Pol Pot?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Does anyone know some good books or sites which gives a indepth look at this man and his goals? Also info on the vietnamese invasion would be greatly appreciated.

[Widerstand]

hahahaha oh wow holy shit I laughed so hard I can't even fucking sit on my chair anymore :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

ps: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1860855&postcount=219

[TheGodlessUtopian]

hahahaha oh wow holy shit I laughed so hard I can't even fucking sit on my chair anymore :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

ps: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1860855&postcount=219

I don't get it...what where you trying to prove?

[Widerstand]

Nothing. I was just enjoying the moment.

[Tablo]

Pol pot was a ruthless murderer. That's all you need to know. He's a doodie head.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Pol pot was a ruthless murderer. That's all you need to know. He's a doodie head.

Well yes,of course,that much I knew already.In short he's a monster (that I agree with).However much like the people who study hitler I want to know what made this pschopath tick.

Besides I'm also interested as to why his communist neighbor invaded since war is something started usually by the capitalists.I want to know the exact reasons for the vietnamese attack.What sent them over the edge?

[Weezer]

Pol Pot was a fascist.

[Tablo]

Well one bit of info you might find interesting is that he and his party were anti-intellectual.

[Weezer]

Well one bit of info you might find interesting is that he and his party were anti-intellectual.

Not to mention primitivist, in some weird form. Did I mention that the US and the UK supported Pol Pot?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/arthat.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b0K5Vt7TRQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bu7DROKCZI

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well one bit of info you might find interesting is that he and his party were anti-intellectual.

That is interesting.Mind giving me links so I can find out about him firsthand?

[Chimurenga.]

edit: This is no longer my opinion.

[28350]

Pol-Pot advanced scientific marxist thought.
LONG LIVE MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM-LINBIAOISM-KIM-IL-SUNGISM-POL-POTISM-THIRD-WORLDISM
*breathes*

[thälmann]

pol pot and his party had nothing to do with marxism-leninism. what theyve written or talk about prove that. the cities for exampke were closed"one and for all" because of political reasons.

a good articel about the khmer rouge: http://www.aworldtowin.org/back_issues/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm

[AK]

Besides I'm also interested as to why his communist neighbor invaded since war is something started usually by the capitalists.
I think that tells us something about the economic character of Viet-Nam then. I don't think any great "socialist" state would act in aggression towards another state, would it? :rolleyes:

[Adil3tr]

This is always an interesting topic on this forum because most often these threads are filled with idiotic posts lacking any sort of investigation whatsoever. It's one of the few topics on here where you can blatantly see where most people posting have NO idea what they are talking about. So here goes...

From what I know right now, He was actually neither. Nor was he a "primitivist" or a 'monster'. The Khmer Rouge were Marxist-Leninists judging by their Party documents.

Most of the deaths were related to the US carpet bombing campaign in Cambodia (like Vietnam and Laos at the time). Cities were being destroyed as well as rural areas (this led to destroyed crops and destroyed arable land) so they were emptied out and relocated to the rural areas. As for Vietnam's role, Vietnam forces would rape and kill Cambodian women to provoke Cambodian forces, as seen here:

Vietnam should NOT be supported as a force against Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

Following that, a massive purge was initiated, trying to snuff out any potential Vietnamese agents within their ranks. With this, innocent people were killed. Some people blame this on paranoia or maybe there were ACTUAL agents within the Khmer ranks, either way, they were *technically* at war with each other.

I don't think Pol Pot was a great leader nor do I think the Khmer Rouge were great. In my opinion, I think a lot of planning they carried out was (mostly) naive and the regime itself lacked experience. It's important to dissect and investigate the problems surrounding regimes like the Khmer Rouge and surrounding Southeast Asia during this time (unlike any so-called "Marxists" in this thread or this forum for any matter who dismiss such and such leader or regime with some kind of simple insult and lacking any sort of analysis).

Poster "scarletghoul" will be able to help you out with whatever you need. He knows more about the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot than any person on the forum and is the go-to person on this topic.

Hope this gives you a clearer idea.

You have got to be kidding me. Why do you spend all your goddamn time defending the worst people to carry the communist banner. Not every single witness of his crimes was lieing, you know. I love the fact the Vietnamese took him out by the way.
If you tell a capitalist that, get ready for this look::eek:

[Magón]

I will say, if I had to choose between supporting the Khmer Rouge or Vietnam, Vietnam would definitely be my choice of who I support. Pol Pot and his band of crazies are just too spread out. They're all over the map.

[KC]

How about someone just post some links to some books or essays instead of writing "Why he was a stupid murderer who cares"......

:glare:

[Chimurenga.]

edit: not my opinion now

[Red Commissar]

According to a catholic priest, "Pol-Pottery" was a great evil that atheism spawned :laugh:

[scarletghoul]

Yes, always an interesting topic.. No name in the history of Communism is as blackened as that of Pol Pot. Proletarianrevolution is absolutely right, it's good to study things in detail and dissect them instead of just making stupid claims without knowing anything.

Here are some key points about the Khmer Rouge-

Influences

They were officially Marxist-Leninists, and were influenced by Maoism (but only so much as the Vietnamese were Maoist influenced, that is, peasant guerilla war etc). Pol Pot, who had studied in Paris, was also quite inspired by the French Revolution, and particularly liked Kropotkin's work on it. Despite being MLs they were ultra-leftist and too idealist. In addition to their Communism they were greatly motivated by Khmer nationalism, with the idea of breaking from Vietnamese and American domination and building a prosperous independant Khmer society.

Year 0

Obviously they emerged from the Vietnam War. As has been mentioned, the US carpet bombed Cambodia killing 700,000 to a million people and destroying the country's infrastructure. The Khmer Rouge were nowhere near experienced enough to face the task of rebuilding the entire country. They decided to start society again from the "Year 0", focussing on building up agriculture. They emptied the cities, which had been extremely overcrowded and full of starvation due to the war. The cities were also viewed as nests of capitalist and foreign decadence, which was somewhat true. This was also an attempt to resolve that old contradiction between city and countryside (in favour of the countryside obviously, as they were after all an army of peasants). As part of this they were 'anti-intellectual'; they didn't like the idea of some educated city-dwellers being better than all the rest of the Khmer.. So everyone was made a peasant. Their rural development was pretty well done actually, and more successful than any attempts by previous Cambodian governments. But Year 0 was not just for construction of the economy, it was also an ideal to try and create a peasant utopia where everyone was equal. This involved ultra-leftist measures such as forced dismantling of families and the abolition of money. It was harshly enforced.

Organisation

During the guerilla war period things were extremely secretive for obvious reasons, and this continued into the first year or so of the Khmer Rouge rule. For a year, the communist government was not even known to the people, it was just called the Angkar (organisation), and they even used Sihanouk as head of state but with no power. Only later did they reveal themselves as the Communist Party of Kampuchea, and later still did Pol Pot become known to people. Before that his name was only known by maybe 200 government people.

The organisation of the Khmer Rouge was quite decentralised, with villages being run by local cadre and the country also divided into Zones. This meant that conditions varied a lot and the state was somewhat uncoordinated. The central government did not micromanage things and many of the brutal practices associated with Pol Pot were decisions made by lower level cadres (brutal violence had been a part of Cambodian life for decades of constant war and oppression). By 1978 many leaders in the Eastern Zone were (possibly correctly) suspected of siding with Vietnam.

Vietnam

Another more overlooked point of context is Vietnam's relation to Cambodia. The history is one of colonialism, annexation, mass killing and subjugation dating back hundreds of years. Even the Vietnamese Communists were condescending to the Cambodian Communists and tried to control them and use them for their own ends. This relationship is crucial in understanding things. The Vietnamese Communists even tried to use the Cambodians as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US. Pol Pot and the others were nationalists and wanted an independant Khmer movement, so they gradually broke away from Vietnamese control during the war. Originally, the Vietnamese communists had wanted to build an Indochinese federation of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

This was also the time when USSR and China were enemies. They were both helping out the Vietnamese and competing for Communist Vietnam's allegience. The USSR won Vietnam, and China sided with Cambodia. The antagonism was heightened. Vietnam, egged on by Soviet geopolitics, wanted to get rid of the independant Khmer government and restore its age old domination over Cambodia. There was no 'humanitarian intervention' involved like some people claim. They may have been Communists but centuries of imperialist ideology is not going to disappear easily..

Invasion

In 1978 Vietnam invaded. In the run up to this invasion, Pol suspected many Khmers Rouges of being traitors and there was a purge, with many people, mostly cadres, being imprisoned, tortured and executed. This especially happened in the Eastern Zone. Ethnic Vietnamese living in Cambodia were persecuted, put into camps and sometimes massacred.

The Vietnamese invaders were no better; they massacred and raped many Khmers. As well as setting up the puppet Peoples' Republic of Kampuchea, the Vietnamese kept a military occupation of the country which lasted until 1990. The invasion also caused vast famine across the country. Indeed, a big part of the death toll attributed the Pol Pot is a result of the Vietnamese invasion.

The Khmer Rouge remained as a guerilla army with support of many Khmers who disliked the occupation and the puppet state. They lasted into the 90s when they withered away and their last remnants surrendered in in December 1999.

END of mini essay lol

I focussed on the Khmer Rouge and not so much on Pol himself, as it's the best way to understand things. Pol Pot did have a lot of say in things but it's important to see this as a historical happening and not as the work of one man's ideas. Also focus on Vietnam as you are interested most in that.

Someone else made a similar thread a while ago here http://www.revleft.com/vb/pol-poti-were-t129896/index.html?t=129896
My post in there is similar to this but with more emphasis on countering the 'mass murderer' stuff.

One great book on this subject is Pol Pot: The History of a Nightmare by Philip Short. It's detailed and although the author is bourgeois he is very objective. Can't recommend this enough for someone who wants to learn about the Khmer Rouge.

Hope this helps

Sorry I don't know any good books or anything on the invasion specifically, if anyone does please post them !

You have got to be kidding me. Why do you spend all your goddamn time defending the worst people to carry the communist banner. Not every single witness of his crimes was lieing, you know. I love the fact the Vietnamese took him out by the way.Comrade, you should try and learn to see the difference between 'defending the worst people' and attempting to outline the objective facts to get a better understanding of things. It is not about defending or renouncing particular individuals; that's the bourgeois-metaphysical way of looking at history and not the right way to approach the world if you wish to understand and change it.

[M-26-7]

Not on Pol Pot the man, but on the Khmer Rouge, Voices from S-21: Terror and History in Pol Pot's Secret Prison by David Chandler is quite good.

[welshexile1963]

Thanks for the Scarletghoul that is very interesting for someone with very little info on Pol Pot, nice one.

[Barry Lyndon]

Excellent documentary- exposes the horrors of the Khmer Rogue crimes, but also shows how Nixon and Kissinger's murderous policies made them possible.

And stop badmouthing the Vietnamese Communists. That they toppled the Khmer Rogue and then fed the starving Cambodians when they had barely enough food to feed themselves is nothing short of heroic, morally on the same level as the liberation of the Nazi death camps. The Vietnamese intervention saved millions of lives, and here you are condemning them. You should condemn that revisionist sack of shit Deng Xiaopeng for supporting the Khmer Rogue and then INVADING Vietnam as punishment for saving Cambodia from the brink of total destruction, when Vietnam was already devastated by years of US imperialist assault. All with the blessing of the CIA. A more blatant betrayal of socialist brotherhood is hard to find.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzYoJHNfj6E&feature=related

[kitsune]

Excellent documentary- exposes the horrors of the Khmer Rogue crimes, but also shows how Nixon and Kissinger's murderous policies made them possible.

And stop badmouthing the Vietnamese Communists. That they toppled the Khmer Rogue and then fed the starving Cambodians when they had barely enough food to feed themselves is nothing short of heroic.

JzYoJHNfj6E

Yes. And if you ever get the chance to travel to Vietnam and see Halong bay, do so. it is one of the most gorgeous sights you will ever see in your life, I guarantee.

[Obs]

I don't know, bro. Why do you and your party act like welcomers of US Imperialism and then claim that you're Communists?




Did I ever fucking say that they were?




Of course. You being an ISO-Liberal, you don't understand a nations right to self determination.




Because I give a shit about what a Capitalist thinks.....
Why do you guys always get so mad when you're confronted about supporting Pol Pot?

[Barry Lyndon]

Why do you guys always get so mad when you're confronted about supporting Pol Pot?

Because on some level they must know its an indefensible, absurd and atrocious position.
It's all well and good to look at the conditions that allowed the Khmer Rogue to come to power- but that doesn't let them off the hook for what they did. The Vietnamese also endured horrible bombing and disruption of their country as well-that didn't 'force' them to make their country into an open-air death camp, murder everyone with glasses(one of Pol Pots decrees), and turn a school like the Tuol Seng prison into a torture chamber.
You know, they might actually, shock horror, be fucking responsible for their actions.

[Chimurenga.]

Why do you guys always get so mad when you're confronted about supporting Pol Pot?

Who is supporting Pol Pot? I'm not.

[Barry Lyndon]

Who is supporting Pol Pot? I'm not.

Your an apologist.

[Chimurenga.]

edit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

From what little I've read about the Khmer Rouge, it seems like an excellent case of a self-destructive ideology. If looked at from a Marxian perspective, it's perhaps the best example I can think of involving a traitorous superstructure turning against economic progression (or even maintenance of the economy...their ideology was thoroughly regressive).

As far as a clinical, objective and non-impassioned analysis of Cambodia during that time goes, that only works if you give the same treatment to other insitutions and/or events, such as Hitler's Germany and the Rwandan genocide. Otherwise you're just coming off as another leftist who quakes with righteous indignation at every victim of imperialism, yet suddenly shakes off all the outrage when it comes to giving an "objective appraisal" of every asshole who's ever justified their actions under a red flag.

(That's not directed at anyone in particular, just a general comment I have from reading these types of discussions.)

[Zanthorus]

Of course. You being an ISO-Liberal, you don't understand a nations right to self determination.

You mean besides the fact that 'a nations right to self determination' is a principle derived from classical liberalism?

[Barry Lyndon]

a) How so? If you actually read my first post in this thread, I said that Pol Pot was not a great leader, the Khmer Rouge lacked experience as a whole, and that the planning was naive and idealistic. How exactly does that make me an apologist? Is it because I don't think he was a ruthlessmurdererfascistprimitivistmonster?

b) Your idea that Vietnam came and liberated Cambodia from an evil monster is not only wrong but it goes against the self determination that Cambodia should've been allowed to have. Vietnam only caused problems before they eventually took over (after that I'm not too sure). For example, like I said with the raping and killing of Cambodian women.

c) But when was there ever this "socialist brotherhood"? Surely, Vietnam did nothing to pursue this 'brotherhood' because as others and I have pointed out, Vietnam's ultimate intention was not the 'liberation of Cambodia' or whatever you have conjured up.

d) Just so I'm clear, I'm not trying to glorify or support Pol Pot or the Khmer Rouge, I'm merely trying to put fourth the necessity of analyzing and investigating this particular part of History. It's important to not get caught up in sensationalism and it's important to dissect these things like Marxists (for those who actually claim to be).

a) 'Naive' and 'idealistic' is your words for describing a psychotic campaign of genocide. Great.
Yes, I would describe Pol Pot as a 'ruthlessmurdererfascistprimitivistmonster' because he was. The Vietnamese communists certainly did. And I daresay they have considerably more revolutionary credentials then you or me.

b) The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia after the Khmer Rogue had launched repeated cross-border attacks, murdering thousands of Vietnamese civilians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/opinion/07iht-edpringle_ed3_.html

Even then, the Vietnamese repeatedly tried to negotiate because they had no stomach for a fight with the Khmer Rogue after over 30 years of war. But Pol Pot had completely lost his mind and demanded nothing less then the entire Mekong delta and the extermination of the Vietnamese population. Whose 'sovereignty' was being violated?
And when the Vietnamese DID invade, the Khmer Rogue quickly collapsed because there were massive Cambodian defections to their side.

c) As a materialist, I have very little interest in people's 'intentions'. I care about their policies and their verifiable consequences. The actual consequences of Vietnamese intervention was the abrupt end of a genocide and the saving of millions from starvation.

d) Communists are not disinterested, lofty academics. They should be, as Lenin said, a tribune of the oppressed. Analyzing the situation and putting it in context does not mean you should just callously dismiss the suffering of millions of helpless peasants just because those torturing, starving, and murdering them happened to be waving the red flag.

P.S.: Manicexpression, a member of your own organization who I have great respect for, doesn't even recognize the Khmer Rogue as Communists. You might want to check that out with him.

[Adil3tr]

I don't know, bro. Why do you and your party act like welcomers of US Imperialism and then claim that you're Communists?
Not sure what the fuck you're referring to, but I have never welcomed imperialism.


Did I ever fucking say that they were?
You kind of did. When they moved people out of the cities, they murdered a lot of them. That was absent from your elaboration on the Khmer Rouge.


Of course. You being an ISO-Liberal, you don't understand a nations right to self determination.
Wow. If you read half my posts you would see I hate fucking liberals. And the Khmer Rouge wasn't the nation, they were a bunch of psychopaths from France. They were totally primitivists, moving people out of the cities and forcing them into the countryside to form "rural communes". How is that marxist at all? Reading party documents is hardly the best way to get fair information, "comrade."

[Obs]

If the Khmer Rouge's actions were based on their understanding of Marxism, I have a feeling something might've gotten lost in translation.

[scarletghoul]

And stop badmouthing the Vietnamese Communists. That they toppled the Khmer Rogue and then fed the starving Cambodians when they had barely enough food to feed themselves is nothing short of heroic, morally on the same level as the liberation of the Nazi death camps. The Vietnamese intervention saved millions of lives, and here you are condemning them.
Wrong. It was the Vietnamese threat of invasion and actual invasion which caused a lot of the death and suffering. If Vietnam had left Kampuchea alone or even coorperated with the KR government, there would be nowhere near as much suffering as there was. If you accept the US's part in this tragedy you should also accept Vietnam's. Don't get me wrong, Pol Pot's policies were not the best, but to act like all the suffering is a result of one man's evil ideas and that Vietnam invaded out of compassion is just plain naive and wrong.


Why do you guys always get so mad when you're confronted about supporting Pol Pot?
Because we do not support Pol Pot. Because we understand that history is not just a case of 'good guys and bad guys', people who you should 'support' or hate..

We obviously do have huge problems with Pol Pot and oppose most of his policies (I described him as ultra-leftist, for example). But we're not gonna just join in the useless torrent of 'huhuh pol pot was a psycho monster' beccause that's useless and silly


How so? If you actually read my first post in this thread, I said that Pol Pot was not a great leader, the Khmer Rouge lacked experience as a whole, and that the planning was naive and idealistic. How exactly does that make me an apologist? Is it because I don't think he was a ruthlessmurdererfascistprimitivistmonster? :lol: apparently you're an apologist if you choose to analyse the situation and not just put it all down to the work of one madman


From what little I've read about the Khmer Rouge, it seems like an excellent case of a self-destructive ideology. If looked at from a Marxian perspective, it's perhaps the best example I can think of involving a traitorous superstructure turning against economic progression (or even maintenance of the economy...their ideology was thoroughly regressive).
Imo it's a great example of ultra-leftism in practice. Unfortunately not everyone seems to have learned from it; there are still some comrades who want to instantly abolish money..


You mean besides the fact that 'a nations right to self determination' is a principle derived from classical liberalism?Wait are you saying it's a liberal position to oppose the Vietnamese invasion and support the Khmer running their own country ??


b) The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia after the Khmer Rogue had launched repeated cross-border attacks, murdering thousands of Vietnamese civilians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/opinion/07iht-edpringle_ed3_.html

Even then, the Vietnamese repeatedly tried to negotiate because they had no stomach for a fight with the Khmer Rogue after over 30 years of war. But Pol Pot had completely lost his mind and demanded nothing less then the entire Mekong delta and the extermination of the Vietnamese population.
Yeah I have condemned the killing of Vietnamese civilians (though you don't seem to condemn the killing of innocent Khmers). Anyway this was disputed territory, which had been stolen from Cambodia in the past, plus Vietnam was constantly threatening invasion.


And when the Vietnamese DID invade, the Khmer Rogue quickly collapsed because there were massive Cambodian defections to their side. Well the Vietnamese had to keep occupying until 1990 and the Khmer Rouge could remain as a guerilla army for 20 more years, so they clearly had some support and the Vietnamese did not so much.

[Chimurenga.]

edit: not my opinion now

[Zanthorus]

Wait are you saying it's a liberal position to oppose the Vietnamese invasion and support the Khmer running their own country ??

No, I was just making an irrelevant jab at the 'right of nations to self-determination', which is a ridiculous principle.

I don't celebrate workers slaughtering workers.

[Adi Shankara]

Wrong. It was the Vietnamese threat of invasion and actual invasion which caused a lot of the death and suffering. If Vietnam had left Kampuchea alone or even coorperated with the KR government, there would be nowhere near as much suffering as there was. If you accept the US's part in this tragedy you should also accept Vietnam's. Don't get me wrong, Pol Pot's policies were not the best, but to act like all the suffering is a result of one man's evil ideas and that Vietnam invaded out of compassion is just plain naive and wrong.


No offense man, but that's bullshit; Pol Pot was a master of propaganda, and utilized whatever localized conflict he could to his benefit to sow fear in order to mobilize the Cambodian population; when he and the party invaded Phnom Penh in April of 1975, they used the fear of "American invasion" and a relapse of Lon Nol's Khmer Republican Army threatening a bombing campaign.

The Vietnamese were scapegoated like crazy; yes, the Vietnamese had political interests in the invasion of Democratic Kampuchea, but ask anyone who is Khmer and they'll almost all say the Vietnamese SAVED them from genocide. that's why most Khmer Americans aren't antithetical to communism, because of the positive experience they have of the Vietnamese People's Army.


Don't get me wrong, Pol Pot's policies were not the best ...I'm not going to comment.


Well the Vietnamese had to keep occupying until 1990 and the Khmer Rouge could remain as a guerilla army for 20 more years, so they clearly had some support and the Vietnamese did not so much.

once again, this isn't true. The People's Republic of Kampuchea replaced the Democratic Kampuchea. It wasn't a Vietnamese satellite, and most of the top administration was still Khmer. Yes, the Vietnamese helped set up the government, but what do you expect? Most of the Cambodian population was starving and war-torn and battered, and they needed the Vietnamese to help them administrate at first, since most of their intellectuals and administrators were killed by the Khmer Rouge.
Trust me, Cambodians have historical antipathy towards "yuons" (Vietnamese), but much of that dissappeared after the invasion of DK by Vietnam. Nowadays, it's only those in the Sam Rainsy party of Cambodia and the ultra-nationalists who accuse the Vietnamese (and Prime Minister Hun Sen) of being "Yuon agents/spies".

Lastly, I'm quite sure that most Cambodians don't really feel too strongly about the Vietnamese; however, it'd be foolish to say that the general population wasn't grateful for the invasion of Vietnam into Democratic Kampuchea.

[Barry Lyndon]

a) Actually, the actual consequences of Vietnamese intervention, for the most part, meant the station of 150,000 troops in Cambodia in a decade-long occupation.



b) Well, they were. The majority of the Khmer Rouge/Communist Party of Kampuchea were peasants.



c) That's great. It's his opinion and we may talk about it in the near future. I'd just say that not acknowledging them as Communists doesnt really help anything nor does it clarify the situation. The Khmer Rouge was influenced by Marxism-Leninism. How great they understood Marxism-Leninism lies in their actions and plans.


d) Edit: As posted in this thread before, this is a pretty good write up: http://www.aworldtowin.org/back_issues/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm

a) The Khmer Rogue had little popular support after 1979. If you watched the sequel to documentary I posted(Called 'Cambodia: The Betrayal' its on Youtube too), they were propped up almost entirely by the CIA as well as Western European, Canadian, Japanese, and Australian arms traders, who poured money and weapons(disguised as 'famine relief), into the Khmer Rogue, to punish Vietnam for driving the US imperialists out of Indochina. The 150,000 Vietnamese troops were the one thing standing in the way of another genocide. And you condemn them.

b) Then I guess that excuses them murdering millions of their fellow peasants. Great logic you got going there.

c) I fail to see how desiring to resurrect an ancient feudal slave state from the 9th century, outlawing education or modern medicine, and exterminating ethnic groups deemed inferior(such as the Cham and ethnic Vietnamese within Cambodia) bears any relation to Marxism or Leninism.

d) Cool-I'll check it out.

[Adi Shankara]

Well, they were. The majority of the Khmer Rouge/Communist Party of Kampuchea were peasants.

And the majority of the top cadres who consisted of Angkar (aka, the Party's Central Committee) were all Chinese-Khmer petty-bourgeoisie: (which wouldn't be notable, if their regime wasn't so brutal towards non-Khmers, which just makes it ironic), Pol Pot was born into a wealthy family of landowners who could afford to educated him at Lycee Sisowath, the best French run school in Cambodia; so was Ieng Sary, as they both could afford to go Paris to study, mainly because they had the money to do it; so was Nuon Chea, so was Khieu Samphan (though he was only Khmer, not Chinese) only Kang Geak Eav (also Chinese-Khmer) was born into extreme poverty, and won a scholarship to Lycee Sisowath due to his intellect.



Right. They did so in response to Vietnamese attacks on Cambodia and Cambodian women. I can't help but think you're using the traditional propaganda tactic of portraying the "enemy" as a bunch of rapists...that play is as old as history itself. Anyways, no, that's not true at all; the Khmer Rouge were playing off the historical antipathy between the Khmer empire and the Vietnamese; remember, for hundreds of years, they were sworn enemies, Cambodia and Vietnam. with Pol Pot, it was as much racial supremacy as the reason you cited, either way, his hatred of the Vietnamese is well documented, and in Democratic Kampuchea, that was enough to get you killed, simply for LOOKING Vietnamese.


If Vietnam had left Kampuchea alone or even coorperated with the KR government, there would be nowhere near as much suffering as there was. if Vietnam cooperated with the Khmer Rouge, then they'd have to exterminate themselves; afterall, that's what the Khmer Rouge wanted most: they always talked in propaganda about the "hated yuon enemies".


Vietnam, like scarletghoul and the video I posted pointed out, wanted Cambodia to be a satellite state, to be a part of an Indochina Federation. The Khmer Rouge wanted to be independent. The Vietnamese then forced their way through provocation, warfare, and eventually, invasion, to make that a reality.

What's wrong with a federation of Indochinese, ruled by Indochinese peasants? I thought you were an Internationalist, that is, if you're a communist?

[Adi Shankara]

Well now that I see the Pol Pot supporters are silent...

[Rêve Rouge]

The Vietnamese were scapegoated like crazy; yes, the Vietnamese had political interests in the invasion of Democratic Kampuchea, but ask anyone who is Khmer and they'll almost all say the Vietnamese SAVED them from genocide. that's why most Khmer Americans aren't antithetical to communism, because of the positive experience they have of the Vietnamese People's Army.

I would agree that Khmer people are grateful that the Vietnamese saved them, but Khmer Americans don't accept the idea of communism too kindly...They always point to the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge and use that as evidence that "communism is evil". And plus that they're born in America where communism is once again, not taken too kindly.



Lastly, I'm quite sure that most Cambodians don't really feel too strongly about the Vietnamese; however, it'd be foolish to say that the general population wasn't grateful for the invasion of Vietnam into Democratic Kampuchea.

Unfortunately most Khmers, be it American born or Cambodian born, still have a thing against the Vietnamese. Mostly because of the Hun Sen government, and the historical land grabbing by the Vietnamese. But I guess I'm just one of the few who look past that.

[chegitz guevara]

One of the best books on the subject is Michael Vickery's Cambodia: 1975-82.

Some things that need to be put in context.

Phnom Pehn was a a city of about half a million people before the war began in 1970. By 1975, it had swelled to two million, mostly refugees from the American bombing campaign. Towards the end of the war, when it was surrounded and under siege, it was only fed through American aid. With the collapse of the Lon Nol regime, America immediately ended all aid. Between the fact that suddenly two million people had nothing to eat and that the CPC honestly believed that the Americans were going to bomb the cities, they were right to evacuate them and send the people out to where the food was.

The famine didn't begin until years later. The southwest comrades were very parochial. They had a pathological hatred of all things not Cambodian. For instance, they deliberately carried out an extermination campaign agains the Cham people, a Muslim ethnic minority that had once ruled the SE part of Cambodia and Vietnam.

The CPC believed that the Vietnamese were plotting against them, and also were looking to "regain" Cambodia (i.e., Cham) portions of South Vietnam. In 1978, the CPC began making preparations to invade Vietnam, and began hoarding rice. This coincided with a drought in Cambodia. Just as food production is falling, the government is confiscating it. This is what led to the majority of deaths during the years of CPC rule. Human stupidity, not deliberate genocide (though there was a lot of that), not American bombing, is what killed millions.

When Cambodia attacked Vietnam, the Vietnamese tolerated it for a bit, then responded in force, with the Eastern region of the Communist Party of Cambodia leading the Vietnamese troops. Vietnam liberated Cambodia. It was only the efforts of the United States and the Dengist regime in China that kept the CPC alive for the next twenty years.

The Pol Pot government did not have a specifically anti-intelectual policy. That was more of a local thing, as the peasantry saw the cities, not without some justification, as parasites. Even children who'd gone off to school in a small town were treated with disdain after returning home. This rural anti-urban feeling is a global phenomenon, and what happened in Cambodia is what happens when you allow the peasantry to run amok. In China, the Communists worked hard to rise the cultural and political level of the peasants. In Cambodia, everyone was lowered to the level of the peasants.

The number one reason for a sentence of death in Cambodia was for extra marital sex, and cadre were far more likely to be executed than any other group of people. As is typical of peasant revolutions, the revolution consumed itself.

The KR government fell with almost no resistance, no one fought for them, much to their surprise. Even the Vietnamese were surprised at how easily they won.

To the KRs credit, they were not corrupt. When people began returning to the cities, those people that remained anyway, they found their possessions in their homes untouched.

Politically, the KR was more of a peasant anarchist revolution than a Maoist or a Marxist one.

[Adi Shankara]

I would agree that Khmer people are grateful that the Vietnamese saved them, but Khmer Americans don't accept the idea of communism too kindly...They always point to the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge and use that as evidence that "communism is evil". And plus that they're born in America where communism is once again, not taken too kindly.

Most of the Khmer Americans I knew grew up rather indifferent or unknowing to communism; on one hand, you got those who left before the Khmer Rouge came to power who were Lon Nol loyalists, and then you have those who suffered in the Democratic Kampuchea years, but remember the kindness (yes, kindness) of Vietnamese soldiers invading Cambodia, who often found that the local Khmers supported them more than they supported the Khmer Rouge, except for those in Mondulkiri and close to the Thai border, where KR support was strongest.





Unfortunately most Khmers, be it American born or Cambodian born, still have a thing against the Vietnamese. Mostly because of the Hun Sen government, and the historical land grabbing by the Vietnamese. But I guess I'm just one of the few who look past that.

yes, many do, but it's more like an unfriendly jabbing at times, like between the Irish and the English, but it doesn't really turn into violence or serious antagonism; You still get Khmer nationalists who hate the "Yuon", but then you also get the people who only survived because they lived off the rations the Vietnamese soldiers gave them.

Most ethnic conflict today is between the Thai and the Cambodians, and while ethnic Vietnamese live pretty peacefully in Cambodia (at least according to my gf) when the conflict doesn't involve the Khmer Krom, many Thais are seen as economic colonizers who "stole" from Cambodian culture and want to wipe Khmer history from the map.

[Adi Shankara]

To the KRs credit, they were not corrupt. When people began returning to the cities, those people that remained anyway, they found their possessions in their homes untouched.

You know, that's the funny thing about it; from all the personal accounts of Pol Pot I read, they say even after the Khmer Rouge and Angkar came to power, Pol Pot still lived modestly and ate and dressed modestly, and lived in a straw and wood hut for many years during the DK years.