Was Cambodia the "last" communist revolution of the twentieth century in a sense? The Cambodians were in a kind of "great leap forward" of atrocities, compressing the purges and famines that had happened at different times over decades of Soviet and Chinese rule into a few years. That's applying a kind of "ur-communist or "ur-revoution" framework with a revolution/civil war followed by purges, a disastrous collectivization of agriculture, and a period of stagnation if the regime last long enough.
What if Pol Pot didnt invaded Vietnam?
- Thread starter Anti-GrammarNazi
- Start date
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I’ve read that China invaded a part of northern Vietnam and occupied it for a month or two in order to “punish” Vietnam.
And during the Kennedy administration, China also did this for a couple of months in northern India in order to “punish” India.
Last edited:
Does Zimbabwe have a command economy? I know it was a de facto one party state until recently, but its economic (mis)management seems closer to Venezuela than East Germany. I'm pretty sure agricultural land and other capital inputs can be owned by private individuals, even though party loyalists get kickbacks and preferential treatment by the state.
I'm surprised no one mentioned Angola or Afghanistan as contemporaneous examples, but those cases were two conflict ridden to provide any lengthy examples of communist rule.
I'm surprised no one mentioned Angola or Afghanistan as contemporaneous examples, but those cases were two conflict ridden to provide any lengthy examples of communist rule.
And they had the benefit of denouncing Pol Pot's regime as a genuinely batshit insane Maoist knockoff, complete with genocide. Vietnam is an awful regime. What they did to the South Vietnamese in the 'reeducation' camps were inexcusable. But I'm very sure they were shocked to see someone top them in that level of inhumanity.
Afghanistan's revolution (or military coup, if you'd prefer) happened a few years after Khmer Rouge rule began.
The Vietnamese regime sucked, but then again, so did pretty much every Communist regime. (except for San Marino, those elected freaks.)
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Cambodia 1972
https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/cambodia_ethnic_1972.jpg
This article also says that others among the tribal highlanders were able to slip across the border into Vietnam or Laos. And I'm sure others were not successful and were killed.
======================
So, I think the Cambodia genocide 1975-1978 has multiple causes, of course it does.
1) There were the specifics of the ideology, such that the belief that our group could simply will a 3-fold increase in rice production, and export to China on that basis. And we're so revolutionarily "pure" that we're going to ban private cooking, as well as small gardens and foraging for food.
2) The Khmer Rouge was successful at playing off racial animosities,
3) And arming teenagers with guns and convincing them that they more pure, more committed, and more worthy than their elders. And that is heady stuff indeed.
The really big numbers of the killing come from starvation, either intentional or with reckless disregard.
Last edited:
Reminds me of how the Nazis were disturbed by the Ustashe concentration camp.
The disproportionate involvement of teenagers and young adults explains a lot of it. The Iron Guard in Romania was one of the most extreme and brutal fascist groups in Europe because most of its members were high-school or college aged young men.
This is the demographic group responsible for most violent crime as well, so I can see how they would be more prone to brutality and unrealistic purity spiraling than middle-aged people with spouses and children to worry about.
Most normal Cambodians didn't even know who the country's leader was, it was in hyper-Orwellian in some ways but also more anonymous than a Big-Brother cult of personality. The leadership of the country was referred to collectively as the Angkar, a Khmer word that just means the Organization.
Last edited:
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
It was the international community including UN development agencies, not just the big bad United States. It looks like the reason was that that Vietnam continued to occupy Cambodia, including all through the 1980s. Well, shit, they didn't want the Khmer Rouge to come back who still had a presence in northeast Cambodia.
It's like the international community selectively adhered to a rule against occupation because the players involved were small.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
That's my understanding, too. And under both the Carter and Reagan administrations. Basically because we were just against the Vietnamese and that was that.
And it bothers me, too.
Often when I tell people about some of the rotten side of my own country's foreign policy, they don't want to hear it. They don't like believing there's something important that they don't already know. And that's even more the case if we have different political orientations which comes up as a major part of the conversation. And when I was in my late 20s and really started finding out some of the details about how the cold war was still being actively fought in many of the poorer parts of the world, and I had a lot of energy on the topic, . . . well, people don't like being lectured by someone considerably younger than themselves, and I looked a heck of a lot younger (!) (!)
So, how do we approach fellow citizens? It's tricky. I'd say, we should generally undersell, let them take a bit more of an active role and find out some of the details. Often the facts don't persuade. That's human nature. No method is going to work anywhere approaching a hundred percent.
All we can is keep the conversation going.
Last edited:
The Khmer Rouge regime was a close Chinese ally, so China and Thailand viewed the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia as an expansion of Vietnamese influence in Southeast Asia. China actually trained Khmer Rouge troops on its soil in the late '70s and early '80s.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
PRC = People's Republic of China
So, we in the U.S. may have even militarily supported the Khmer Rouge post-genocide, and it is important to add that distinction.
Now, Zbigniew Brzezinski was talking as an older man out of power when the temptation is to exaggerate your role. All the same, rushing in and arming is very much in keeping with what my U.S. often did during the cold war years.
Last edited:
That would make sense, if it wasn't for the fact that the international community didn't berated Vietnam for a continued occupation, but they did it immediately after it or while it was toppling the Khmer Rouge regime.
Going by the wiki article, from what I remember, Vietnam tried to rebuild and de-occupy Cambodia almost immediately, but they were forced to stay because the KR had pretty much killed everyone skilled, so there was no one to hand the government to and rebuild the country. Even then Vietnman left as soon as they could, and the reason why they stayed 10 years is because, it seems there was no other choice.
It didn't historically. The Nazi regime killed about ten-and-a-half million people and perhaps as many as seventeen million. The groups systematically murdered included Jews, homosexuals, Slavs, political opponents, Esperanto speakers, Roma and various religious groups.
Well yes, the US was still smarting from it's own defeat by the Vietnamese.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Let’s say more than their fair share. People over age 25 commit plenty of violent crime, too.
I’m all in favor of teenagers and think they should have more rights. All the same, young men do struggle with misplaced machoism.
And yes, while women are fully represented in the annals of violent crime proving that they, too, are human, percentage-wise much more of a moral and life blindspot on the part of young men.
I’m not a parent . . .
But if I had a son, I might offer to pay half the fees for an auto track. He could drive daringly there, and hopefully safely, predictably, and with the flow on regular roads. Heck, I might make the same offer if I had a daughter.