Pol Pot

[Comrade Ceausescu]

in my opinoin he was one of the worst communists of all time.at least stalin got a lot of good stuff done for russia and eliminated the facists.

[elijahcraig]

Pol Pot? He's NO COMMUNIST. He's the worst I can think of.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

yea i wouldnt even call him one.your right he is the worst i can think of too.

[Nobody]

Pol Pot was a crazed peasent revolutionary who got his hand on a few shards of Marxist doctrine, which he twisted to support his ideas on destroying city-dwellers, the intellectuals and those who wore glasses. His goal was to return Cambodia to its farming roots, the opposite of Communism expressed goal of industrilaization. He labeled himself a communist to gander support from other communist nations, mostly CCCP and PRC. He was toppled by the Vietnemse right after the Vietnam war, because so many NVA people were so shocked at how he treatred his own people. Go Vietmam!!!!

The only reason he came to power was the U$ bombing which destroyed the Cambodia army, which allowed him and his guerrillas to conquer the country, otherwise they would have lost.

[elijahcraig]

and those who wore glasses

?

[Nobody]

Yeah if you wore glasses he had you shot. In his mind glasses meant litercy, which was another thing he was trying to stamp out.

[elijahcraig]

Damn! Now that's a fucking psycho.

[commieboy]

Pol pot is exactly what the U$ tries to make every communist leader look like....killing any threat to their power.....EVEN GLASSES!!!

Wonder if they had contacts then...?

But He is the wrost person i can think of hes right there with hitler and musilini.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It even went so far, that the gaurds of his prisoners were "replaced" once in a while.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 10:56 PM
He was toppled by the Vietnemse right after the Vietnam war, because so many NVA people were so shocked at how he treatred his own people.
Actually, there was a border dispute between Cambodia & Vietnam which is what started the Vietnamese invasion, ending the Killing Fields was just a nice side effect. After Vietnam invaded the US started funding Pol Pot. China also backed Pol Pot against Vietnam and went to war with Vietnam in 1979. I have seen no evidence to indicate that Pol Pot just labelled himself Communist to get the support of other Leninist states - from what I've read he appeared the genuinely believe most of the things he said.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

what year did china first give aid to cambodia?

[elijahcraig]

Actually, there was a border dispute between Cambodia & Vietnam which is what started the Vietnamese invasion, ending the Killing Fields was just a nice side effect. After Vietnam invaded the US started funding Pol Pot. China also backed Pol Pot against Vietnam and went to war with Vietnam in 1979. I have seen no evidence to indicate that Pol Pot just labelled himself Communist to get the support of other Leninist states - from what I've read he appeared the genuinely believe most of the things he said.

China wasn't even socialist then. Mao was dead.

Pol Pot was NOT a communist. He was a fascist. Or very near to it. "Believed" what he said? Does that have ANYTHING to do with it? When you have a plan which involves the killing of ALL the bourgeois class, that is not communism. Pol Pot also cooperated with Imperialist US, that is enough.

[Morpheus]

Pol Pot believed in a brand of Authoritarian Communism, and was therefore a communist. Whether a person believes in Communism has everything to do with whether they are a communist - that's what being a communist means, believing in Communism. I see no reason why the desire to liquidate the entire Bourgeoise is necessarily incompatable with Communism. Now, Pol Pot's (extremely screwed up) brand of Communism may not be the brand you advocate, and it's certainly not the brand I advocate, but that does not change the fact that he was a Communist. To claim he was not a communist *solely* because you don't like what he did in power has more in common with religious thinking (he's a heratic! etc). And whether Cambodia under Pol Pot was Communist or Socialist is a separate matter from whether Pol Pot himself was Communist.

If Pol Pot was a Fascist then so was Stalin, Lenin and Mao. Stalin cooperated with US imperialists, too. Lenin & Stalin cut deals with German Imperialists. And they all implemented totalitarian states that killed many people.

cheguevara717, China started aiding Pol Pot in 1977, about a year after Mao died.

[elijahcraig]

Pol Pot believed in a brand of Authoritarian Communism, and was therefore a communist. Whether a person believes in Communism has everything to do with whether they are a communist - that's what being a communist means, believing in Communism. I see no reason why the desire to liquidate the entire Bourgeoise is necessarily incompatable with Communism. Now, Pol Pot's (extremely screwed up) brand of Communism may not be the brand you advocate, and it's certainly not the brand I advocate, but that does not change the fact that he was a Communist. To claim he was not a communist *solely* because you don't like what he did in power has more in common with religious thinking (he's a heratic! etc). And whether Cambodia under Pol Pot was Communist or Socialist is a separate matter from whether Pol Pot himself was Communist.

Would you consider a person who worshipped Allah but claimed to be a Christian a Christian?

You can analyze his actions, and based on them decide if he was a Marxist-Leninist or not. It's not a subjective matter.


If Pol Pot was a Fascist then so was Stalin, Lenin and Mao. Stalin cooperated with US imperialists, too. Lenin & Stalin cut deals with German Imperialists. And they all implemented totalitarian states that killed many people.

Totalitarian states? None of those did that, Pol Pot was the closest.

You can't compare those individuals to Pol Pot, anyone who does is an idiot. (you are an anarchist)

[BRIN]

I heard that the U$ was supplying Pol pot with wepon secretly. Correct me if i'm wrong.

[blackemma]

Totalitarian states? None of those did that, Pol Pot was the closest.

You can't compare those individuals to Pol Pot, anyone who does is an idiot. (you are an anarchist)

You have some serious denial problems if you don't think the Soviet Union and its fellow "socialist" states were totalitarian... As for Morpheus being an anarchist? What the hell does that have to do with anything, or do you just like throwing out labels for the hell of it, "commie"?

[the SovieT]

Pol Pot (Born Saloth Sar 1925) was first exposed to communist ideals when he lived and studied in France which inspired him to draft a programme of economic and social equalities for the Cambodian peoples. In 1953 Pol Pot returned to Cambodia with his ambitions to establish 'an equal Cambodia'. He held a job as a teacher where he often spoke to his students of a better and more equally just future, motivating many of them for his cause. It was not hard for the common Cambodian peasant to recognized the widespread corruption and elitism by the Royal Sihanou regime which rules over Cambodia and the situation only became worse as the Vietnam war spilled over into Cambodia. Pol Pot spoke out against the Sihanou regime frequent and effectively which eventually developed into a large and powerful grassroots movement. Cambodia, by 1975 was completely devastated, first by a corrupt and elitist royal regime, and then a war in which they didn't want any part in and now the peoples war of the Khmer Rouge seemed to be the only hope for salvation. The Khmer Rouge was the government of the people and by the people and would deliver to the people the fruits in which they have been deprived, so they thought.

The principles of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were based around the demand for a complete and immediate classless society by displacing all classes and city dwellers into the rural peasantry. The Khmer Rouge defied Marxism in just about every aspect as they denied the people universal progress and instead enforced universal oppression. The Rouge declared that anyone and anything that was not a rural peasant was an enemy of the people; this included, doctors, teachers, technicians, journalists and even people who wore glasses and read books; these people became the focus of the ever famous 'killing fields'. Within a short period of 3 years the Khmer Rouge successfully crushed any potential threat within the confines of their territory.

The Khmer Rouge sealed its fate in 1977 however when they launched an attack on a Vietnamese village. The Vietnamese responded by establishing rebel armies within Cambodia in conjunction with vietnamese forces and by 1979 the Khmer Rouge was driven from Phnom Penh and confined to the northwest corner of Cambodia. The Vietnamese and the Cambodian civilian army remained in conflict with the Khmer Rouge until 1989 when Vietnam withdrew its forces from Cambodia.

The Vietnamese uncovered in their invasion of Cambodia the exact nature of the Khmer Rouge and publicized all the evidence and even though the atrocities became public knowledge, the Khmer Rouge retained most of its supporters. During the exile years of the Khmer Rouge they functioned mainly as a rebel army within sovereign Cambodia and even after the Vietnamese withdrew they had no position, none the less they held out until the death of Pol Pot in 1998.

The result of the Khmer Rouge is a direct result of opportunist distorted revisions that crippled an ideology into a self serving prostitution. In no instance did the Rouge apply Marxist principles to the communist bumper sticker in which they tagged onto their mission statement. The historical experiences of Cambodia demonstrate to us all the more reason why we must maintain ever so vigilant in obstructing the next 'Saloth Sar' to rising to power.

From www.Sovietrevolution.com

this pretty much sums up what i think about the man...

he was a fucking assholic ideological abortion....

there are even some theorys that tell he was actually paid by CIA..

wich doesnt amaze me at all if you come to think that he only gave communism a even worst name and favored the capitalist anti-communist propaganda machine...

[Koba Dzhugashvili]

I heard on the history channel an interview with a prisoner from his secret prison. But anyway the guy said Pol Pot accused him of being a spy working for the C.I.A. , K.G.B. , and some other secret police from somewhere. He said he was working for all of them and that they all were working together to get rid of him. He was very paranoid. Another thing they said about him was he had a few toddlers arrested saying they were treasonists who were plotting against him.

[Ian]

By all accounts Pol Pot was a nice bloke, just a brutal bastard, worthy of a punishment featured in Stalin's doodles.

But he wasn't as bad, apparentely,(if we go by sheer numbers) as Soeharto's effort during and after 1965 (aka the year of living dangerously). Man that Soeharto was brutal

[elijahcraig]

You have some serious denial problems if you don't think the Soviet Union and its fellow "socialist" states were totalitarian... As for Morpheus being an anarchist? What the hell does that have to do with anything, or do you just like throwing out labels for the hell of it, "commie"?

Sorry, no denial problems. Stop reading 1984 and then you can get somewhere.

Anarchists? They call Lenin a totalitarian. They are out of it as far as reality.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

i agree with elijahcraig 110%!

[kingbee]

Yeah if you wore glasses he had you shot. In his mind glasses meant litercy, which was another thing he was trying to stamp out.



damn you thats my point! apparently it was because he saw them as intellectuals and didnt want them to rise up against him. i heard he killed about 30% of the population, too.