I'm there! Just let me know when it opens upPerhaps, either offering "commoner" or royal court cuisine (or even both).
I'm there! Just let me know when it opens upPerhaps, either offering "commoner" or royal court cuisine (or even both).
No, I mean my comment is related to the scenario itself.I'm there! Just let me know when it opens up
Well it didn’t work so China had to settle for lesser goals.It was intended more to screw with Hanoi about the reliability/utility of Soviet aid (of which the success depends upon who you ask) than any actual attempt to force a withdrawal from Cambodia.
Thailand could at least mess up any Vietnamese advance west of Phnom Penh with the surviving Khmer Republic forces (the Vietnamese won't have an support network that far west, and locals are likely to be rather hostile).
There’s a reason why US, China, Thailand all allied against Vietnam. Their strategic goal of controlling former French Indochina is not an opinion of mine.
Cambodians would have been way better off without the Khmer Rouge there’s no doubt. But either way they were going to be subjugated by Vietnam. National interest drives “border incidents” not the other way around.
Hanoi might try to encourage an insurgency to try to install at least a "neutralist" goverment of Cambodia but direct military invasion is unlikely. And the "Indochinese Federation" idea is frankly ridiculous, there weren't any attempts by Hanoi to intergrate Laos for example. I believe the Vietnamese will be too focused on China to focus militarily on it's neighbours.
I know it’s not just your opinion. The international community froze Vietnam out of development aid all through the 1980s. I don’t even think they got standard WHO funding. And yes, Vietnam did stay in Cambodia all through the ‘80s, because there were still Khmer Rouge remnants still receiving international arms.There’s a reason why US, China, Thailand all allied against Vietnam. Their strategic goal of controlling former French Indochina is not an opinion of mine.
Somehow it became a very easy morality test to be against Vietnam’s invasion.
People pointed to the Khmer Rouge as an example of how wretched communism can be, while at the same time both the Carter administration and the Reagan administration spoke in favor and voted for them as part of the coalition for Cambodia’s UN seat!Interesting observation. My recollection of the 1980s and early 90s was that it was very fashionable to be anti-Khmer Rouge, and to be glad that they had been ousted, but without dwelling much on WHO it was who ousted them, or what side of the Cold War divide the invaders were on.
People pointed to the Khmer Rouge as an example of how wretched communism can be, while at the same time both the Carter administration and the Reagan administration spoke in favor and voted for them as part of the coalition for Cambodia’s UN seat!
Interesting observation. My recollection of the 1980s and early 90s was that it was very fashionable to be anti-Khmer Rouge, and to be glad that they had been ousted, but without dwelling much on WHO it was who ousted them, or what side of the Cold War divide the invaders were on.
Not that there was any major taboo against giving Hanoi the credit, and you certainly heard people say stuff like "The Khmer Rouge were doing this, that and the other godawful thing until Vietnam invaded", but the bit about Vietnam was usually delivered in a pretty detached, indifferent manner. And it never really translated into people saying "Hey, wait a minute, why are our governments playing footsie with a coalition that includes the Khmer Rouge, and harassing the guys who rescued Cambodia from them?" Even after the full scale of western involvement became known, and everyone had gone to see The Killing Fields.
Yes, plenty of people do say that. As bad as the Soviet puppets in Eastern Europe could get, they were no where near as bad as the Nazis.Nobody in the West ever says thank goodness the Soviets took over Eastern Europe and stopped Nazi genocide.
The Soviets invaded because they were fighting the Nazis, who invaded them first. Ousting the Nazis was the point of the invasion, and since ousting the Nazis was synonymous with stopping the genocides in Eastern Europe, there was no contradiction there.The Soviets didn’t invade to stop the death camps, they weren’t even really aware of them.
The Vietnamese invaded because the Khmer Rouge started attacking border villages as part of their genocide of Cambodian Vietnamese. Ousting the Khmer Rouge was the point of the invasion, and since ousting the Khmer Rouge was synonymous with stopping the genocides in Cambodia, there was no contradiction there.The same can be said of the Vietnamese invasion.
Control of Cambodia was the point of the invasion. Had the Khmer Rouge remained pliable supplicants to Vietnam they would have been quite happy letting them run Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge originated from the Indochina Communist Party which was all Vietnamese. They were a disgruntled break away regional branch.Yes, plenty of people do say that. As bad as the Soviet puppets in Eastern Europe could get, they were no where near as bad as the Nazis.
The Soviets invaded because they were fighting the Nazis, who invaded them first. Ousting the Nazis was the point of the invasion, and since ousting the Nazis was synonymous with stopping the genocides in Eastern Europe, there was no contradiction there.
The Vietnamese invaded because the Khmer Rouge started attacking border villages as part of their genocide of Cambodian Vietnamese. Ousting the Khmer Rouge was the point of the invasion, and since ousting the Khmer Rouge was synonymous with stopping the genocides in Cambodia, there was no contradiction there.
It was kind of like, yeah, if the Soviets are the bad guy, China is the good guy.And up until Tiananmen Square in 1989, China was widely viewed as the more moderate of the two major Communist powers. Despite being the main backers of the Khmer Rouge from about the mid-70s onward, including the Year Zero period.
But this gets back to your point about foreign-policy just not being on most people's radars. People knew that China was allied with the west, and was making market reforms, and everything else was just static.
I’m of the view that the Holodomor in the Ukraine in the early 1930s should fully count as a genocide. And furthermore, that the Soviets took the occasion of an already occurring famine, and used it to direct starvation as a weapon at the people of the Ukraine.Nobody in the West ever says thank goodness the Soviets took over Eastern Europe and stopped Nazi genocide. . .
The Holodomor certainly counts as real genocide. Ending Nazi genocide and ending Khmer Rouge genocide are both far preferable to not doing anything about it. Credit where credit is due. But If Hitler had came to power with support from the Soviets, such is the analogy with Khmer Rouge and Vietnam, then I think there’s all the less to celebrate.I’m of the view that the Holodomor in the Ukraine in the early 1930s should fully count as a genocide. And furthermore, that the Soviets took the occasion of an already occurring famine, and used it to direct starvation as a weapon at the people of the Ukraine.
All the same, I’m pretty generous in giving credit even if people do the right thing for an accidental reason.
For example, the Red Army liberated Auschwitz in January ‘45, and that’s a pretty huge deal.