WI: No Khmer Rouge state?

Zeldar155

Banned
So, Lets say Pol Pot dies sometime before assuming leadership of the Communist Party of Cambodia, how does Cambodia do in the late 20th century without Pol Pot and his genocide?
 
I don't really know much Cambodian history, but I think you might see a long Sihanouk quasi-dictatorship. And that's my ill-informed two cents.
 
Assuming no other changes from OTL, Sihanouk may or may not remain in power. The coup that deposed him in 1970 was caused by: high unemployment, rampant corruption and anger at their inability to defend their territorial integrity.

Another point to consider is that Cambodia is in a horrible physical position between two rivals (Vietnam and Thailand). So if North Vietnam still annexes the South in 1975, then Cambodia reverts to neutrality or a suitable revolutionary government will be installed at the point of a bayonet point (Cambodia in the OTL in the 80's). Vietnam has an easier path into Cambodia as there are no mountain ranges to impede the advance, Thailand has this problem with their border.

Economically the situation will still be tenuous without a genocide due to economic mismanagement. If this is able to be rectified, then Cambodia could become an Asian tiger. Overall no genocide means that the educated portion of the society are not removed, and this would mean that even if TTL followed a script similar to the OTL without the KR, Cambodia would be in a better position today.

If you would like to see a reasonable POD for this topic, I would humbly suggest that you look at my TL.
 
Cambodia would not be the nightmare that it was under Pol Pot, and many of the intelligentsia and urban population would still be around.
 

Zeldar155

Banned
Cambodia would not be the nightmare that it was under Pol Pot, and many of the intelligentsia and urban population would still be around.

Indeed much of the educated populace would probably be around, Pol Pot ordered people to the labour camps simply for wearing glasses.
(Which would mean the end of me)
 
I feel obligated to throw in my two cents.

To start--getting rid of Pol Pot doesn't necessarily get rid of the Khmer Rouge state. The Khmer Rouge are still going to exist, and if they decide to rush to Phonm Penh before the Vietnamese get there, history will probably go the same way, and Angkor will wind up issuing the same crazy orders with the same hideous results. Khmer Rouge Cambodia was never a one-man show--in fact, it was rather decentralized.

Now--that said, it might be that without Pot around they decide not to chance it. Then Cambodia becomes a communist satellite state to Vietnam. And then things will be--well, still horrible and unpleasant, but not insanely evil.
 
So, Lets say Pol Pot dies sometime before assuming leadership of the Communist Party of Cambodia, how does Cambodia do in the late 20th century without Pol Pot and his genocide?

Here's my two cents worth, I suppose.

This issue would affect not only Cambodia but also ASEAN as a whole. Considering that you've just removed the major reason as to why Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979, said invasion is pretty much butterflied away into oblivion. It would definitely mean better ties between Vietnam and ASEAN and it might see an earlier entry of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam into the organisation.
 
Top