왜이렇게 깔끔하게 해석이 안떨어지는지 모르겠습니다 이거 어떻게 해석하죠..

1. 북한에서는, 학자-당국이 한 단계 더 나아갔다, 그들은 한국이 남측의 왕국에 의해 한 번 통일되었던 적이 있다는 사실을 참을 수 없었기 때문에.
2. 이것은 남과 북 사이의 현재 노력의 역반영이다, 각각의 참가자가 오랫동안 어떤 멸종한 상태로 확고히 관련된 채로.

2번은 어케 해석해야할지 좀 난감했어요 앞뒤 내용을 알았더라면 싶지만..ㅋㅋ

감사합니다

In North Korea, the scholar-officials went one step further, since they cannot stand the fact that Korea was once unified by a southern kingdom. They extol virtues of Koguryŏ in all possible ways, of course, and also insist that Silla's unification of the 7th century was not a real one, since the new state did not control all of Korea. Hence the real unity was established only in the 10th century, largely thanks to the proud descendants of the great Koguryŏ.


The rationale behind this interpretation is easy to understand, since the borders of Silla are roughly similar to those of present-day South Korea, while Koguryŏ controlled what is now the realm of the Kim dynasty.
This is a retro-projection of the present-day struggle between the North and South, with each participant being firmly associated with some long-extinct state.

앞의 글입니다