from western economic investment aid.

Cumings does provide background in the post war period however, describing how the DPRK was in the lead materially really until the 1980s when South Korea started to advance rapidly, which was interesting to read about, and gives much more color as to why the northerns still support their government, knowing that the tough times were due to unforeseen circumstances that were outside of the DPRK's control. It also has short biographies of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, which gave a depth into the leaders that is probably as unbiased as an American can be as to their respective portrayals.

Ultimately, as with all of Cumings' work, it is another addition to an English speaker's understanding of the North, and would be of interest to the Korean English speaking diaspora to get a full picture of the Korean/American relationship on both sides of the 38th.

[Joanna Mounce · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is difficult for me to rate. On the one hand, it gave me a different perspective on North Korea, which I appreciate. I think I can see North Korea's perspective now, and I feel this ability is a unique skill in America. The main point that stuck with me is that North Koreans have such a communal mindset that culturally they see "freedom" as a communal quality. That is, "freedom to be Korean" or "freedom from foreign oppression". In this sense, they see themselves as the free country and South Korea as the enslaved country. Obviously this is a generalization, but I thought it was a cultural insight I had not heard before. Also, it presented the history of the Japanese oppression in Korea from the North Korean perspective, which I had also never heard. I am really interested North Korea, and documentaries and articles get really repetitious. This book presented a side I had never heard before and was thus intellectually refreshing.

On the other hand, I am not sure how much I trust the author, and I feel like I need to read something critical of North Korea to "remind" myself about what I already know. The author seems to gloss over the great evils of North Korea and instead treats them as a totally legitimate country run by an eccentric. He even gives an example that seems to condone their gulag system as comparable or better than the worst of the American prison system. Little things like that, plus constant digs on the American right, really revealed an agenda beyond just educating the reader. Overall though, I'm glad I read it and enjoyed the unique peek at another culture.

[Joshua · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cumings' 'The Korean War: A History' is an excellent work which does a great job at taking a wrecking ball to a lot of the American mythmaking surrounding its eponymous conflict (or not even 'mythmaking', but the void of ignorance into which pour a lot of axiomatic assumptions about fundamental American goodness). It's assisted in this endeavour by the fact that it deals with a historical period which can more or less be sectioned off into the period 1945-1953 (yes, obviously the Korean War is still technically ongoing but let's not pretend the period of building tensions which erupted into sustained armed conflict is the same as the 70+ years of bellicose detente that followed). The Korean War is a 'finished product', so to say, and it can be approached and treated as a historical event which has exhausted itself and about which new information is unlikely to appear (barring the collapse of the DPRK/ROK and the opening of secret archives, I guess). The 'doneness' of the actual Korean War makes Cumings' The Korean War a timeless work: that which was true when he wrote it is unlikely to be untrue 20, 30, 40 years on. Sure, there might be academic upheavals in how the conflict is discussed, thought about, and approached, but these will only change how researchers relate to a corpus of facts that are already mostly complete.

Anyway, all of this is to say that North Korea: Another Country has none of these advantages. Rather than attempting to dismantle ossified conceptions of a long-concluded conflict, this book instead sees Cumings try to situate the DPRK honestly in the tumultuous modern world of 2003. This meant it was dated almost as soon as it hit shelves, and the intervening 18 years between its publication and now have done nothing to ameliorate that. Thus, an entire chapter on the character and perception of Kim Jong-il, repeated references to Kim Jong-nam as the DPRK's clear heir-apparent (in fact, I don't think the then-21-year-old Kim Jong-un is mentioned even once, which is at least quite funny: big 'grey blur' energy), and various reflections on relations between North and South that no longer bear much resemblance to our current reality.

But! That doesn't mean the book's value has been totally ravaged by the passage of time. There's still a lot in here that's worth reading, especially if your perception of the DPRK is still mostly shaped by State Department memos and Cold War propaganda. The DPRK is — all things considered — not an especially nice place to be since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It has an overbearing and calcified government, frequent shortages of essential goods, a strict information diet, and everyone who lives there has to deal with Yeonmi Park making up the most wild shit imaginable about them on Joe Rogan or whatever.

(Side note: western readers would do well — as our governments actively coax the world down the road to climate catastrophe and as we're all choked blue in the grip of an entrenched ruling class — not to feel too smug about the deficiencies of the DPRK's political system. And, of course, in terms of disregard for human life The West has no moral high ground over its enemies du jour and never has.)

Much in the same way that Fitzpatrick made waves in 'The Russian Revolution' by suggesting that the unfolding of October might possibly have occurred in and been influenced by a particular historical context, Cumings' chief contribution in this book is to suggest that the DPRK is the DPRK because of what has been done (and is being done) to it and the conditions it has alternatively found itself in and created for itself. He does not, as the tedious critics who screech he has a 'far-left' (if only!) agenda say, take all the blame for the situation of the DPRK off the shoulders of its government. In fact, he spends a great deal of the book lamenting their excessive caution and the jealousy with which they guard their political power, envisioning a lost 'opening up' that could have been pursued in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse but that instead drowned in the stagnant waters of the North Korean state. This is the whole point: North Korea is 'another country', with foibles and hang-ups and grievances both justified and unjustified: a product of history, the most recent part of which included Japanese colonial brutalisation and a genocidal American bombing and sanctions campaign. It's sad that a statement as banal as, 'Maybe there's a reason things are fucked up over there' (a statement which does not, you must note, deny that things are indeed fucked up over there) can trigger such pearl-clutching on the part of right-thinking western liberals, but that's what imperial hegemony does to your brain, I suppose.

Speaking of which, even if you find all this 'context' stuff very dull and spurious, the book functions very well as an encyclopaedia of the numerous ways the American world has consistently bullied, mistreated and lied to the DPRK. The US seems to be addicted to formulating, altering, and reneging on deals with the DPRK depending on how close its leaders believe the country is to collapse (and all its attendant human misery, about which they care little). The saga of the DPRK's nuclear program, which they agreed to halt in return for light water reactors which the US agreed to provide, only to back out at the last minute when they figured that providing non-weaponisable nuclear energy might stabilise the North Korean government and remove a justification for constant American belligerence, is a staggering example of naked imperial hypocrisy.

It is the 'imperial' part of 'imperial hypocrisy' which Cumings himself is most loath to accept. For all his railing against successive generations of 'short-sighted' American policymakers and obvious sympathy for the actual people of the DPRK, he clings to a stubborn left-liberalism which sees him unable to accept that America's behaviour is not a 'deviation' from any underlying and ultimately noble political project, but rather a fundamental expression of the logic of its role as the world's primary imperial hegemon. Like so many liberals, Cumings casts a historian's eye across a century plus of genocidal white supremacy, of propping up fascist dictators, of slavery, of rat-lines, of sociopathic disdain for human life, and concludes that, no, what really expresses America's fundamental nature is all the pretty speeches we gave along the way.

It's unconvincing. Still, it doesn't hurt the book too much. Just be prepared to come away from it with a more systemic critique of American behaviour than Cumings himself has.

[Merricat Blackwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sort of an odd book structurally. It hops around a lot in time, going from the Korean War to Clinton's negotiations with the country in the 1990s to Kim Il Sung's experience of guerrilla warfare in Manchuria in World War II. It's obviously written from a deep well of knowledge, but it has an informal tone and sometimes makes sweeping, uncitable claims: "The Koreans use chuch'e [Juche] in similar ways, in their case with the goal of creating a subjective, solipsistic state of mind, the correct thought that must precede and hat will then determine correct action, but also as a means of defining what is simultaneously modern and Korean." Cumings' corrective to American amnesia about the Korean War, laid out more thoroughly in The Korean War: A History, is extremely valuable. The information about the Korean guerrilla campaign in Manchuria is fascinating but a little scattershot (possibly the intended audience is someone with a little more background knowledge than I have here). And as a portrait of both the good (gender equality, free housing, a near-total absence of extreme poverty) and the bad (intense surveillance, prosecution of political speech, the bizarre cult of the ruling family) of North Korea, it feels fair and thoughtful. I would happily read any chapter of this book expanded into an entire book of its own. Just somehow the chapters put together don't feel terribly coherent.

[Jason Harper · Rating 1 out of 5]

Cumings is one of the leading leftist academics covering the Korean Peninsula. However, this book is beneath someone of his credentials. It's understandable to have different interpretations of facts, or different analyses of how to move forward, but it's inexcusable to parrot propaganda for popular consumption and call it history. One of the most egregious examples in this book is the so-called DPRK land reform, which Cumings claims was "relatively bloodless." That may be a subjective qualification, but the implication is far from the truth. He also parrots propaganda about the mythical beginnings of Kim Il Sung, conveniently leaves out Kim Dae Jung paying off the North for summitry, and leaves out the North's stated objective of unifying the Peninsula under the auspices of Pyongyang. This isn't a serious book for understanding the DPRK from a leftist perspective.

[Court · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s a very weird book. Definitely feels kind of rushed, probably in response to the whole “axis of evil” thing that was still novel when it was initially published. There are some weird attempts at humor that don’t land and he doesn’t give as much credit/attention/blame to the communist ideology that has governed the DPRK since its founding, but still interesting as a left-ish challenge to the predominant racist and ignorant narratives about Korea that we still have to suffer through, even 20 years after this book was published.

[Opxray · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bruce Cummings is the expert on North Korea for a reason. Perfectly paced, his book offers a condemnation of American imperialism and humanization of North Korea while maintaining a liberal perspective that I might now agree with, but ultimately can appreciate as it makes this book the perfect source for the average person to educate themselves on just how evil the US was to Korea and how traumatized the DPRK is

[Elizabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Understanding that this review will cause some ruffled feathers, I will say that Cumings is a treasure and his works should be more widely read in the United States. Thoughtful, respectful, yet far from preachy, this is a must-read for modern Americans who vote.

[Jacob · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing book for someone who knows nothing about this history. A good primer that makes me want to read more! Especially interesting to finish on a day where South Korea declared martial law.

[Thomas Pope · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a necessary read.

[Jackson Peplow · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book could perhaps be more accurately titled “The United States and its misunderstanding of North Korea” but for someone with a little background on the DPRK or Korean-US history it is a thought provoking read. My biggest take away is that North Koreas leaders, while perhaps ruthless and brutal, are not crazy or insane but rational actors who live a precarious existence, perpetually under threat from a immensely more powerful adversary, and so have to play their weak hand skillfully to survive. More US policymakers would benefit from reading this book.

[Kriegslok]

North Korea's isolation makes it a difficult country to understand. It has become an international pariah and bogeyman based on what is unknown as much as is known. Significantly it has continued to totter along defying all pundits predictions of imminent collapse. Cumings takes a new look at Korea putting the DPRK of today into context taking an in depth look at Korean history, culture and politics. The one thing that is pretty clear in all this is that Korea's main protagonist has failed to understand much about the country which it has occupied and fought over for some 60 years now. As is so often the case the ideological mindset of the US political system prevents much thinking outside the box. This peaked once again with Bush juniors absurd division of the world into the spheres of "Good" and "Evil". US strategists and politicians are once again trapped in an imaginary world of their own making and are frustrated that the real world is not responding to their blinkered view of it. Cumings looks at how this mindset has met with that of the leadership of the DPRK and examines how opportunities for engagement, especially on the nuclear question, have been squandered repeatedly by US ideologists. In doing so he revisits in detail the legacy and impact of decades of warfare and especially the effect of the nationalist resistance to the Japanese occupation (which is essentially where this all kicked off). Cumings also covers in detail the US plan to carpet bomb North Korea with nuclear weapons to wipe out North Korean resistance and create a toxic curtain to "protect" South Korea from "communism". An excellent book by someone who has researched and understood his subject and is no doubt written off as a "fellow traveller" and apologist for the DPRK regime for his efforts. Intelligence operatives, diplomats and anyone wanting to understand the DPRK beyond the rhetoric could do no better than to start with this seminal work.