What Would be the Stable Population Level of Khmer Rouge Kampuchea?

As we all know, the Khmer Rouge managed to kill one of the highest proportions of a country's own population ever in just four years, with average estimates of population loss in the 20% range. Assuming that they don't get invaded and that they don't substantially reform for several decades, when would the population losses plateau? Presumably there is a point when even Pol Pot would realize that he's rendering his country defenseless with massive purges. Also, at some point, all the "New People" and other suspect groups will have been killed off, and, either they'll have to start killing loyal rural Khmers in large numbers (which they were perfectly capable of) to the point of total collapse, or just ease off on the genocide. At what point would they run out of non-vital victims, and how many survivors would there be on that day?
 
One. That's stable population under Khmer Rouge. Purge would end when Pol Pol literally choked his last general to death.
There was no way for it to end without being put out of its misery by foreign power. When 30% of population is dead, things have spiralled out of control long time ago.
Anyone who would suggest that maybe they are killing too many people in name of too strict interpretation of ideological purity, would be immediately killed in the name of ideological purity. Hence, everyone cheered whenever regime purged someone, to avoid being next.
Not even Pol Pot was safe from that, since to stop killings would be tacit admission that previous killings were unjustifiable murder. Hence he had to continue doubling down on purges.
Those dumb enough to think the regime would listen to sane arguments were first ones to go.
 
I think that their "aim" was something in the 700k range.
But the purging dynamic might have not stopped there actually (although foreign intervention of some sort is extremely likely way before that point anyway).
 
I think that their "aim" was something in the 700k range.
But the purging dynamic might have not stopped there actually (although foreign intervention of some sort is extremely likely way before that point anyway).

As in the aim was to have the population of Kampuchea be in the 700,000 range?
 
The answer is not 1!

Eventually the revolution would peter out. They all do. My guess they would decline by about 25% at its peak, and from there on in things would roughly stabilize with sudden fits of grotesque violence (like Stalinized Russia.)

I am thoroughly convinced that a lot more deaths in Cambodia were the result of sanctions against Vietnam and the brutal Vietnamese occupation then statistics suggest. This means if Pol Pot rules on, he likely receives hand outs from the USSR and if he plays his cards right, even the US to buy his weapons and not starve his people as much. The Khmer ROuge was a very short live regime in Phnom Penh. The shock of their taking of power was devastating. Their decades long rule in western Cambodia was quite a bit less devestating and we have no reason to believe the Khmer Rouge would have not moderated in time as they actually did.

By the way, I hate the Khmer ROuge. But I think it is racist to make them out to be cartoon characters that are so stupid they will crush each other with anvils until no Cambodians are left.

Here's a documentary made soon after the Khmer ROuge fell apart by a Vietnam-sympathizer. Clearly, he think the Vietnamese are doing the right thing and the US are evil for having sanctions against Vietnam (this is the 1980s). However, just look how the people are starving to death even still in the 1980s.

I am aware this is more of a conspiracy theory of sorts, as the CIA populate estimates support the traditional Khmer ROuge genocide numbers. However, it is hard to separate how many died between 77-79 and 79-81. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Cambodia
 
Last edited:
The answer is not 1!

Eventually the revolution would peter out. They all do. My guess they would decline by about 25% at its peak, and from there on in things would roughly stabilize with sudden fits of grotesque violence (like Stalinized Russia.)

I am thoroughly convinced that a lot more deaths in Cambodia were the result of sanctions against Vietnam and the brutal Vietnamese occupation then statistics suggest. This means if Pol Pot rules on, he likely receives hand outs from the USSR and if he plays his cards right, even the US to buy his weapons and not starve his people as much. The Khmer ROuge was a very short live regime in Phnom Penh. The shock of their taking of power was devastating. Their decades long rule in western Cambodia was quite a bit less devestating and we have no reason to believe the Khmer Rouge would have not moderated in time as they actually did.

By the way, I hate the Khmer ROuge. But I think it is racist to make them out to be cartoon characters that are so stupid they will crush each other with anvils until no Cambodians are left.

Here's a documentary made soon after the Khmer ROuge fell apart by a Vietnam-sympathizer. Clearly, he think the Vietnamese are doing the right thing and the US are evil for having sanctions against Vietnam (this is the 1980s). However, just look how the people are starving to death even still in the 1980s.

I am aware this is more of a conspiracy theory of sorts, as the CIA populate estimates support the traditional Khmer ROuge genocide numbers. However, it is hard to separate how many died between 77-79 and 79-81. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Cambodia

But how can we compare how the Khmer Rouge moderated in OTL with what would happen in an ATL if they were not kicked out of the country? Because it could be reasonably argued that the Khmer Rouge moderated because they were kicked out of the country and had an interest in gaining international support to return. That's an entirely different set up than a Khmer Rouge that is recognized as the legitimate government and which has firm control over the entirety of Kampuchea.
 
But how can we compare how the Khmer Rouge moderated in OTL with what would happen in an ATL if they were not kicked out of the country? Because it could be reasonably argued that the Khmer Rouge moderated because they were kicked out of the country and had an interest in gaining international support to return. That's an entirely different set up than a Khmer Rouge that is recognized as the legitimate government and which has firm control over the entirety of Kampuchea.

Maybe yes, maybe no. They still controlled the region of the country they were in and funded it with mining and such.

But let me concede to you that point anyway. I surviving Khmer Rouge in Phnom Penh may still feel international pressures. For example, a more extreme Chinese-Vietnamese war might have prevented a Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. Pol Pot might have sought support merely to protect his borders with the Vietnamese to the east and Thai to the west, as there is disputed territory there. So, the Khmer Rouge could have moderated because of different circumstances other than the OTL.

The Khmer Rouge did fine in the country side. Cambodia is still a 80% rural country. So, as I said, a 25% death rate is probably logical given they would have killed of the city slickers and the revolution is over, so they would mellow out and work with the agrarian base they have.

Again, the Khmer Rouge are very evil. However, they were unlike Hitler in this way--Hitler wanted to wipe out populations larger than the German population in all the territories he occupied. The Khmer ROuge essentially only wanted to wipe out Cambodian-Vietnamese and Cambodian-Chinese. Those who lived in the cities were viewed as foreign usurpers, robbing the country's wealth. They weren't completely mindless, wanting to wipe out everyone in the countryside. Those in the countryside died because of bad policies (i.e. exporting all the rice and breaking up families), but not the out-and-out genocidal policies typical of depopulating the cities.
 
PAB wrote:

I am thoroughly convinced that a lot more deaths in Cambodia were the result of sanctions against Vietnam and the brutal Vietnamese occupation then statistics suggest. This means if Pol Pot rules on, he likely receives hand outs from the USSR and if he plays his cards right, even the US to buy his weapons and not starve his people as much.

Even without the Vietnamese invasion, do you really think it's likely that Democratic Kampuchea ends up in the Soviet camp? I think that they were firmly on side with China even before Veitnam went in, weren't they?

Assuming you still have the Sino-Soviet split as in OTL, I'm not sure that the Russians would want to give aid to the Khmer Rouge.
 
Also...

For example, a more extreme Chinese-Vietnamese war might have prevented a Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.

I'm not sure how the China-Vietnam war could have prevented the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, since the China didn't attack Vietnam until AFTER Vietnam had invaded Cambodia.

Maybe a more extreme war could have prevented Vietnam from continuing its occupation of Cambodia?
 
PAB wrote:

I am thoroughly convinced that a lot more deaths in Cambodia were the result of sanctions against Vietnam and the brutal Vietnamese occupation then statistics suggest. This means if Pol Pot rules on, he likely receives hand outs from the USSR and if he plays his cards right, even the US to buy his weapons and not starve his people as much.

Even without the Vietnamese invasion, do you really think it's likely that Democratic Kampuchea ends up in the Soviet camp? I think that they were firmly on side with China even before Veitnam went in, weren't they?

Assuming you still have the Sino-Soviet split as in OTL, I'm not sure that the Russians would want to give aid to the Khmer Rouge.

Mental cock up, you're correct. I Phnom Penh there is Mao Tse Tung Blvd and Russian Confederation Blvd. The Russian money probably came when Cambodia was a Soviet satellite. My bad.

Also...

For example, a more extreme Chinese-Vietnamese war might have prevented a Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.

I'm not sure how the China-Vietnam war could have prevented the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, since the China didn't attack Vietnam until AFTER Vietnam had invaded Cambodia.

Maybe a more extreme war could have prevented Vietnam from continuing its occupation of Cambodia?

Perhaps a war that starts earlier, yes. We are talking about what PODs are necessary for a surviving Khmer ROuge and the effects of demographics.
 
Maybe yes, maybe no. They still controlled the region of the country they were in and funded it with mining and such.

But let me concede to you that point anyway. I surviving Khmer Rouge in Phnom Penh may still feel international pressures. For example, a more extreme Chinese-Vietnamese war might have prevented a Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.

You have it backwards. The Sino-Vietnamese War was launched by the Chinese in response to the Vietnamese overthrow of the Khmer Rouge.

No Vietnamese invasion = No Sino-Vietnamese war in the first place. So there isn't a case of a Sino-Vietnamese war that "starts earlier" as you suggested since the reason for the Sino-Vietnamese war would not exist in a case where Vietnam did not invade Kampuchea and overthrow the Khmer Rouge. You would need some other (plausible) reason for the Vietnamese not to invade.


Pol Pot might have sought support merely to protect his borders with the Vietnamese to the east and Thai to the west, as there is disputed territory there. So, the Khmer Rouge could have moderated because of different circumstances other than the OTL.

That seems highly doubtful and questionable given that the Khmer Rouge did not moderate between 1975 and 1978 and instead only became more delusional as they sought territory in Vietnam which they claimed was in fact Kampuchean based not on the old established colonial borders, but on the old Khmer Empire. 1977 in particular saw no moderation as it was Pol Pot's forces which initiated a number of clashes along the border with Vietnam.

The Khmer Rouge did fine in the country side. Cambodia is still a 80% rural country. So, as I said, a 25% death rate is probably logical given they would have killed of the city slickers and the revolution is over, so they would mellow out and work with the agrarian base they have.

The Khmer Rouge had a clear pattern to their historical bouts of moderate behaviour - when they were not in absolute control. So in the late 1960s until 1975 and from 1979 until the 1990s they were nowhere near as excessively violent towards their own population as they were in 1975-1979. And those two periods of relatively moderate behaviour just happened to be when they were not in power.


Again, the Khmer Rouge are very evil. However, they were unlike Hitler in this way--Hitler wanted to wipe out populations larger than the German population in all the territories he occupied. The Khmer ROuge essentially only wanted to wipe out Cambodian-Vietnamese and Cambodian-Chinese.

This seems like you are almost trying to defend Pol Pot and his ilk. This is also quite incorrect. The Khmer Rouge wanted to wipe out the Vietnamese and Chinese Cambodians as well other Cambodians who were not Vietnamese or Chinese but who would not fit into their vision of a classless society based on workers/peasants (which basically meant the landholding elite, capitalists, and those who had ever been in league with or supportive of the French).
 
Top