Cambodia without Watergate

[Realpolitik]

I've seen and commented on plenty of threads dealing with the fate of Vietnam if Watergate never occurs, but never one about Cambodia. Any thoughts?

Civil war goes on, possibly Lon Nol's "lease on life" is extended due to no Watergate. The eventual victor depends on how much the Americans support Lon Nol and the North Vietnamese support Pol Pot. Could this be averted? Normally, this would be a bad thing, but compared to the Khmer Rouge, constant civil war might not be too bad... Unfortunately, the KR will have the advantage unless they are stupid enough to go against Hanoi like they did in 1978 five years early. Case Church will need to be butterflied-will that happen without Watergate?

Cambodia's situation is similar to South Vietnam. The longer they survive, the greater the chances are of them surviving for good. But the 70s are extremely perilous, even with no Watergate. And Cambodia is, if anything, even more unstable and weak than South Vietnam.

 

[Magniac]

Civil war seems likely, depending on how much the Americans support Lon Nol and the North Vietnamese support Pol Pot. Could this be averted?

The Watergate burglary happened two years after the events that drove Cambodia's factions into all-out civil war.

 

[Realpolitik]

The Watergate burglary happened two years after the events that drove Cambodia's factions into all-out civil war.

No, Watergate occurred almost a decade after the process started. Sihanouk's balancing process was falling apart as early as the late 60s. Battambang revolt, etc. The bombings accelerated the instability in Cambodia(especially with the refugees pouring into Phnom Penh), they did not create it. Things will blow up in Cambodia with the North Vietnamese around-by 1970, they were launching offensives at Pol Pot's request. The support from the urban populace for the Lon Nol coup was partially caused because of resentment at them-the Vietnamese and Khmer did not think much of each other(racism was common), and the riots were getting out of control.

Regardless, civil war is happening. What then? The Khmer Rouge already de facto controlled a lot of the backwater provinces, similar to how the Vietcong controlled the countryside in 1967 South Vietnam.

 

[Mark E.]

No connection.

Watergate happened in the summer of 1972 and by October of that year, American involvement in Vietnam would start to wind down.

 

[Magniac]

I hate to be that guy, however: basic online research, to categorise important dates and events, should be conducted before one attempts to write an informed-sounding OP that merely ends up confusing the reader.

 

[Realpolitik]

I hate to be that guy, however: basic online research, to categorise important dates and events, should be conducted before one attempts to write an informed-sounding OP that merely ends up confusing the reader.

I'm sorry. I'm still relatively new here. Please forgive me.

Case-Church-Amendment passed in summer of 1973 preventing any US action in Indochina without Congressional approval.

The Khmer Rouge were supported by Hanoi in their rise to power and in the early days of power, but after that, the Khmer Rouge's general nuttiness, extreme xenophobia, and lack of submission to Hanoi cause them to split. Border clashes began in 1977. In 1979, Vietnam invaded Cambodia and easily kicked the Khmer Rouge out.

Lon Nol-the pro American dictator in charge of Cambodia from 1970 to 1975. No saint, but vastly preferable the Khmer Rouge. Took power in a 1970 coup in the wake of SEVERE anti-Vietnamese riots, which Sihanouk tacitly supported at first, but in retrospect was letting the genie out of the bottle. Lon Nol was popular with the urban population, not so much with the rural population. Following the coup, after Lon Nol sent an ultimatum to the North Vietnamese demanding they leave Cambodia and at the request of the Khmer Rouge, North Vietnam intervened. And of course, at this time period, the Cambodian incursion occurred. The bombings had been going on for quite some time at this point. In short, very messy.

Battambang revolt, also known as the Samlaut Uprising-in 1967, the peasantry revolted against Sihanouk. Lon Nol's security forces put it down. Often seen as the Rubicon point in the Cambodian Civil War.

One point that needs to be emphasized is that the Khmer and the Vietnamese have hated each other for centuries. "International working class solidarity", as elsewhere in history, doesn't butterfly this.

 

[Realpolitik]

No connection.

Watergate happened in the summer of 1972 and by October of that year, American involvement in Vietnam would start to wind down.

By summer of 1972, all combat troops were gone from Vietnam. It had long since winded down. Again, the key is if without Watergate and the emasculation of his power, Nixon does what he wants in Indochina.

Nixon and Kissinger basically treated Cambodia like a sideshow to Vietnam rather than its own country, which led partially to the bombing campaign and incursion. They were bombing as late as 1973, unlike Vietnam, before Case Church stopped that. So, Cambodia's fate here is tied into what happens with Vietnam. I've already given my views on that. The Khmer Rouge doesn't need Sihanouk by 1973. I don't see the Khmer Rouge taking over in Phnom Penh if Nixon doesn't tolerate the North Vietnamese in Saigon, and the North Vietnamese would probably discourage a Khmer Rouge offensive if they don't invade. Hanoi thought Nixon was a psychopath, and would probably wait until he was out of office. But the Khmer Rouge always were less tractable than the Pathet Lao, and this must be kept in mind.* Nobody quite understood that.

So, again, it somewhat depends on Vietnam. Without US aid for Saigon, you can forget Phnom Penh. Cambodia was never thought of as its own sphere of influence in Washington, by both the hawks and the doves.

*Laotian Communists. For all intents and purposes, a satellite of Hanoi.

 

[Magniac]

So, again, it somewhat depends on Vietnam. Without US aid for Saigon, you can forget Phnom Penh. Cambodia was never thought of as its own sphere of influence in Washington, by both the hawks and the doves.

I agree with this. Pretty much goes along with the conclusions in the books I've read on Cambodia's conflict over the years.

That said, looking at your first post here, where you seemed deeply uncertain as to what level the Cambodian civil war existed at before 1972, to your very quick assemblage of data points that totally refuted that earlier PoV, I now feel sad that I assumed you were speaking from a familiarity with longform sources when you agreed with me about the weakness of popular history on another thread.

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

I'm sorry. I'm still relatively new here. Please forgive me.

I forgive you.

 

[Realpolitik]

I agree with this. Pretty much goes along with the conclusions in the books I've read on Cambodia's conflict over the years.

That said, looking at your first post here, where you seemed deeply uncertain as to what level the Cambodian civil war existed at before 1972, to your very quick assemblage of data points that totally refuted that earlier PoV, I now feel sad that I assumed you were speaking from a familiarity with longform sources when you agreed with me about the weakness of popular history on another thread.

I wrote it badly. I should have mentioned that it would continue, perhaps for longer without Watergate. Now corrected. I wasn't uncertain about the fact that the Civil War was in full gear.

I will confess that my "paying attention to what you are writing" capacities, with me preparing for a presentation, going off little sleep, and recovering from sickness right now are not at full throttle. I still agree with you and hope you still consider me credible.

 

[Realpolitik]

Most of what I wrote in those points, I did from memory. The Battambang revolt was the exception. I knew generally that Cambodia was already degenerating fast when Nixon began messing with it.

 

[GeneralInTheShell]

By summer of 1972, all combat troops were gone from Vietnam. It had long since winded down. Again, the key is if without Watergate and the emasculation of his power, Nixon does what he wants in Indochina.

Nixon and Kissinger basically treated Cambodia like a sideshow to Vietnam rather than its own country, which led partially to the bombing campaign and incursion. They were bombing as late as 1973, unlike Vietnam, before Case Church stopped that. So, Cambodia's fate here is tied into what happens with Vietnam. I've already given my views on that. The Khmer Rouge doesn't need Sihanouk by 1973. I don't see the Khmer Rouge taking over in Phnom Penh if Nixon doesn't tolerate the North Vietnamese in Saigon, and the North Vietnamese would probably discourage a Khmer Rouge offensive if they don't invade. Hanoi thought Nixon was a psychopath, and would probably wait until he was out of office. But the Khmer Rouge always were less tractable than the Pathet Lao, and this must be kept in mind.* Nobody quite understood that.

So, again, it somewhat depends on Vietnam. Without US aid for Saigon, you can forget Phnom Penh. Cambodia was never thought of as its own sphere of influence in Washington, by both the hawks and the doves.

*Laotian Communists. For all intents and purposes, a satellite of Hanoi.

Assuming there is no Watergate scandal, the democrats won't have the majority to required to slash 80% of all promised US money to South Viet Nam. By 74 possibly even 73, the ARVN was an American style fighting force that depended greatly on being well funded to have the best military equipment to support the tactics they used. Even if they don't get US air support thanks to Case-Church, as long as they have proper funding and the promised American equipment the North won't be able to pull off unification because the ARVN would be a much more competent and capable fighting force. The ARVN will be lose funding from the USA, but it isn't going to be as drastic and sudden as it was OTL. Assuming that South Viet Nam survives it's very possible that Cambodia doesn't fall to the communists.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Cambodia from 1970 onwards is in a tremendously difficult position with large swathes of the countryside controlled by the Khmer Rouge. It is also important to remember that part of the appeal of the Khmer Rouge was derived from the support provided by Prince Sihanouk following being overthrown.

The Lon Nol government was also hamstrung by their pivot to the West occuring at a time when American forces were drawing down in Vietnam. Another impetus for the coup was the atrocious state of the economy that combined the worst of stagflation and low employment.

This is before we consider the Army which due to years of underfunding was at best a ceremonial force. So prior to engaging in any combat operations there needed to be a sustained period of building, this ignores their paratroopers. Kenneth Conboy has written an excellent book about the Khmer Republic's military at this juncture.

What does this have to do with the OP's premise... Cambodia at this juncture had enough internal problems that had the potential to be terminal. No watergate and a South Vietnam that survives longer may be enough or not.

 

[Realpolitik]

Cambodia from 1970 onwards is in a tremendously difficult position with large swathes of the countryside controlled by the Khmer Rouge. It is also important to remember that part of the appeal of the Khmer Rouge was derived from the support provided by Prince Sihanouk following being overthrown.

The Lon Nol government was also hamstrung by their pivot to the West occuring at a time when American forces were drawing down in Vietnam. Another impetus for the coup was the atrocious state of the economy that combined the worst of stagflation and low employment.

This is before we consider the Army which due to years of underfunding was at best a ceremonial force. So prior to engaging in any combat operations there needed to be a sustained period of building, this ignores their paratroopers. Kenneth Conboy has written an excellent book about the Khmer Republic's military at this juncture.

What does this have to do with the OP's premise... Cambodia at this juncture had enough internal problems that had the potential to be terminal. No watergate and a South Vietnam that survives longer may be enough or not.

Many rural Cambodians who supported the Khmer Rouge initially thought they would bring back Sihanouk. Combine this with the bombing, and you've got a powerful base in the sparsely populated, but relatively vast countryside.

It's not impossible-in South Vietnam in 1967, the Vietcong de facto controlled the rural provinces. South Vietnam manage to reclaim the countryside from Vietcong rule after the Tet Offensive decimated the VC and Vietnamization improved the ARVN. By 1971, Saigon controlled most of their country(in part thanks to the Cambodian incursion). But the Cambodian government is arguably even weaker than Saigon.

Ultimately, I agree. Cambodia is reliant off of outside help-like a terminal patient-and with people like Tom Hayden pressuring Congress to reach an "understanding" with the Khmer Rouge, Nixon is going to have to be very insistent. If he succeeds, I have a very hard time seeing a surviving Nixon simply tolerating the Communists taking over while he is in office, but after 1976, that might be in doubt depending on who takes power.

I said in a previous thread that if South Vietnam could make it to the mid 80s without collapsing, it would by then be the stronger Vietnam and be assured of survival. Cambodia might be similar-the Khmer Rouge need the North Vietnamese, and if Hanoi can't take over Saigon, they won't be wanting to go to Phnom Penh.

 

[GeographyDude]

Many rural Cambodians who supported the Khmer Rouge initially thought they would bring back Sihanouk.

I have not heard this angle before. I know it's going to be sparse, but I'd be interested in whatever references we have regarding this.

 

[Realpolitik]

I have not heard this angle before. I know it's going to be sparse, but I'd be interested in whatever references we have regarding this.

Plenty of resources, actually. And not too shocking. Sihanouk was very popular in the countryside. The Khmer Rouge weren't so stupid as to not use this.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mhkw4Psq0SQC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=khmer+rouge+rural+sihanouk+popular&source=bl&ots=acPEsSWGzk&sig=56NO048dHRURe9zOjCe2iG85-YE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PMQkVIikEtKBygSc_oHoCg&ved=0CCAQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=khmer%20rouge%20rural%20sihanouk%20popular&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=e-...&q=khmer rouge rural sihanouk popular&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=kQ...&q=khmer rouge rural sihanouk popular&f=false

Plenty of other books and articles describing it.

And also Wikipedia. As lame as that is.

Sihanouk was very popular in the rural areas, and Lon Nol hated. Sihanouk fled to the Communist countries after the coup, which helped. Vice versa in Phnom Penh and the other towns. And in 1973, the KR controls much of the countryside. The Vietnamese were HEAVILY hated everywhere(and this common hatred of the Vietnamese is why China supported the Khmer Rouge big time, along with post war Vietnam being pro-Soviet. Really complex), and Hanoi was smart enough to know this and let the Khmer Rouge do their own thing after they helped install them in the rural areas in their 1971 offensive in Cambodia-while still covertly aiding them as much as they can. That came back later to haunt them.

The Khmer Rouge were VERY nationalistic, and used Sihanouk to attract young, angry Cambodians. No "international brotherhood" here.

Rural East Cambodia, which was the KR stronghold, was a minority of the population-very sparsely populated. There were a lot of conflicts between them and the urban population-the future "New People", who were the ones who bore the biggest atrocities.

 

[GeographyDude]

Thank you. I've taken a look at the first source.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Another possibility to consider having In Tam as Prime Minister earlier and I believe the overall effectiveness of the Khmer Republic would improve, whether that would be enough to prevent the success of the Khmer Rouge is debatable. Perhaps another long overdue replacement would be Sisowath Monireth as the Minister for defence.

Left field option and one I debated was having Queen Sisowath Kossamak assuming the throne after the death of King Norodom Suramarit. She had a reputation of distaste towards corruption and also Prince Sihanouk's wife... which created all types of problems. But from what I have read it was her influence and her husband's that moderated the worst behaviour of Prince Sihanouk.

I would also recommend the following books:

Sihanouk Prince of Light, Prince of Darkness By Milton Osbourne.

M. Osbourne is a former Australian diplomat who was posted to Phnom Penh in the early 1960's and returned as a postgraduate student in the late 1960's and visited intermittently until the Khmer Rouge gained power in 1975. He then visited against in the mid 1980's and has returned pretty regularly since then. He presents a fairly balanced view point of Prince Sihanouk and outlines the closing number of options available to him due to the political situation and also his own actions. Well worth the read.

The tragedy of Cambodian History by David Chandler.

D. Chandler is a former American diplomat to Cambodia at around the same time M. Osbourne was posted to Phnom Penh. He is without a doubt one of the better scholars on Cambodia and is recognised as such. This book outlines the issues that confronted Cambodia as a whole and raises several interesting POD's my favourite being a surviving Prince Sisowath Youtevong as Prime Minister.