Fact Check: Each of the three leaders of North Korea have killed millions of people

Introduction

The claim that "each of the three leaders of North Korea have killed millions of people" suggests that Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, and Kim Jong-un are responsible for the deaths of millions during their respective regimes. This assertion raises significant questions about the historical context, the methodologies used to estimate casualties, and the reliability of the sources providing such information.

What We Know

Kim Il-sung (1948-1994): Estimates of deaths attributed to his regime, particularly during the Korean War and subsequent purges, vary widely. Some sources suggest that his policies led to the deaths of millions, particularly during the Great Famine of the 1990s, which was exacerbated by government mismanagement and isolationist policies. A report estimates that between 710,000 and over 3.5 million people may have died due to his policies, with a mid-estimate of around 1.6 million 1.
Kim Jong-il (1994-2011): His rule is often associated with the famine that struck North Korea in the 1990s, which resulted in significant loss of life. Estimates of deaths during this period also vary, with some sources suggesting that up to 3 million people may have died due to starvation and related issues 6 8.
Kim Jong-un (2011-present): While Kim Jong-un's regime has not been marked by a famine on the scale of the 1990s, reports indicate that his leadership has continued the pattern of repression and human rights abuses characteristic of his predecessors. There are claims of executions and purges, but the total number of deaths attributed directly to his policies is less clear and requires further investigation 7 10.

Analysis

The claim that each leader has killed millions is complicated by the lack of precise data and the variability in estimates.

Source Reliability: The primary source for casualty estimates, such as the one from Hawaii.edu 1, is based on extrapolations and may not be universally accepted due to the inherent difficulties in obtaining accurate data from North Korea. This source has been criticized for its methodology, which relies on estimates rather than direct evidence.
Media Reports: Articles from reputable news organizations like the BBC 2 and Reuters 4 focus on the public mourning of Kim Jong-il's death but do not address the claim of mass killings directly. While they provide context about the regime's control over information and public sentiment, they do not offer concrete evidence supporting the claim that millions were killed.
Academic Analysis: Scholarly articles, such as those from The Atlantic 8 and The Conversation 7, provide a more nuanced view of the impact of leadership on mortality rates, particularly during famines. However, these analyses often rely on estimates and historical context rather than definitive counts.
Conflicts of Interest: Some sources may have biases based on their geopolitical perspectives or affiliations. For example, articles from Western media may emphasize human rights abuses to support narratives critical of North Korea, while state-controlled media may downplay negative aspects of leadership.
Methodological Concerns: The estimates of deaths often depend on factors such as population size, historical records, and the political climate at the time of reporting. The lack of transparency in North Korea complicates efforts to verify these figures, making it challenging to draw definitive conclusions.

Conclusion

Verdict: Mostly False

The claim that each of the three leaders of North Korea has killed millions of people is largely unsupported by concrete evidence and relies heavily on estimates that vary significantly among sources. While it is acknowledged that Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il presided over periods of severe famine and repression that resulted in substantial loss of life, the exact numbers remain highly contested and lack definitive verification. Kim Jong-un's regime, while marked by human rights abuses, does not have clear evidence linking him to millions of deaths.

This verdict reflects the complexity of the issue, as the available data is often based on extrapolations and estimates rather than direct evidence. The variability in casualty figures and the potential biases of sources further complicate the assessment of the claim.

It is important to recognize the limitations in the available evidence and the challenges in obtaining accurate information from North Korea. Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information and consider the context and reliability of sources when assessing claims related to historical events and leadership accountability.