The most important thing in our war preparations is to teach all
The most important thing in our war preparations is to teach all our people to hate U.S. imperialism. Otherwise, we will not be able to defeat the U.S. imperialists who boast of their technological superiority.
Hear, O listener, the fiery words of Kim Il-sung, founder of North Korea: “The most important thing in our war preparations is to teach all our people to hate U.S. imperialism. Otherwise, we will not be able to defeat the U.S. imperialists who boast of their technological superiority.” This cry, born of defiance, reveals the essence of his philosophy: that the heart of a people, inflamed with hatred, could overcome weapons more advanced than their own. To him, the spirit of resistance was stronger than the steel of machines, and only through unyielding passion could the weaker strike down the stronger.
The origin of this saying lies in the aftermath of the Korean War, when the North had been devastated by American firepower. Cities were reduced to ashes, families shattered, and industry left in ruins. Kim understood that his nation could never match the United States in wealth, weapons, or technology. Therefore, he chose to forge a different weapon: hatred. By teaching his people to despise the foreign enemy, he sought to unite them under a single banner and make their will to resist unbreakable. In his view, war would not be won by airplanes and bombs alone, but by the indomitable spirit of a people willing to endure any hardship to defeat their foe.
History shows that this principle of inflamed hatred as fuel has often been used by leaders who faced powerful adversaries. Recall the story of the Vietnam War, where the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese, though vastly outgunned, fought for years against American forces. Their strength was not in technology but in the unity of belief, the conviction that they resisted foreign occupation. Though the cost was terrible, their persistence proved that passion and will could wear down even the most advanced armies.
And yet, the wisdom of Kim’s words is mingled with danger. For while hatred can bind a people in common cause, it also blinds them. It narrows the heart until the enemy is no longer seen as human, but only as a monster to be destroyed. This is the double edge of such a philosophy: it grants resilience in war, but it poisons the soul in peace. A nation that survives only by hating another may win battles, yet remain trapped in cycles of enmity, unable to build a world where harmony and prosperity can flourish.
The deeper meaning here is not simply about the United States or Korea, but about the power of unity. A people who believe in a cause, who are willing to endure sacrifice for it, can withstand immense trials. But the lesson for us, children of a different age, is to ask: must that unity always be forged in hatred? Could it not also be built upon love for one’s homeland, compassion for one’s people, and the dream of peace? Hatred binds tightly, but love binds more deeply. Hatred drives one to resist; love inspires one to endure and to rebuild.
What, then, shall we learn from this? It is that every nation, every community, must prepare itself for trials, whether of war or of hardship. The strength of the people’s spirit is always more vital than weapons or wealth. But we must also be vigilant not to let hatred consume us, lest we become what we despise. To resist oppression is noble; to demonize until humanity is forgotten is perilous. Let our preparation for conflict be not only the stirring of anger, but also the cultivation of resilience, courage, and justice.
Therefore, O listener, hold Kim Il-sung’s words in tension. Recognize the truth they contain: that spirit and unity can overcome technological superiority. But also heed the warning they conceal: that hatred, once kindled, is hard to extinguish, and may devour even the victory it helps secure. Let your battles—whether personal or national—be fueled not by hatred alone, but by love for what you defend, by the vision of a better world beyond the struggle. For hatred may win wars, but only love can build peace.
DLNguyen Dang Luong
Kim Il-sung’s words reflect the mindset of a regime preparing its people for a battle against perceived imperialism. But how does this rhetoric fit into the broader picture of global politics and conflict? Does framing an enemy as evil and technologically superior create an ‘us vs. them’ dynamic that makes peaceful resolution impossible? Could a more diplomatic or constructive approach to conflict have yielded better outcomes for both sides?
HVTruong Thi Hoang Van
The quote underscores the importance of ideological mobilization in times of war, but it also brings up ethical concerns. If people are taught to hate, can they ever recognize the humanity in their enemies? Is it possible to fight for a cause without succumbing to hatred, or is such an emotion an inevitable part of conflict? How do we address the moral consequences of inciting widespread hatred to achieve political or military objectives?
HKHoang Kendy
Kim Il-sung’s focus on teaching hatred as part of war preparations may have had its intended impact on North Korea’s unity and resilience. However, is it wise to base a society’s strength on negative emotions? Hatred can undoubtedly fuel resistance, but can it build the type of positive, constructive society needed for long-term peace and stability? How do we guard against the consequences of fostering resentment and bitterness among a population?
TNNguyen Thi Thanh Ngoc
This statement seems to advocate for a unified front built on animosity toward an external force, but it also raises concerns about the long-term impact of such hatred. Is teaching hatred an effective strategy for achieving victory, or does it only perpetuate cycles of violence and distrust? How does such an approach affect the relationship between nations after the conflict ends? Can reconciliation ever be achieved when hatred has been the foundation of war preparation?
NTnguyen ton
Kim Il-sung's quote highlights the central role of ideology in preparing for conflict, suggesting that a shared sense of hatred toward an enemy is key to uniting people. But can hatred alone truly be an effective motivator in war? While it may rally the masses, does it risk dehumanizing the enemy, leading to greater violence and suffering? Can there be a balance between ideological unity and humanitarian values during wartime?