Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Text moved

Text moved frrom Votes to deletion I think this can be useful.

Khmer Rouges likely just a misspelling, nothing points to it and it simply redirects to the correctly spelled Khmer Rouge -- User:Maury Markowitz

I don't think this will hurt. And it might catch some links from the internet. -- JeLuF 10:48 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

This is correct in French. "Le parti Khmer Rouge" for the parti or movement vs. "les Kmher Rouges" for the people who support "Khmer Rouge". Khmer does'nt need a s because it's non-French. I wonder if "Khmer Rouge" was corrected because "les Kmher Rouges" is much more commonly used in French. A rapid search on Google saw that "Khmer Rouge" is more common in english but I've found some occurences for "Khmer Rouges" in english text. Maybe some precision should be added in the main article. Ericd

---

Is "genocide" the most suitable word to describe what happened? I can't think of a better word, but genocide doesn't seem quite right. The dictionary says this:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

It just may be possible that the stationing of American service personnel in Cambodia near the DMZ and performing military action to prevent the Vietcong from circumventing the DMZ with no regard for civilian Cambodians may have had something to do with Pol Pot's anger since this had been going on since at least 1966. This is first hand information and it is no doubt buried at the highest level of security.

---

Your "first hand information" is self-contradictory: Pol Pot (an intellectual) shows no regard for Cambodian civilians as an angry reaction to American soldiers showing no regard for these same citizens? What could be "buried at the highest level of security" that could bring logic to this? -JCB 1/4/2004

Genocide fits. The policy was elimination of intellectuals - scientists, teachers and anyone who might have been motivated to resist. A little unusual to select the most educated part of the population for death but humans can come up with almoist any idea given enough time. Jamesday 15:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I am trying to be very patient and openminded about alternative viewpoints to traditional American stances, but if we are going to allow Hector to whitewash the Khmer Rouge (or whatever we call it--the name isn't important to me) to the point that this article does not reflect Pol Pot's use of this party to kill hundreds of thousands of Cambodians, I may lose my temper, and I have tried a very long time to avoid that on Wikipedia. There had better be either a lot of excellent sources explaining why I imagined the Cambodian genocide, or some support for keeping this page honest. Jwrosenzweig 00:00, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Folks, here's my proposal: actually the edits you are battling over are not mutually exclusive so I wonder why you are reverting back in forth instead of editing things together. There seems to be one sentence in dispute, which is the reason for evacuation of Phnom Penh. I'm going to weave them together and hope you will provide constructive feedback in the article. I've been to Cambodia, and have friends who work in the media, schools and government there, and they do not much fondness for the CPK of that era. So any history of the CPK should reflect this truth, heard from both folks inside the country and the outside community. Fuzheado 00:26, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK - I tried to merge versions. I hope that helps. Note also that the common name of this subject is Khmer Rouge, so this page should be at Khmer Rouge to conform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --mav 00:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mav, good job. I've also tried to take out some hemming-hawing in the language, which makes it more direct. Fuzheado 00:46, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Numbers change

Some of the changes here could be justified (ie. learning from Stalin?) but the number being lowered to 50,000 cannot be seriously considered. The estimate came from the CIA in 1980, but it was the estimated number of executions not actual deaths caused by the CPK/Khmer Rouge altogether, and nearly every NGO or independent investigation has called the CIA numbers "ridiculously" low. No one ever reasonably quotes a number less than a few hundred thousand. Remember, 50,000 is much less than what fits inside a soccer/football stadium. Fuzheado 01:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

The final indignity of POV is to not even let a group name itself. We should change the African-American entry to niggers since that name was common usage (by white Americans, the only group on the planet whose opinion matters) to refer to a certain group of people. The CPK called itself the CPK, Khmer Rouge is just what the American corporate press called the CPK (just like they called the NLF in Vietnam the Viet Cong, or call the PCP in Peru, Shining Path). Is this some kind of Judeo-Christian values thing, like Adam being the one to have the power to name all the beasts of the air, fish of the sea and that sort of thing? -- Richardchilton 06:49, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam is neither a Jew nor a Christian. It is Wikipedia policy to call things by their most commonly used name in English. There is no doubt that in this case that is Khmer Rouge. Of course that was not the official name of the organisation, and that should be noted in the opening paragraph. My reason for reverting your edits, however, had nothing to do with nomenclature. It had to do with you deleting the sentence about the KR regime killing a million people in four years, which is by far the most important thing to say about them. Adam 07:13, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. We've already gone over this though. --mav

I was making a comparison to the Adam in Genesis where...well, never mind that, if you look at the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names) , you will see that you should *use the name the group calls itself*. Regarding the number of people killed in the first paragraph, this is incredibly ridiculous, if anyone editted the USA page and said "the US killed millions of Indians, black slaves and people in it's foreign imperialism" in it's first paragraph, it would be considered not NPOV, however it can be put here. Also, the CIA said 50,000 people were killed. Richardchilton 10:13, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Was it you who changed that page to say that just before you posted, a change which was reversed once it was noticed? Jamesday 15:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Richardchilton, as I mentioned before, that is not what the CIA said. The CIA claimed there were 50,000 executions, which is different than people dying under their rule. However, even the 50,000 executions is way too low according to almost every organization that studies these things. Fuzheado 23:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I really don't care whether this article is called KR or CPK or anything else. I do care that it is factually accurate and not yet another Wikipedia Stalinist whitewash. That the KR killed at least a million people, either directly by execution or by policies (such as forcible emptying of hospitals) which were bound to kill people is an exhaustively well-documented fact, not just rhetoric, so Richard's comparison with the alleged crimes of US imperialism is fatuous. I do not think that what the KR did should be called "genocide," because it wan't their intention to exterminate the Cambodian people. The newly-coined term democide is more useful here, although "mass murder" is ethically more honest. Adam 00:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

wow richardchilton you really are a dumbass. i wish there was a name for people like you so we could make a wikipedia entry about it.

--

this article is rather dry. it leaves out the flavor of genocide, making it like reading the box of cereal ingredients. (corn, wheat, 1,000,000 dead, communism, mono and diglycerides)

at the very least you could talk about how even the officials within the khmer were not safe from their own government, and were executed as readily as the people. at least some details of their tactics of requesting 'public confessions' then having those confessed killed later. how about the widespread use of children as executioners, generals, torturers, etc? how about some links to those specific places (like that abandoned school house i cant remember the name) where they killed people all the time?

how about a mention of the massive records they kept about every dead person?

---

I do not see why "They are generally said to have been responsible for the deaths of between 900,000 and 2 million people during their rule." is so high up in the article. We don't have this so prominently for the Democratic Party of the US or for the Republican party and so forth. And PLEASE don't give me some bullshit line like "Duh...so why don't you put it there, this is the Khmer Rouge page". Because we all known it would be deleted in two seconds as POV, but some people seem to have problems perceiving this when corporate media has been painting these people as evil, bloodthirsty, "crazy" (like the Ayatollah Khomeni, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Qadaffi etc. are crazy), slanty-eyed communist gooks for years (that is until 1979, when they started fighting Vietnamese communists, who were of course, the REAL bad guys, right?). Maveric is apparently the one who originally stuck this thing up there and felt it needed to be in a prominent place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Khmer_Rouge&diff=543185&oldid=543183

I disagree, I am removing it from the top of the article, it should be left in the paragraph where this is discussed.

And what does "have been responsible" mean? What does that mean? If some peasant fled their farm because the US Air Force was bombing in 1974 with their two kids, and when the CPK took over they had already been in Phnom Penh for months, all underfed, and one of the children died a week after the change of guard, is the CPK "responsible" for this? Cambodia was receiving international food aid right up until the CPK took over - were the cutting off of humanitarian aid responsible for the effect in that change of policy?

Now lets get to that paragraph

"During that time, large segments of the population were targeted for elimination, including intellectuals, anyone connected with the previous regime, ethnic Vietnamese or those suspected of having sympathies with them. The exact number of deaths during the Khmer Rouge regime is difficult to pinpoint. Depending on the source a reported 15% to 40% of the population died between 1975 and 1979 (500,000 to 2,000,000 people). A figure of about 1 million is widely accepted."

This has all sorts of problems. First of all that the segments were "large" is disputed. And as far as "targeted" according to what source? I would like to see a reference to who said there was targeting. Obviously, some people in the former regime were executed, but I'd like a reference to this idea of widespread targeting. And then of course, I'd add if anyone would dispute this afterwards.

Now - "Depending on the source a reported 15% to 40% of the population died between 1975 and 1979 (500,000 to 2,000,000 people). A figure of about 1 million is widely accepted." I have a problem with this. I do not have a problem with saying that some people clain 2 million people were killed and whatnot, I do have a problem with the absolutely ridiculous number of 2 million being allowed as an upper range, yet it appears from what I've read here that anyone lowering the other number is reverted. I also disagree that 1 million is widely accepted. By who? The US government doesn't accept that number.

I see a lot of sloppy, unsourced stuff here. Then anyone who wants to edit it is accused of "whitewashing" these numbers that seem to have been pulled out of a hat. Someone put in 2 million here - where did "3 million" go, the number that Maveric (the one who put the number up prominently at the top) go? What happened to those million theoretical people?

Also, the article talks about executions and then goes on to say "The exact number of deaths during the Khmer Rouge regime is difficult to pinpoint". Now number of deaths (due to old age, cancer, whatever) is different than executions, but coming in the sentence right after talk about executions, it implies these people were executed like the top people in the former regime were. So this will have to be cleared up.

This is a good source for information on the Khmer Rouge as is the book "The Political Economy of Human Rights" http://www.zmag.org/forums/chomcambodforum.htm

Please reference things people say instead of pulling stuff out of a hat, throwing it up there and then accusing anyone who touches it of "whitewashing" the unreferenced truth, which came from divine osmosis or something I suppose. Anyhow, I'm *guessing* that the two million figure is from Ponchaud, so I will note that in the article, if whoever put it in has other references, feel welcome to change it, I'm going to have to do guesswork on where these unreferenced numbers and claims came from originally. Please use references and hash this out in discussion instead of being an idiot who just reverts everything after people are trying to work together to make a referenced, NPOV article. -- Hanpuk 17:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

After all my work, discussion here, referencing of the big number people's claims and whatnot, what happens? The Anome just reverts everything I do, no discussion, and the exposition of "Reverted edits by Hanpuk to last version by 195.188.152.10". Wikipedia is full of commissars who demand not only that some party line be kept to, but a party line be kept to with no discussion, no attempts at discussion or trying to reach NPOV, just revert what you don't like to see, hope for an edit war and then the page to get locked on a version you agree with. And then throw mud on the other person and accuse them of being some political crazy (for perhaps wanting there to be at least some form of comment, or reason, or even perhaps discussion before simply reverting everything one does not find pleasant). -- Hanpuk 17:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello Hanpuk. I note that you have written a long apologia for the Khmer Rouge here. However, that is not the same thing as achieving consensus. The generally accepted opinion about the KR is that they were mass-murderers who also mismanaged their country into ruin. This appears to be the #1 siginificant fact about them, and so belongs at the top of their article, much like references to WW II and the Holocaust belong at the top of the article about the Nazis, or references to the gulag and the purges belong at the top of an article about Stalin. Feel free to give better estimates. Feel free to give cites. Don't whitewash the KR by deleting this sentence. I'll restore the para, citing it as an opinion, how's that. -- The Anome 17:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"The generally accepted opinion" - is this an encyclopedia or is this the Capital Gang? I thought facts were supposed to be here, not "opinions". Anyhow, I don't think this deserves prominent mention, but I'll concede and let this discussion be at the top of the page. I moved the entire discussion of Cambodian demographics and executions to the top of the page. I also notice how people like to put demographic information near executions, trying to imply the CPK executed 3 million people, I am going to make sure this ambiguity does not exist, and for it to be clear how many died prior to the CPK taking power, how many people died by execution as welll as of malnourishment (which was happening on a great scale PRIOR to the CPK taking power and which in my opinion the CPK did a lot to relieve), how many people died of the Vietnamese invasion, how many died of natural causes like old age or cancer and whatnot. At least you cited who said what according to what most people know. I know of what people say of Ponchaud's numbers (especially important is that some of his numbers refer to the period PRIOR to the CPK taking power, never mind that the post-CPK figures of his are disputed and was denied by the US embassy at the time), I will look at the other ones as well. I do not mind what numbers people put up as long as they are referenced and people can point out aspects such as that part of Ponchaud's numbers were of the period prior to the CPK takeover. You can write whatever you want on the page as long as it is referenced to something. -- Hanpuk 18:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New text

This version clearly needs a lot of work. The new section does contain a lot of new information that might be valuable, but it is clear "Hanpuk" (yeah, right) is also putting in pro-KR propaganda/apologism and related nonsense (the usual "corporate" press). The 50,000 figure, repeatedly debunked here, has returned. Can anyone take on the Herculean task of working through this? There's too much information for me to want to just erase wholesale, but it's too mixed up with bad info to keep as is. -- VV 22:52, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as the first sentence, what does "considered responsible for" mean? Also the two million number is RIDICULOUS, even the original source of the number says it does NOT refer to the period the CPK was in charge. Ponchaud says 800,000 were killed PRIOR to the CPK takeover, and 1,600,000 were killed afterwards. The US Embassy at the time denied that 1,600,000 had been killed by the CPK and said the numebr was too high, but let's put that aside for now. Ponchaud's number was mentioned in a New York Review of Books review and then was picked up by the New York Times, Time, Newsweek and so forth and so on. What was quite often left out is that Ponchaud only blamed 1.6 million on the CPK after the 1975 takeover and 800,000 of the 2 million referred to were PRIOR to 1975, BEFORE the CPK took over. But this caveat for 800,000 of the claimed 1.6 million was often left out. Anyhow now the 2 million number is around everywhere, sans this caveat.

Being as this totally ridiculous number (2 million, not 1.6 million, according to Ponchaud, and I dispute the 1.6 million, but at least it can be said "Ponchaud said 1.6 million") can be put at the top, I'm not sure why the good old CIA's 1980 estimate of as little as 50,000 executions can not be put at the top - and the CPK said much of that was due to the Vietnamese invasion where the CPK was killing Vietnamese agents in Cambodia.

As far as the lower one I'll leave it, I'll put a sentence after it saying some people give a lower, sometimes much lower, estimate.

I don't mind arguments going up as long as they're sourced and so forth. "Ponchaud said 2 million died" can go up, and if the caveat is not there, I would add "800,000 being attributed to the former regime's rule by Ponchaud, 1.6, attributed by Ponchaud, to the CPK's rule". Anyhow, I myself have to look into some things such as the phrase "year zero" and see where it comes from, if the CPK used it or if it was invented by the Western press or first estate (I think François Ponchaud was a French priest, sacre bleu). Anyhow, as long as things are sourced and such we can probably come to an amenable agreement I think. -- Hanpuk 06:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I looked at the Anome's last edit. He added a section "Year Zero" and "How many died under the rule of the Khmer Rouge?" I don't know how I feel about that, but I left it, I have to read more about the Year Zero metaphor.

Even the US State Department refers to the "Khmer Rouge" as the CPK so I am changing it to "How many died under the rule of the CPK?"...I'm changing a few KR's to CPK's.

Then there's the sentence "This policy, known as 'year zero', soon turned into a reign of terror, and resulted in the deaths of a large number of Cambodians through executions and starvation." Going through that sentence, I think it needs modifiers like "some say" instead of it being stated as a fact. I mean, there are some facts - the CPK *did* execute people. But were they "large numbers" of people? And what is a large number of people. Anyhow, I am going to add qualifiers like "some say" and the like.

I'll leave this part in about starvation, but are you saying due to the CPK large number of people died of starvation? I'm not sure if that view is commonly held, even on the right. Most people say the CPK didn't care about the hardship of the migrations, and executed people. I can't think of many people, even on the right, who blame the CPK for excessive starvation. It's a topic they like to avoid - executions can be blamed solely on the CPK, but starvation people might start asking why humanitarian aid was cut off and what effect US bombing had on Cambodia's agriculture, and how many people were dying of starvation prior to the CPK. There are plenty of sources on the right (and "liberals") on CPK executions, I'd be curious what sources blame the CPK for excessive starvation. I expanded the sentence there where I had said that the CPK claimed it was doing there thing to try to avoid famine. -- Hanpuk 06:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Come on, Hanpuk, from what you are saying in this discussion, I guest you must be a Cambodian, correct? I know a lot of Cambodians, and according to their opinion. I can make it clear that 100% (and I mean 100%, all of them) of Cambodians who were in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge talk of the Vietnamese as their saviour, their liberators, what the Vietnamese force did wrong was that they overstayed in Cambodia until 1989. On the other hand, Cambodians who were living overseas, or teenagers, generally, people who did not suffer under the Khmer Rouge often think of the Vietnamese as invader who try to take over Cambodia and blame all of the dead of the Cambodian upon the Vietnamese force. I guess that is because of what a lot of Cambodian is learning from school that "Vietnameses only want to invade Cambodia", "Vietnam is the biggest enemy of Cambodia". Still don't believe me? OK, then can you quote any book written by Khmer Rouge victims which said the Vietnamese invade Cambodia to kill them? Get over it and stop blaming others for what your country men did to their own people and start thinking, why did the Vietnamese risked a war with the Chinese (and it did indeed happened)? You think the Vietnamese come to Cambodia to slaughter their own ethnic people living in Cambodia? You think the Vietnamese would be crazy enough to invade Cambodia to oust a communist regime which could be one of their 2 alliances in South East Asia? You think the Vietnamese would just let Pol Pot keep Phu Quoc island off the southern coast of Vietnam and don't even try to take it back? lt2hieu2004

Wrong date in infobox?

The infobox states 1981 as the year of the dissolution of the Khmer Rouge. This does not match the rest of the article, which notes that they lost their power over Cambodia in 1979, but remained active until 1996, when they were disbanded by Pol Pot. Could someone fix this? Elanguescence (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Crimes againt humanity

A minor correction, in the section titled "Crimes Against Humanity" reference is made to 'pickaxes' being used in order to save bullets at The Killing Fields. With reference to a tour of the Chaoung Ek site and comments by the onsite guides (15/09/2010), 'garden hoes' would be a more correct term for the tools used most predominately for executions.

Without wishing to make the article appear overly brutal or descriptive, there are also references provided at the site and by guides that babies were killed by swinging them head first into a particular tree, again with the intent to conserve ammunition. This is a much more representative view of the crimes being committed, and I mention here only as a suggested alternative or addition. 110.74.197.37 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Timbalanderx, 14 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The current text on the page uses the word "REPULSED" at the end of the paragraph copied below. The word should be changed to "REPELLED" because the word "repulsed" implies disgust, and that is not at all what is intended to be communicated regarding a military conflict. The Vietnamese REPELLED the Cambodian MFers.

"By December 1978, because of several years of border conflict and the flood of refugees fleeing Cambodia, relations between Cambodia and Vietnam collapsed. Pol Pot, fearing a Vietnamese attack, ordered a pre-emptive invasion of Vietnam. His Cambodian forces crossed the border and looted nearby villages. These Cambodian forces were REPULSED by the Vietnamese."

Timbalanderx (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese Khmer Rouge????

I ran into a youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/AhmekKhmer According to this person, he/she insists that the Vietnamese were responsible for the khmer rouge and its genocide.

Anyone agree with this or not? Looks fishy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tank893 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course the Vietnamese is NOT responsible for that. Then who? The article says it clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.96.238 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

US Foreign Involvement and arbitrary deletion of content

There is solid evidence that the U.S. role in Cambodia has a direct connection to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. I have attempted to start putting this into the Khmer Rouge page. The User TheTimesAreAChanging is erasing all the content I have put up on this subject and leaving very insignificant explanations for doing so and has erased some content with no explanation at all. If claims are unsourced, discuss the claim here or request a citation before arbitrarily deleting content. Some of the claims that were deleted are well-documented ones that I assumed don't require citation. I have twice now re-written the content to satisfy this user and have tried to contact them and have received no communication, please discuss with me your issues before erasing relevant as well as cited material.Longroad (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Longroad, maybe you're just a new user who doesn't know how Wikipedia works, but leaving such inaccurate messages on the TP will get you nowhere. This is what the article says:

• "The relationship between the massive carpet bombing of Cambodia by the United States and the growth of the Khmer Rouge, in terms of recruitment and popular support, has been a matter of interest to historians. Some historians have cited the U.S. intervention and bombing campaign (spanning 1965–1973) as a significant factor leading to increased support of the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry.[19] However, Pol Pot biographer David Chandler argues that the bombing "had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh",[20] although he acknowledged that it lead to thousands of civilian deaths.[21] Peter Rodman and Michael Lind claimed that the US intervention saved Cambodia from collapse in 1970 and 1973.[22][23] Craig Etcheson agreed that it was "untenable" to assert that US intervention caused the Khmer Rouge victory while acknowledging that it may have played a small role in boosting recruitment for the insurgents.[24] William Shawcross, however, wrote that the US bombing and ground incursion plunged Cambodia into the chaos Sihanouk had worked for years to avoid.[25]"

What you want to add is nonsense and gibberish:

• "In addition, U.S. support for General Nol compelled the deposed Sihanouk to throw his support to the Khmer Rouge at the time." No, it didn't. Sihanouk was not angry that the evil imperialist US supported Lon Nol, he was angry that Lon Nol overthrew him in a coup. Unsourced fantasy.
• "In addition, the U.S. backed regime of Lon Nol attempted to suppress Vietnamese and Cambodian Communist activity in the country, but instead suffered a series of humiliating defeats against the guerrillas." We already know this--it's mentioned in numerous articles--but it doesn't have any relation to the rest of the content in the "foreign involvement" section of this article about an organization. Why do you love the phrase "in addition" so very much?
• "In conjunction, the Nixon administration's decision to intensify carpet bombing in 1969 further eroded stability in Cambodia, and by 1973 the government was in control of less than a quarter of the country." We already know that some scholars, like Kiernan and Shawcross, believe the US bombing was counter-productive; but your original research is not a valid source for the claim that it was single-handedly responsible for this additional, uncited fact.
• "David Chandler describes the bombing as "brutal" and points out it was responsible for thousands of civilian deaths, at best delaying a Communist victory." We already know bombing caused civilian deaths, and Chandler is already quoted as saying that it did delay a communist victory. We also know that the communists still won! Why should we have this sentence appear before "Pol Pot biographer David Chandler...."? Don't you normally mention who a person is first? Even the compromised, combined version of this text is ridiculous: "However, Pol Pot biographer David Chandler argues that the bombing "had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh", although he acknowledged that it lead to thousands of civilian deaths." Who doesn't acknowledge that? Come on!
• All of your revisions are almost exactly the same, with no effort being made even to improve your prose (much less respond to my objections). Your claim, above, that the US role is never mentioned is ridiculous hyperbole. Have you even read the article?
• You shouldn't have trolled my TP by suggesting that there was no possible explanation for the revert of your masterful edits except misunderstanding. You shouldn't have made veiled threats. You should have discussed it here to begin with.

We're giving a brief overview of how the bombing affected the organization that is the broader subject of this article. We have policies here at Wikipedia about due weight, sourcing, synthesis and original research; learn them well (unless you're a sockpuppet, which is likely). Your edits make for an inferior section. Sincerely,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging

First off, you crossed the line by claiming to delete material on one basis, but also deleting a great deal of material without explaining why, except that it is critical of the United States and maybe you think its your job to delete facts you don't like: "18:36, 8 November 2012‎ TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs)‎ . . (81,298 bytes) (-899)‎ . . (Revert undue weight about Lon Nol being supported by US (which is already covered), vandalism by IP) - You know quite well that you also deleted factual content not mentioned elswhere in the article that the carpet bombing can be directly correlated to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. Instead of debating the facts with me respectfully or requesting that I provide citations, you arbitrarily deleted the entirety of the content, and the only criticism of the US you will permit is a decontextualized footnote from Kiernan. So let's go through your biased arguments, provided only after I've repeatedly rewritten my content to compromise:

• "In addition, U.S. support for General Nol compelled the deposed Sihanouk to throw his support to the Khmer Rouge at the time." No, it didn't. Sihanouk was not angry that the evil imperialist US supported Lon Nol, he was angry that Lon Nol overthrew him in a coup. Unsourced fantasy.

You have failed to grasp the point, which is why you should refrain from erasing content, since you might not understand it. It is clear I am not contending Sihanouk was "angry" - I do not know where you got that from. It is a fact so basic that Sihanouk supported that Khmer Rouge because he was overthrown, and with U.S. support Sihanouk had no alternatives. For you to call that gibberish shows that you are miserably biased.

• "In addition, the U.S. backed regime of Lon Nol attempted to suppress Vietnamese and Cambodian Communist activity in the country, but instead suffered a series of humiliating defeats against the guerrillas." We already know this--it's mentioned in numerous articles--but it doesn't have any relation to the rest of the content in the "foreign involvement" section of this article about an organization. Why do you love the phrase "in addition" so very much?

What do you mean "we already know this"? This is wikipedia, people looking for information shouldnt be expected to shuffle through other articles to acquire relevant information just because it makes you nervous. But I could rewrite it for greater precision - Lon Nol cooperated with the US in attempting to suppress Communist guerrillas. How is that not relevant?

• "In conjunction, the Nixon administration's decision to intensify carpet bombing in 1969 further eroded stability in Cambodia, and by 1973 the government was in control of less than a quarter of the country." We already know that some scholars, like Kiernan and Shawcross, believe the US bombing was counter-productive; but your original research is not a valid source for the claim that it was single-handedly responsible for this additional, uncited fact.

Ok, I'll cite it the next go around - its from Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan, but chances are you will invent some other excuse to suppress the information.

• "David Chandler describes the bombing as "brutal" and points out it was responsible for thousands of civilian deaths, at best delaying a Communist victory." We already know bombing caused civilian deaths, and Chandler is already quoted as saying that it did delay a communist victory. We also know that the communists still won! Why should we have this sentence appear before "Pol Pot biographer David Chandler...."? Don't you normally mention who a person is first? Even the compromised, combined version of this text is ridiculous: "However, Pol Pot biographer David Chandler argues that the bombing "had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh", although he acknowledged that it lead to thousands of civilian deaths." Who doesn't acknowledge that? Come on!

This may be your most transparent objection yet. Thousands of civilian deaths are not mentioned in the "Foreign Involvement" section, which seems slightly relevant. If you would like me to rephrase it, you should ask respectfully, instead of deleting all mention of uncomfortable facts without addressing me first and fogging the matter up with hairsplitting. It's not about acknowledgement, its weighing the political effect of the bombing against the human impact. This needs to be discussed. "Come on!" is not an argument. Neither is constantly erasing material you don't like.

• You shouldn't have trolled my TP by suggesting that there was no possible explanation for the revert of your masterful edits except misunderstanding. You shouldn't have made veiled threats. You should have discussed it here to begin with.

You shouldn't have deleted my content without addressing it here first, and you shouldn't have deleted content without explanation but sneaking it in another deletion. Pardon me if I don't buy your indignation.

We're giving a brief overview of how the bombing affected the organization that is the broader subject of this article. We have policies here at Wikipedia about due weight, sourcing, synthesis and original research; learn them well (unless you're a sockpuppet, which is likely). Your edits make for an inferior section. Sincerely,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

By "we" it is clear you mean yourself and have taken it upon yourself to censor the page. Don't erase my contributions without discussing it with me first. You are not the master arbiter of Wikipedia. You have an obligation to discuss things civilly and treat other contributors with respect, You have failed to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longroad (talk • contribs) 00:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The US did not overthrow Sihanouk. With regard to casualties, the US bombing killed around 40,000 civilians, but more than 200,000 civilians died in the entire war. It seems unbalanced to only mention the number of deaths caused by the US, not by North Vietnam, South Vietnam, or the Khmer Rouge themselves. Casualty breakdowns are appropriate for the article on the war.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the 40,000 figure include all Cambodian's not just civilians? i.e.the figure includes Khmer Rouge and Cambodian soldiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically, yes. But that's a low estimate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Lede

Why does this lede not mention either the US support for the Khmer Rouge (or at least 'alleged' support), nor the fact that the Vietnamese overthrew the regime? That last is pretty important. The lede simply says the regime fled, not from what or why, which seems pretty clear lack of NPOV introduced by somebody who cordially dislikes Vietnam. It needs to be fixed, else it definitely would merit a POV tag. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The following paragraph lacked source for a quote, and the one footnote/source didn't pertain to the paragraph's points at all. The paragraph contradicts other relevant Wikipedia pages (including pages it links to), as well as general scholarship re this topic. Thus I deleted the text for now. It was as follows:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarity108 (talk • contribs)

Although a radical movement, the Khmer Rouge also drew on the idioms of Cambodian Buddhist culture. The time that the party spent in the forests in the 1960s, supposedly accumulating knowledge, has similarities to Buddhist lore. Before coming to power, the Khmer Rouge also demonstrated characteristics of "the Buddhist ideals of propriety and social justice". Rather than maintaining a bureaucracy based on names and reputation, the Khmer Rouge also used charismatic leadership that is characteristic of Buddhist societies.

References

Warning on user 2602:306:c445:52c9:218:f3ff:fef1:1346

• (cur | prev) 07:21, 18 April 2014‎ 10stone5 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,849 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (This user 03:34, 2 April 2014‎ 2602:306:c445:52c9:218:f3ff:fef1:1346
• (talk)‎ . . (84,612 bytes) (+544)‎ . . (wiki style; punc fix; minor clarif; ref req) (undo) added countless citation required tags, he obviously doesn't want to be
• identified !) (undo)

---

I made the above notation in an edit. The above user made something on the order of 50-75 citation requests. I have no choice but to assume this is a subtle attempt at sabotage. The user clearly doesn't want to be identified based on his odd sign-in. I made a lot of these citation changes and removed the citation request tag from this article 10stone5 (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Missing Word?

In the last paragraph of the section "Life Under The Khmer Rouge" is the sentence "Several Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians were killed for exercising their beliefs". I'm guessing that there is supposed to be a word following "several", like "several hundred thousand" or some such, but I don't have access to the source. As it stands, the use of "several" makes it read as if ten or twenty were killed, which is obviously not the case. If someone with access to the source, or a comparable one, would take a look, it would be greatly appreciated.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Language Reforms

The last paragraph of this section does not seem to fit, it has nothing to do with language - though it is relevant. Also, I don't follow the sentence about Khmer Rouge cadres preventing aid if it is talking about people having fled the country (presumably, they would no longer be in the reach of the Khmer Rouge). At any rate, this is not a subject I am deeply familiar with, so I would feel uncomfortable trying to rewrite that paragraph or to move it around - I also apologize for starting two sections back to back, but they are both on different matters. Thank you to anyone who takes a look at this:-) Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with stub: Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76)

Hello, I noticed there was a gap in the former states of Cambodia so I created Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76); any help in expanding this stub would be much appreciated. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Vickery

Apparently vickery should not be cited? Why? Alyxr (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Vickery is a former KR supporter whose books are published by South End Press, a front for political activists with the slogan "Read. Write. Revolt." He should not be used as the sole source for alleged quotations that fly in the face of everything mainstream academic experts have to say. Your claim that the KR never mentioned the works of Marx or Lenin is transparently false and should be reverted immediately. "We will be the first nation to create a completely communist society," Mao is "the most eminent teacher...since Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin", ect. Pilger had to pay libel damages for his accusations; Cambodia specialist Nate Thayer says there is "no credible evidence" that the US gave "any material aid whatsoever to the Khmer Rouge". The rest of your edit was your own unsourced Marxist agitprop. The view that the KR did not murder millions or were not communist is, quite simply, WP:FRINGE.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"The view that the KR did not murder millions" is not my view. Mentioning those names is different from mentioning the theory they produced. If you had read the statement (it is not my statement, it comes from chandler! -- again, actually read it please), you would have realised that it is not contradicted by your point. Regardless, if that statement alone (and not a bastardised interpretation of it) is false, revert it, and it alone; don't revert the entire edit. A slogan by the publisher of the book is not a refutation of the book. Logical fallacy 101, please. Alyxr (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit is not consistent with WP policy to represent mainstream views neutrally, and you are misusing sources. Pol Pot is plainly referring to the theories of his teachers in the quote I provided above. Pilger does not say the KR were not communist; that is your personal spin. Chandler and Kiernan have repeatedly affirmed that the KR were communist; here's another KR slogan praising Lenin and Mao (from Kiernan). If Kiernan and Chandler said otherwise in 1983, their more recent books are more reliable. Your personal commentary about the killing of peasants is ridiculous and does not belong in the article, as if all communist regimes did not massacre peasants in the most extraordinary numbers. Your edit has been challenged, and your failure to adhere to BRD will be met with continued reversions. If there is no consensus, there is no change.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

To be even clearer, your entire edit is unacceptable because it is entirely unsourced original research. The KR kept their communism officially secret prior to 1976, just as they never announced Pol Pot's existence prior to 1977, so people would think they wanted to restore Sihanouk. It's ludicrous to conclude that the Communist Party of Kampuchea, founded as an extension of the communists in North Vietnam and widely known as the "Red Khmers", were not communist because of that. Your whole paragraph tells us what communists think about the KR, but not what communists or why we should care. WP doesn't have to "balance" what RS say with what communists say, and the only communist we're hearing from is you. This is clear-cut WP:Synthesis and WP:Original research. The accepted scholarly view is that the KR committed mass killings based on Pol Pot's Marxist education in France and an extreme communist ideology urging disproportionate revenge against the rich, and abolished all private property making their ideology irreconcilable with fascism. It's misleading and disingenuous to readers to pretend otherwise, although you are free to opine with your own personal theories on your blog.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You ***still*** misunderstand Chandler's point. Praising Mao, or saying that Cambodia will reach communism is not the same as actually mentioning or expounding on the theoretical line of Marx or Lenin. "Reaching communism" or saying that Mao was nice is not the same as mentioning the dictatorship of the proletariat, the labour theory of value, democratic centralism, or any of the other myriad theoretical things. Statements to the effect of "reaching communism" or praising Mao are incredibly empty. Unless you can provide me with a statement of more substance than that, your point is false. Did the Khmer Rouge spokespeople ever mention any of Marx or Lenin's theoretical works? Das Kapital, What is to be Done?, Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, etc? Read the point Chandler made. Read it and understand it. You're attacking thin air. You're attacking nothing, Chandler did not make the point you are refuting. Provide me with something more concrete than "Mao was quite nice" -- provide me with the Khmer rouge spokespeople saying anything about the theory of communism, rather than vague niceties about famous people or communism, and I will revert that statement myself. I am not wedded to this point by Chandler, and I would very much welcome a refutation of it. Alyxr (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition, I never, ever, made any "personal commentary" about "the killing of peasants". I never made any commentary, or sourced any statements, about the killing of peasants. I never mentioned the peasants. I never touched the peasants. I never even thought about the peasants. Please, read what I say, your argument will work better then. Alyxr (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not outsourced original research. I am not editing the article to say that the Khmer Rouge was not communist. I am creating a small paragraph correctly stating that ***communists themselves*** do not say that the Khmer Rouge was communist. There is an absolutely ***huge*** difference between those two things, one is OR, and the other is not. Alyxr (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If it was OR, the paragraph would begin with "The Khmer Rouge is not communist". The paragraph actually begins with "Communists deny claims that the Khmer Rouge were communists". One is putting forward a view, and the other is describing a view held by the vast majority of communists around the world. Alyxr (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I changed your "middle class" to "peasants" to see just how much of a Wikilawyer you are, and the results are not promising. RS do not generally consider whether the KR met your definition of a "true" communist. Here's another source about the importance of Marxist theory to the KR. "The Khmer Rouge ideology has its roots in Marxism with the vision of creating a dictatorship of the proletariat" and they frequently denounced foreign "imperialism". You have no source for what the "vast majority" of communists believe, nor is what they believe relevant. You are pushing your non-neutral communist POV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You changed my "middle class" to "peasants"? Explain. I cannot make sense of that sentence. I never uttered the words "middle class". And you're pushing your non-neutral view as well! Everyone is biased. Everyone is non-neutral. You're throwing utter banalities at me. The communist interpretation of the ideology of people said to be communist is relevant in a section dedicated to giving information about their ideology. There is no way of pretending otherwise. Just one, small, paragraph about the ideology in one single section that discusses the ideology is relevant. There is no way of pretending otherwise. Huge numbers of pages have a "criticism" section. Huge numbers of pages mention the alternative viewpoint. Go onto the "Stalinism" page, and you will see mentions of the trotskyist take on stalinism. Go onto the "communist" page and you will see mentions of the liberal take on communism. Alyxr (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, you're just playing games, now. Other pages are irrelevant. Without consensus for your poorly informed propaganda, you will be reverted. You have no sources whatsoever for what communists believe or for how KR "attempts to liquidate the working class" prove they were not communist.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How am I playing games? Please explain the "middle class" thing. Other pages were relevant to making my counterpoint to you that it, in fact, is a wikipedia policy to mention opposing views and interpretations occasionally. Have you even read the article we're arguing about? The preceeding paragraph even explains the "liquidate the working class" bit -- "The Khmer Rouge's social policy focused on working towards a purely agrarian society. Pol Pot strongly influenced the propagation of this policy. He was reportedly impressed with how the mountain tribes of Cambodia lived". Maybe I could have phrased that better, I will accept improvement of a more nuanced statement there. Alyxr (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

One possible reason for your misunderstanding of me is that you consider "working class" to include the peasantry. I do not. Alyxr (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You have no source for that statement, so its automatically out per WP:V and this conversation is utterly pointless.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No source for which statement? Alyxr (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You allege that I don't have sources for so many of my sourced statements, I cannot tell with you any more. Alyxr (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement that KR attempts to liquidate the working class are cited by communists as disproving the Communist Party of Kampuchea's communism. Synthesis, OR, and source misrepresentation by reading between the lines is a separate but related issue to your unsourced personal opinions. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I already admitted that was sloppy wording on my part. Although the article already states numerous things to roughly the same effect, I have removed that sentence. Alyxr (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. How dare you accuse Stumink of inserting his own opinion, when you are personally claiming to speak for the communist movement! Your continued reverts are a flagrant violation of WP:OR, and, combined with your tendentious deletion of maintenance tags, constitute clear-cut WP:IDHT. Also, why are you unable to provide page numbers for alleged quotes from sources that are already dubious? TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How dare I? Is this paragraph about stumik's personal opinion? No. Therefore stumik's personal opinion does not belong there. The only one claiming I'm personally speaking for the communist movement is you. I'm simply describing what the communist movement says. For the record I'm not a communist. I don't know where you got that from. I'm an ex-communist, so I happen to be an expert on the subject, having been involved in the movement for over 20 years. I just looked at the edit history and deleting those tags was a mistake when I was reverting stumnik's (a user recruited through malicious canvassing. you made false claims about my ideology in an obvious effort to get likeminded editors on your side) clear bias. You seem to have some sort of personal vendetta against vickery. I have yet to actually see a concrete source for vickery lieing, other than fallacious mentions of the publishers motto. This is what started the discussion, and many messages later you still refuse to actually justify your position. The page number is 288. Alyxr (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

you've gotten your way through this "argument" by repeatedly lying about and slandering me, making false accusations, misreading my arguments, shoving your personal bias in, and refusing to follow WP:COMMON.

in a section that explores the ideology of a group that is said to be communist, in an article that says the group is communist, it is not WP:OR or synthesis or "misrepresenting popular views" to have a small paragraph describing what communists themselves think of the ideology of the group said to be communist. it's an article about a communist group and a paragraph that describes the communist argument is not out of place. the paragraph does not say that the things the communists say are true. it does not represent it as a common opinion, it does not put it forward as commonly accepted. it simply states facts. you are misusing and misinterpreting and twisting wikipedia policy for your own purposes in some sort of vendetta against me. I consider this matter closed, and this discussion unproductive. the paragraph will stay up until you can provide me with proof that either communists do not think that (they do) or that the paragraph does not belong there (it does). your constant edit warring and behaviour is creating a hostile and disruptive atmosphere, and it cannot continue. I advise you cool down, step away from the keyboard, and stop with the absolutely unreasonable behaviour towards an innocuous paragraph. Alyxr (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You have no source for what the communists supposedly say, as Stumink and I pointed out and you are well aware. Per WP:V, I intend to delete this unsourced commentary. Is that clear enough for you?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Before I take this any further, I would like you to post the entire paragraph and list the page numbers for both books you are using. I strongly doubt Kiernan and Chandler put forth the emphasis that you do. I'm also curious about who exactly Leng Sang is supposed to be, because we have articles about all sorts of Khmer Rouge cadre such as Nuon Chea, Ta Mok, Ieng Thirith, Son Sen, Hu Nim and so on and so forth yet this is the only mention of Leng Sang anywhere on Wikipedia (I couldn't find anything on Google scholar, either). That your sources are outdated and Vickery is clearly fringe with almost no hits on Google scholar is a separate but related matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the POV-pushing motive here is just the no true Scotsman: the Khmer Rouge are considered to be very bad people, they really weren't true communists. I reverted back, as TheTimesAreAChanging clearly explained it's a fringe view above. --Pudeo' 05:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

American Assistance to Khmer Rouge?

I think there is clear bias in this article why is the US involvement section an incomprehensible mention? it did even make sense why they were bombing Cambodia at the time, please provide references to other articles and expand this section to to include other countries. (change it to foreign involvement) (Spartan3123 (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

From Fall of the Khmer Rouge: "Despite American and Chinese aid" the 1978 Cambodian invasion of Vietnam failed. This aid needs to be described and sourced specifically.

I landed here looking for just such information. here is another source that may be worthwhile: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/RootDoctrine_STATUS.html (needs verification and sourcing of course). See "THE KHMER ROUGE: FROM CARTER TO BUSH, SR." section about 4/5 down the page. R0m23 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is still of interest, but here is a link to a Frontline article: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl04.html -jenlight 10:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This statement needs to be clarified and elongated. Thanks for the links. However, some of that material seems biased, at best. Relrel (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a John Pilger documentary called "Cambodia: The Betrayal" on youtube. It describes the way the US, Germany, UK, Sweden, Belgium, France, et al aided and armed the Khmer Rouge during the 80s. In the case of the US, such assistance was made illegal, so it directed the aid secretly through Singapore. The UK did the same, and after public outcry, moved their operations to MI6, where it could be officially denied. I'll see if I can find some written sources for the denialists to ponder, but they will undoubtedly label any source "biased" unless they tow the Komissar party line. If we get sufficient sources, we really should create a separate article where the truth of western involvement can be documented.72.78.10.225 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/24/tomfawthropontamok Looks like a good source for the claim of "Western" support of Pol Pot. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Pilger's film is good. Eisel Mazard already published the article on the even more thorny issue of exactly when the U.S. started supporting the Khmer Rouge, i.e., the correct answer is earlier than 1975 (despite what you may have read in Shawcross).

• http://www.iias.nl/article/american-wars-french-borders-thailand%E2%80%99s-acrimonious-adjacency-cambodia-part-1
• http://www.iias.nl/article/thailands-acrimonious-adjacency-cambodia-part-2

If you're concerned about bias, Mazard manages to quote Nixon himself (i.e., stating that support for the Khmer Rouge started in 1973); this stuff was overt, and you can get Whitehouse policy documents as early as 1971 (!) on the subject, albeit very obliquely worded. Seems like nobody reads the Congressional Record anymore, hm? That would be easier than sifting through P.B.S. materials, wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.178.26.104 (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Mazard quote does NOT say the US began to support the Khmer Rouge in 1973. Nixon says he did a deal with the Chinese by which the war in Cambodia would be settled in return for the US ending the bombing. Frankly the bombing was specifically banned by Congressional Act in 1973, so it is doubtful that this was ever more than an offer, and it is clear that Nixon was supposed to "influnce" Lon Nol and the Chinese "influence" the Khmer Rouge to "settle" the conflict. This never happened, certainly not in 1973, as the war continued, and any of Lon Nol's men unfortunate enough to be left behind in Phomn Phen suffered a grizzly fate. So whilst Nixon and likely Kissinger may well have tried for a "deal" (they also tried a settlement "deal" in the Paris Peace Conference, which was little more than a face saving exit for the US as Hanoi did not agree to withdraw from the south) but whatever they had in mind, it clearly failed. Indochina is hardly the finest hour of the US, but you cannot hold them soley, or even largely, responsible for everything bad that happens. Hanoi was actually supplying weapons to the Khmer Rouge until Lon Nol fell, although much originated from China. By the way, the second link does not refer to US support for the KR prior to the Vietnamese Army driving them from Phomn Phen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.123.74 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, read the Product description of the book
Getting Away With Genocide: Cambodia's Long Struggle Against the Khmer Rouge [Paperback]
^ Quote: " This book covers the history of Cambodia since 1979 and the various attempts by the US and China to stop the Cambodian people from bringing the Khmer Rouge to justice. After Vietnam ousted the hated Khmer Rouge regime, much of the evidence needed for a full-scale tribunal became available. In 1979 the US and UK governments, rather than working for human rights justice and setting up a special tribunal, opted instead to back the Khmer Rouge at the UN, and approved the re-supply of Pol Pot's army in Thailand. Tom Fawthrop and Helen Jarvis reveal why it took 18 years for the UN to recognise the mass murder and crimes against humanity that took place under the Killing Fields regime from 1975-78. They explore in detail the role of the UN and the various countries involved, and they assess what chance still remains of holding a Cambodian trial under international law - especially in the light of the recent development of International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia." Johannjs (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In reply to anon, above (namely, 81.159.123.74) --no, you're misrepsenting the source cited. Very obviously, Mazard is making the claim that U.S. support for D.K./K.R. pre-dates conventional claims, and Nixon isn't his only source. However, that's a smoking gun quotation from Nixon. The suggestion quoted by Johannjs, above, would mean that the advent of U.S. support for Pol Pot was during Gerald Ford's tenure (i.e. 1979); good luck finding a similar quote from Ford, or any indication that it was his decision to take the Khmer Rouge's side at that time, and, moreover, good luck in figuring out who was his counterpart in China making that decision (I've never heard of negotiations between Ford and Hua Guofeng!). Has anyone else noticed the decisive turn in the propaganda line in 1971, e.g., in the words of White House advisor A. Doak Barnett? Mazard notes that "1971 seems to be the first year when an explicit anti-Vietnamese policy is attested by extant Khmer Rouge materials". From China's perspective, there's no change between 1970 (when support for K.R. via Sihanouk as the nominal head of government-in-exile commences) and 1978 (when "Beijing declared Cambodia the victim of Vietnamese aggression", with a punitive invasion of Vietnam ensuing in 1979). It seems that ca. 1971 is a good year for White House publications on changing policies toward China and S.E.A. http://books.google.ca/books?id=8o43AAAAMAAJ&q 119.82.253.185 (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is helpful. How Thatcher Gave Pol Pot a Hand Maybe someone else is willing to try to get some of these facts into this page. Unfortunately subjects that make the US govt. (and by association the UK) look bad are heavily patrolled by people like TheTimesAreAChanging(a busy whitewasher I have encountered in the past) who are clearly being paid by the same agencies they work so doggedly to cover for. Jgmoneill (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't agree with User:Jgmoneill's assertion regarding US complicity in KR genocide. Unless that angle, that POV is more in line with US complicity vis a vis the US adoption of the Case–Church Amendment. As cited in 'Historical Dictionary of the War in Vietnam' by Ronald Frankum -- '... US air strikes helped to stop the Khmer Rouge from overrunning the capital (Phnom Penh). US air strikes ... were forced to stop after Congress imposed a termination on 15 August 1973 ... the Case-Church Amendment. With the US out of Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge was able to consolidate its power'. This makes more sense than the usual paranoid style of --- 'Year Zero began, in effect, with them' --- the bombing of Cambodia by the US. That angle has been argued and rejected more than once, over 10 years (since 2004), as the talk archives for this article clearly point out here, The struggle for NPOV, as well as in other archived talk pages that I have read. As I mention, complicity of the US in the form of inaction would be a POV I could support, but would additionally likely be a massive undertaking. 10stone5 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

John Pilger's own site with 'The Return to Year Zero' here: [1] and 'Cambodia: The Betrayal' here: [2] and 'Cambodia: Year Ten (Update)' here ;[3] and 'Cambodia: Year Ten' here; [4] and 'Cambodia: Year One' here: [5] and 'Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia' is here: [6]

The index of all his documentary videos is here: [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.150 (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Disorienting Acronyms

The use of all these acronyms is confusing for the right wing rebel groups can we designate the term royalist and nationalist before the acronym to designate which side that body is on. --J intela (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC) mywikibiz.com/Pol_Pot_Suicide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.0.36 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"ideology was also influenced by colonial French education, which posited Khmers as "Aryans among Asians""

What is the source for this? Is it true? All hits on the web are wiki copies. Didn't colonial French powers in Cambodia favor Vietnamese immigrants in both education and government? Which contradicts this quote --which needs sourcing. 85.182.97.61 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know, couldn't find anything. Agree this is an odd statement. Feel free to edit, append, etc. as needed. 10stone5 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a pretty bogus statement. Btw.: Why not mention that the Khmer Rouge's ideology was one of especially radical egalitarianism?--2003:5B:E547:1577:6CC4:B570:B912:387A (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Population before genocide

Is there any source for the population of Cambodia being 910 million at the beginning of the regime. Even with a death toll of 4 million, the population would have still been over 900 million. Considering Cambodia's estimated population in 2011 is just under 15 million I have a feeling there is either an extra zero in there or the number is just wrong. JMV290 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

wow. tell us more2601:190:4000:8100:CD6D:BB05:676A:E2CC (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"National Assembly: term used in the article is ambiguous

"which participated in the 1955 and the 1958 National Assembly elections" "with the support of the National Assembly"

What National Assembly? 66.234.58.131 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

United States national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski openly and unashamedly admitted that he told China and Thailand to support Khmer Rouge because it was anti-Soviet

United States national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski openly and unashamedly admitted that he told China and Thailand to support Khmer Rouge because it was anti-Soviet

http://books.google.com/books?id=7i0jGxysUUcC&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No, he didn't. Just one of several made-up quotations conspiracy theorists have invented to libel Brzezinski.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

conversation continued hereRajmaan (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sight. what is there to discuss? Brzezinski admitted "encouraging the Chinese" while "winking publicly" in a recorded interview to Elizabeth Becker. Brzezinski never disputed this quotation. If you read your own damn link you won't find anything claiming the actual quote is inauthentic. I know its hard to believe, because we all know that the US is run by angels who'd not hurt a fly (unless the fly deserved it), but facts are facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccisamsclub (talk • contribs) 16:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a straightforward hoax. "I encouraged the Thai to help the D.K."? Is Brzezinski not fluent in the English language? If I remember correctly, the quote used by Becker was different: (I might be paraphrasing since I don't have the source at hand) "We could never support him, but China could." So what we really have are a bunch of different quotes from sources that are all citing one another. I'm aware of nothing to suggest that there is any actual basis for these allegations. It certainly seems odd that Brzezinski would admit "the real truth" in one interview before reverting to his public stance that "The Chinese were aiding Pol Pot, but without any help or arrangement from the United States. Moreover, we told the Chinese explicitly that in our view Pol Pot was an abomination and that the United States would have nothing to do with him—directly or indirectly." Nevertheless, I can't prevent anyone from believing what they would very much prefer to believe.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that is straightforward here is your ignorance on this issue. To reiterate: quotation comes from Brzezinski's recorded interview with Elizabeth Becker, and is cited in her well-known and widely acclaimed book "When the War Was Over" on page 435. Many years later, Brzezinski denied that any of this was US policy at the time. He has never accused Becker of manufacturing the actual quotation, not in the NYT, not to her publisher (the book went through two editions), never. +++In light of Zbig's public persona and US foreign policy at the time, the quotation should not be all that surprising or controversial, but that's another matter. Whether it belongs in this particular article or not is also another matter (I think the article is fairly long, and can probably handle a short statement from a major political figure) Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"We told the Chinese explicitly that in our view Pol Pot was an abomination and that the United States would have nothing to do with him—directly or indirectly" is a pretty explicit quote. That Brzezinski let the truth slip out for one interview before reverting back to blanket denial seems implausible. Therefore, you explain the discrepancy away by assuming that what Brzezinski supposedly confided to Becker was a unilateral diplomatic effort on his part as a private citizen, in violation of existing US policy! I find it highly unlikely Brzezinski would confess to such a crime in between his fervent denunciations of the genocidal character of the Khmer Rouge. Occam's Razor says that unless Becker's so-called private interview can be reproduced, she made it up.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you want, but if you wish see those beliefs reflected on wikipedia, its up to you to provide the evidence that Becker's interview is a fake. Your musings on Occam's Razor or whatever do not qualify, sorry. Neither do your fact-free musings about the quote being a confession of personal "criminal" deviance by Zbig. Now, considering that you were blissfully ignorant of (a) the exact contents of the quote or (b) the actual source [a widely acclaimed book written in English] of the quote or (c) the absence of any direct denial of said quote by Brzezinski, ie of virtually all the relevant facts, before blathering on about how it was all a hoax and editing articles accordingly, I don't expect to hear something worthwhile from you anytime soon. There's nothing more to discuss atm, bye.Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss because the NYT article Brzezinski wrote to protest was written by Becker and based on the fake quote from her shoddy history (of which I was, and am, well-aware).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

May I recommend wordpress or reddit?Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

When you are proven wrong, the correct response is to admit error and move on.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's review the facts, because a lot of your comments suggest you are barely following this conversation. I will dumb it down for you:

• On April 17, 1998 Elizabeth Becker published an article in The New York Times in which she made the following accusation:

• "To insure that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would fight the Vietnamese occupiers, the Carter Administration helped arrange continued Chinese aid."

• As evidence, Becker cited former Carter administration official Zbigniew Brzezinski:

• "I encourage the Chinese to support Pol Pot," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser at the time. "The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could."

• As you can see, this quote is different than the one used in her book, which explains my confusion earlier. However, it still contains broken English in the form of "I encourage the Chinese". Assuming that the lack of past tense in that unfortunate phrase was an error, it seems clear that this quote is meant to be an abbreviated version of the one provided in After the War was Over.
• Furious over Becker's article, Brzezinski sent a letter to the NYT on April 22, 1998. As he was supposedly Becker's source, the Times wisely published his rebuttal. In his reply to Becker, Brzezinski stated:

• "An April 17 article asserts flatly—as if it was a fact—that the Carter Administration "helped arrange continued Chinese aid" to Pol Pot. The Chinese were aiding Pol Pot, but without any help or arrangement from the United States. Moreover, we told the Chinese explicitly that in our view Pol Pot was an abomination and that the United States would have nothing to do with him—directly or indirectly."

• I interpret that like any reasonable person would—Brzezinski contests the assertions Becker attributed to him. You argue that—far from contradicting Becker's quote or her narrative—Brzezinski actually concurred with everything she wrote—indeed, that his letter only demonstrates this concurrence. You have simultaneously argued that Brzezinski may have been boasting about a secret plot to aid the Khmer Rouge which he unilaterally undertook in violation of US policy at the time.
• Your interpretation is untenable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Unlike you, I've read all the relevant material. But of course you need to spell it out in order to spin it your way. As I've made clear previously, any reasonable person would expect Brzezinski to dispute the actual damn quote, instead of disputing Becker's description of US policy. Any reasonable person would also refrain from calling someone a liar without a shred of evidence. Your only evidence is that Brzezinski called Pol Pot "an abomination" and disputed an unpleasant description of US foreign policy under Carter. Laughable. Guess what, government officials routinely make deals with people they personally hate. Government officials also routinely lie and backtrack. All of this is simply their job. Its called politics. But I forgot ... its everybody except the saintly officials of the US govt.

Presumably for you it is also an article of faith that the US and Britain never voted to keep a KR official as Cambodia's official representative at the UN.

Long story short, Becker is a valid source. Case closed.Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert

@TheTimesAreAChanging: The article currently contains the following sentence: "By 1979, the Khmer Rouge had fled the country, while the People's Republic of Kampuchea was being established." The reference next to that claim says: title=Introduction ::Cambodia|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cb.html
I've read the Introduction section on that page, and afaik the source does not support this claim. Am I missing something? Feel free to reinsert this claim if you can find a reliable source for it, even though it is clearly not true.

In the same edit you also deleted data from the Congressional Research Service about the amount of money that was given by the US to the Khmer Rouge. You have not given any reason why. Please explain. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The Congressional Research Service says nothing of the kind, and Pilger (who had to pay libels damages for his claims about British support for the Khmer Rouge) is not a reliable second-hand source. The funds were allocated to the non-communist resistance led by Prince Sihanouk and Son Sann. It's laughably undue to break down this imaginary US funding by year in the middle of the article, as though the US (not China et al) was the main international patron of the KR. You even have the gall to note that there was no US funding prior to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia—as if the US had not just fought a war against North Vietnam, the Pathet Lao, and the Khmer Rouge.

The CIA's Factbook says the KR fled to the countryside, not that they fled the country. Big deal. Before you deleted that entire sentence rather than correct the error, you only compounded the problem by inserting the qualifier "The CIA claims" before the erroneous description of the CIA's report. If your bizarre edit summary "npov, present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice (this also applies to propaganda)" is indicative of your broader infantile paranoia, we really don't need anymore POV-pushing trolls here at Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the stuff I posted was data from the Congressional Research Service. Do you think that they are not a reliable source? Pilger had to pay libel charges because two men claimed that he claimed that they were SAS members who trained Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge to lay mines Desmond Browne, QC, for Mr Pilger and Central Television, said his clients had not intended to allege the two men trained the Khmer Rouge to lay mines, but they accepted that was how the program had been understood (according to John_Pilger#Cambodia), not "for his claims about British support for the Khmer Rouge" like you claim. The letter states that the money was given to the Khmer Rouge, not to the "non-communist resistance led by Prince Sihanouk and Son Sann" like you claim. Feel free to insert information about China funding the Khmer Rouge if you can find reliable sources that support that claim. In reality the Congressional Research Service "had the gall to note" (as you describe it) that the United States did not fund the Khmer Rouge from the fiscal year 1976 through 1979. To you, the fact that the source does not support the claim is not a big deal. But here on Wikipedia we are trying to build an encyclopaedia, so we are trying to avoid stupid mistakes like that. It was obviously untrue, so if they would've claimed that then we should've written that they claimed that, instead of stating it as if it is a fact when it clearly isn't. You wrote: "in the middle of the article", and I think the section called "Foreign involvement" is probably a better place. You are quite impolite. I checked the history of this article a little bit and it is obvious that you have a POV and that you are trying to make sure the article conforms to it. I would recommend that you focus your attention elsewhere. Do you have AWB? Would you like to fix some typos with the built-in regexp typofixer? I have made some preparsed lists of articles that contain possible typos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Please use the talkpage. You have reverted me twice, but you have yet to present a valid reason for doing so. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: You used the edit summary: "You're reporting this fourth-hand after the letter by a non-notable source was disavowed. If this was actually true, you could source it directly to the CRS or another reputable source". I did, the source is the Congressional Research Service, which is a reliable source of information. Please read WP:RS. The letter itself was disavowed, but that doesn't mean that the data from the Congressional Research Service is suddenly retroactively no longer true. That would be impossible. I would say that Jonathan Winer is probably notable, but that is completely irrelevant of course. You can read more interesting stuff about him in the article Thor Halvorssen Hellum (search for his last name). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? Then provide a link to this CRS data!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: A link? That is not necessary. Please read Wikipedia:Offline sources. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you have personally read through a CRS report on this matter. Great. I guess it must exist, then. Can you provide some details about it so we can put together a valid citation? Some quotes would be nice, too.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: We? You do not have to do anything, except maybe focussing your attention elsewhere; there was already a valid citation but you reverted it. If you simply revert yourself then the data from the CRS will be in there with a valid citation. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. You said you were in confident possession of an offline CRS report, not a documentary by a non-academic hack easily viewable on YouTube. Your argument that the CRS is reliable has no bearing on this discussion. If an unreliable source attributes a claim to a reliable source, you have to verify it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Look, I ignored that bit because it is so incredibly childish. You must be aware of the article Straw man. Where did I say that I was in "confident possession of an offline CRS report"? And where did I say that I had "personally read through a CRS report"? Oh wait, I didn't and you know it. Your ad hominems against Pilger, and myself, are basically irrelevant. If you have a reliable source that contradicts the CRS then I would like to hear about it. If you have a reliable source that contradicts the documentary then I would also like to hear about it. Do you have any? If not, then you should stop wasting my time and revert yourself. Have you read this? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to find a source disputing the alleged "CRS report" until it is actually produced.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I don't need to find a hyperlink to the data from the CRS. Offline sources can be used on Wikipedia. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they can, but only by those who access to them, stupid!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: We both have access to the data from the CRS. Do you know that famous quote: “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ― Socrates? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither of us has been able to verify that the alleged data actually comes from the CRS. Until you do, stop wasting my time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I don't have to. You can if you want to. Revert yourself, apologize, and stop wasting my time. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you do. Controversial claims require reliable sources. Citing sources you haven't read can lead to fraud and hoaxes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I have posted a reliable source. I have read that source. It literally says: "I have received the following information from the Congressional Research Service". This was typed on paper of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by Jonathan Winer, Counsel of Senator John Kerry. When are you going to apologize for wasting my time? Until you find a source that contradicts the information that I've posted you are simply being contraproductive. I should point out that you wrote "big deal" when you discovered that the Khmer Rouge had not fled the country, but that a "Vietnamese invasion drove the Khmer Rouge into the countryside". Anyone who speaks English knows that that is a very big difference. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A celebrity polemicist reporting on a letter disavowed by its author is not the CRS, and does not meet the high sourcing requirements needed to justify such a massively controversial and undue addition to this article. Period. As for my "big deal" comment earlier, bear in mind that the phrase in question was quite obviously a typo or minor error caused by a careless reading of the source—not the result of a secret conspiracy to advance an unspecified POV, as you alleged.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand why you keep making things worse for yourself. Maybe this tactic has been successful for you in the past. You probably think you´ve "won" a lot of debates by repeating yourself, posting straw man arguments, acting stupid and insulting people, when in reality people just got sick and tired of communicating with someone like you, and they've simply moved on. That is sad.

I've read your userpage, I know that you are just a kid, but I've tried to have a civilized debate with you, and you've proven to me that you are not ready for that yet. Maybe when (and if) you've grown up. You can call me "stupid", you can write about "infantile paranoia", you can pretend I am a "POV-pushing troll" (which is funny, coming from someone like you), you can call Pilger a "celebrity polemicist" and a "non-academic hack" (which is very funny, coming from someone like you) but in the end all you achieve is that I point out that you are simply not yet ready to debate in a civilized and mature manner. Now you claim that I alleged that something was "the result of a secret conspiracy to advance an unspecified POV"... Of course I didn't, and I also didn't say that I was in "confident possession of an offline CRS report" or that I "personally read through a CRS report". You just keep making stuff up. Are you going to call me a commie bastard next?

You wrote: "A celebrity polemicist reporting on a letter disavowed by its author is not the CRS". How many straw men are you going to attack? I never claimed that Pilger is the CRS. Do you believe that Pilger wrote the letter? Just because it is shown in a documentary made by Pilger does not automagically mean he wrote it...

Because you called Pilger "non-academic" (nota bene: you are just 20 years old) I will give a source written by someone who must be considered "academic", even by someone like you, and you can probably visit him personally. Maybe he can teach you something (if you behave).

"Another anomaly involved the respected Congressional Research Service which informed Jonathan Winer, counsel to Senator John Kerry, that the Reagan administration had provided about $80 million to the Khmer Rouge between 1981 and 1986, the amounts diminishing each year. When the state department disputed this, the Congressional Research Service said it could not replicate the figures, and Winer himself later retraced his report - though in doing so he noted significantly that until 1985 it was not illegal to aid the Khmer Rouge."

That is a quote from The United States and Cambodia, 1969-2000: A Troubled Relationship by Kenton Clymer, a Distinguished Research Professor from the Northern Illinois University. This is another reliable source for the claim that the Congressional Research Service informed Jonathan Winer that the Khmer Rouge received money from the USA.

Even if you honestly believe that Pilger forged a document to show in his documentary (which means that your opinion is irrelevant, see WP:FRINGE, you would literally be the only person on the planet who believes that) then you must still admit that Kenton Clymer's book is a reliable source.

You describe the fact that the article said that the Khmer Rouge had fled the country by 1979 as a minor error when in reality the source said that a "Vietnamese invasion drove the Khmer Rouge into the countryside"? Do you honestly think that that was a minor error? I think it is highly unlikely that that was a typo, I know typos. Most typos fall in the following categories:

• Double chars.
• Missing chars.
• Swapped chars (2 characters in the wrong order).
• Common replacements (e.g. m=n and v=b).

One of the problems with the way that you've acted is that you've made it much harder for yourself to admit that you are wrong. What is your next move? More straw man arguments? More insults? Are you going to keep wasting my time or are you going to revert yourself? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to get on your case again TTC, but you are again not being constructive. Hope we can resolve the issue politely this time. I agree that the original contribution was perhaps "undue weight" due to length and could have been cleaned up, but it was factual and documented. Little official documentation exists about US aid to the Khmer Rouge due to continued denial of FOI requests (source: p. 142) and the inherently covert nature of any such program. The Winer's physical letters are clearly reproduced in Pilger's film (to the VWA and to Noam Chomsky) youtu[dot]be/k2oTl51a3HM?t=2099 (source)> and have been seriously discussed as evidence of US aid to KR in multiple academic works by specialists (source, p. 79)(source: p. 142). Food aid to the Khmer Rouge, and the US stance, is discussed in multiple sources (source)(source). Most of the evidence of financial support is discussed in (source, p 141-2). Western support for Pol Pot is a serious topic and not a conspiracy theory. Would you be open to this information appearing on the "US-Cambodia Relations" wiki?Guccisamsclub (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

TQP, go away. When you repeatedly point out that the CRS is a RS to justify your edits, it is not a strawman to ask if you are actually citing the CRS or some third-hand account. If your source isn't the CRS, then your argument that the CRS is reliable is true but irrelevant, and you are being purposefully dishonest.

The argument that Western food aid to millions of Cambodians after the Vietnamese invasion was designed to help the KR is sheer nonsense promoted by former KR apologists turned apologists for the Vietnamese puppet regime led by KR defectors, which employed famine as a weapon of war. If we must include these allegations, they should be balanced by alternative points of view. For example:

• According to Nate Thayer: "The United States has scrupulously avoided any direct involvement in aiding the Khmer Rouge", instead providing non-lethal aid to non-communist Khmer People's National Liberation Front (KPNLF) and Armee Nationale Sihanouk (ANS) insurgents, which rarely cooperated with the Khmer Rouge on the battlefield despite being coalition partners and fought with the Khmer Rouge dozens of times prior to 1987. According to Thayer, "In months spent in areas controlled by the three resistance groups and during scores of encounters with the Khmer Rouge ... I never once encountered aid given to the [non-communist resistance] in use by or in possession of the Khmer Rouge."
• According to Joel Brinkley: Although U.S. policy was to provide support to "15,000 ineffective 'noncommunist' rebel fighters", "charges made the rounds" that "some of the American aid ... was finding its way to the Khmer Rouge." A subsequent State Department investigation "found some leakage" in the form of "sharing of ammunition, joint defense of a bridge, and using one truck to transport both 'noncommunist' and Khmer Rouge fighters".

There's no need to include the "CRS data" though, because the CRS repudiated Winer's claim (hence TQP's desire to muddle the issue). Finding a couple of genuinely reliable sources that relegate this incident to a footnote does little to demonstrate it is not undue.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

TQP: Do not go away; you have a point. TTC: You would relegate all disussion of US-Khmer Rouge relations to a footnote. That's not the approach of other scholars. We provide you with multifaceteted discussion and evidence from numerous respected sources (Kiernan, Shawcross, Clymer-who himself cites numerous sources, Winer, etc. etc.) you give us Nate Thayer - who was only 26 at the time all aid to the KR was declared illegal - and Bruce Sharp. Nothing prevents you from citing their work as a counterweight. Sharp has some good counter-claim about the food aid? Thayer denies seeing aid to the KR? Great, paraphase it, quote it, cite it, whatever. Certainly easier than flaming and more enlightening. What's the problem? But it has to be more concrete and factual than calling everyone else a liar and -bizarrely -a former KR-lover for opposing the IMO despicable and clearly pro-KR US policy of the 1980's.

The main bulk of sources seems to be gleaned from Paul Boghandor's site, which apparently is your favourite repository of information about Cambodia and Vietnam. Your insults towards all scholars who names are not in the Boghandor Canon follow from this. You do need to accept that not all scholarship on Wikipedia must be officially approved by Boghnandor. Why not delete all references to Kiernan's scholarship here, while youre at it?

Now, I agree that the Khmer Rouge article may not be the best place for an extended discussion of US-Khmer Rouge relations. Once again I propose that this scholarship be discussed appropriately and factually in "US-Cambodia Relations". And I do not mean dismissing the documented work of respected scholars as "conspiracy theories by KR-apologists", which is a clear violation of NPOV and historical evidence. "KR apologia" has had multiple faces.2601:190:4000:8100:4041:8DDA:57DA:9E23 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

PS, TTC:: I think for you to cite a book that does not cite any source for the "650,000" famine deaths,and a "Report From Afghanistan" for the claim that "Vietnam used famine as a weapon of War", is truly rich. When a source agrees with your view of the world, all of your skepticism seems to vanish. Regardless, such claims were widely used by the US at the time to condemn the Vietnamese invasion. I could easily cite a few choice words from establishment American pundits. Invasions are never very pretty, but would you rather have Vietnam leave Pol Pot in power to continue his cross-border raids and genocides? Incidentally, that was the "official line" at the time, which you appear to be very deperate to defend. After the invasion, the "West" and the ASEAN countries took the line of "anyone but Vietnam". This was clearly in accordance with KR policy at the time. Some years later, Pol Pot had few bad feelings for the "west", only for Vietnam, as reported by your favourite Nate Thayer: (link)Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

CRS data, Brzezinski quote, and Food Aid Evidence, Vickery

TTC: Your position is clear. There is no amount of scholarship or facts I can present that will convince you otherwise. Now, I ask the following:

Would you accept discussion of the following evidence anywhere on wikipedia:

1) Brzezinski often-cited interview? If so where? (Including Brzezinski's letter, where he states that the US did not participate physically in arranging aid, not that Becker was guilty of libel and a fraud.)

2) Winer's authentic letters, citing CRS data, to VWA and Chomsky? If so where? (Including a factual mention of CRS' retraction)

3) Discussion of favourable food aid policy toward the Khmer Rouge ? If so where (including Bruce Sharp's opinion - which you will have to provide yourself).

4) Any citations from Vickery? (IMO: He has done a lot of orginal research and is cited and taken seriously by many scholars? Of course a few of Vickery's conclusions do not agree with those of most contemporary scholars, but there is no consensus among scholars that his work as fringe and unfounded. It is hard to read Vickery's most important book and consider it as anything but a dossier on Khmer Rouge terror and insanity.)

You've already explained your reasoning, so there is no need for any more of that.

My own vote is in favor of discussing all four in Cambodia–United States relations, while cursorily mentioning this evidence (including retractions and whatnot) in the main Khmer Rouge article. Anybody else can and should chime in on a point by point basis, and so that a consensus can be reached.Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The first two I'm absolutely opposed to as they are mere footnotes; in the case of the latter two, I wouldn't mind knowing exactly what text you propose adding before signing on. There is a dedicated article on this topic, Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge, which is where any such allegations belong, if they belong anywhere.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

650,000 famine deaths after the fall of Pol Pot

The claim needs clearly needs a better source. The source provided gives no references for the number. It does not discuss the credibility of this number. Furthermore, I have not found any other source for the claim. One does not simply claim "650,000" deaths. Period. I could find no demographic evidence for this claim. All available evidence shows a sharp rise in population immediately after the ousting of Pol Pol. Removing the citation needed tag is pretty ridiculous in this situation. Where's your famed skepticism TTC? You'd have erased any dubious claim of 650,000 deaths due to American bombing in a jiffy. Apparently different standards of evidence apply here.

I also want to note that this figure squares nicely with KR propaganda, eager to attribute a large number of deaths to the post-DK period. If more people died after the invasion, fewer people died under the KR regime. This is not a claim to made lightly. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not true. All demographic evidence shows a continued sharp decline in the population for the first year or so of the Samrin regime, followed by several years of rapid population growth. The existence of severe famine conditions in 1979 is not disputed by any source. Remember, the Red Cross estimated that the KR left 2–2.5 million Cambodians at risk of starvation. The CIA, meanwhile, gave estimates ranging from 1.9 million to over 3 million. Even if the Vietnamese misappropriated the international food aid to starve areas of the country where the KR remained active, as some sources allege, no-one denies that the Vietnamese invasion made that aid possible and saved a massive number of lives. Rummel, citing Etcheson's Rise and Demise of Democratic Kampuchea, gives a figure of 500,000 famine deaths. The CIA estimated a population decline of roughly 700,000 from January 1979 to December 1979, although they attribute the bulk of that to refugees fleeing to Thailand (many of whom, of course, returned at a later date). Brinkley's estimate of 650,000 is certainly high, but not completely out of the ballpark.

A "citation needed" tag is inapplicable to a recent history by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, though you have plenty of other options ("unreliable source", "better source needed", "fringe", "undue, ect"). Whatever you choose, you'll need a more concrete reason to dispute Brinkley than "that's a big number!"TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"better source needed". Feel free to provide them - preferably less dated ones. I'll add some information suggesting a population increase by end of year 1980. "sharp decline in the population for the first year or so of the Samrin regime" Things took a sharp turn for the worse in 1979? Thats a pretty intersting claim, considering the situation before 1979. And don't blame me for arguing with the unsourced numbers of a "pulitzer-prize winner", becuase you have set the precedent dismissing "respected" sources as fraudulent. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The CIA report titled "Kampuchea: A Demographic Catastrope" is decidedly inadmissible in this context. Its population estimates are wildly inconsistent with the census taken in late 1980. It is also more than suspicious, regardless of what a certain Bruce Sharp says, how the report errs only in ways that are convenient to US policymakers (i.e that Pol Pot's worst deeds were behind him and that his ouster by Vietnam would cause far greater misery and suffering; just take a look at CIA's ridicuolous population graph, which tells you all you need to know). And let me give a taste of its rhetoric: "The fall of Kampuchea to the Vietnamese may ultimately spell the demise of the Khmer as a people". The only a Khmer Rouge apologist could read such nonsense without laughing. Aside from the utter nonsense I pointed out above, the report contains much useful information, but not about the topic at hand.

As far as demographic evidence is concerned, a few things should be kept in mind: 1) UN estimate for the crude birth rate in 1970 (baseline) was 46/1000; death rate was 18/1000 2) Banister's and Johnson's estimate for the population right before Pol Pot's ouster is 6.36 million 3) the census from late 1980 shows a population of 6.59 million. 4) 500,000 thousand famine deaths cannot be all deaths for the 1979-1980 period, otherwise its a meaningless number.

[EDIT: I made some kind of serious error in the calculations last night. The new corrected calculations support the earlier suspicions, and dramatically so.]

As far as demographic evidence is concerned, a few things should be kept in mind: 1) UN estimate for the crude birth rate in 1970 (baseline) was 46/1000; death rate was 18/1000 2) Banister's and Johnson's estimate for the population right before Pol Pot's ouster is 6.36 million, we will charitably assume that this is the population on day 1 of the "Samrin regime" 3) the census from late 1980 shows a population of 6.59 million. 4) 500,000 thousand famine deaths cannot be all deaths for the 1979-1980 period, otherwise its a meaningless number. 4) We have a figure of 48/1000 for 1980 birth rates.

From the above we see that the population increased in the first 1.8 years or so of the Heng Samrin regime. If we interpret 500,000 famine deaths as deaths above some "baseline" (which is exactly how a moderately well-infromed wikipedia visitor will interpret them), we would have to have to add about 200,000 "normal" deaths, using the 1970 baseline. What was net migration? Lets just call it M. Now we have a very simple equation (B: total births, P: total pop, D: deaths, M: net migration) : P_1980 = P_1979 - ( D_famine + D_baseline ) + M + B . Solving for B, we get B = P_1980 - P_1979 + ( D_famine + D_baseline ) - M. Assuming 500,000 famine deaths, 200,000 normal deaths (1.8*18/1000*6.45 ≈ 0.2), +100 net migration charitably, we get 0.83 million births for the entire period, of which about 280,000 (6.45*0.9*48/1000) occurded in 1980 prior to the census. You do the math for 1979 birth rates (and remember to corectly divide the number by 0.9 for greater dramatic effect). More sophisticated calcualtions, taking into account the possiblity that our assumptions are too charitable, the probable yearly variations of D_famine, and compounding effects, yield even bigger results for the 1979 birth rate. Anyone can build such a model using a speredsheet.

The conclusion is that the claim made by Etcheson is very strong and requires strong evidence (I won't even talk about the falt-out 650,000 assertion). Assertions by the Red Cross about x million being in danger of famine were perhaps called for at the time, but they seldom have direct relation to how many actually end up dying. Ofcourse its also possible that Etcheson just assumes that everyone died from famine, in which case his numbers are in line with Banister. Either way, the claim seems rather dubious. Guccisamsclub (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sharp gives an estimated birth rate of 32/1000 for the KR years, so you're grasping at straws.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever, as long as we agree that the population did increase from the time of Pol Pots ouster to the late 1980 census. This was a sharp reversal of the KR trends, caused by lower death rates and higher birth rates.2601:190:4000:8100:D072:EE13:936:5E2E (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry TTC, see the update after the EDIT mark. Now how come you failed to spot my error?Guccisamsclub (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that 48/1000 figure can possibly be correct. The end of a mortality crisis is usually accompanied by a large increase in the birth rate beyond what would be expected in normal circumstances, so I would be very surprised if the birthrate in 1980 was roughly the same as the birthrate in 1970. In fact, Samrin's regime cited a birthrate of 7% for 1981. Moreover, the 1980 census was inflated to secure additional food aid.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(I won't post more on this, because this is getting horribly long) Thanks for your interest in clarifying issue. Some of you points may or may not be true (without strong evidence we'll never know), but again lets do the math. I am using a complete year by year model here, that I've constructed. I encourage you to try it yourself as it will help clear up any confusion. After making even more caritable assumptions than we already have:

P0 6,000,000 population 1979_start

P1 6,000,000 population 1980_end

y0 0.9166666667 fraction of 1979

y1 0.9166666667 fraction of 1980

M0 -100,000 migration 1979

M1 200,000 migration 1980

dn 0.018 non-famine death rate

b1 0.054 birth-rate 1980

DF0 400,000 Famine deaths 1979

DFi 100,000 Famine deaths 1980

result: b0 56.45815366 birth-rate 1979 per 1000

To get this result we have had to go against an official census, conclusions of professional demographers about the population growth, contemporary estimates of refugee flows (from the sources you yourself cite) and documented birth rates for 1980. We have done all that just to present the best possible case for a still largely anecdotal claim of "500,000" famine excess-deaths, and the case still remains horribly weak. Why would birth rates be so high in 1979, if the humanitarian situation in 1979 was as bad (or worse) than in 1977-1978? By the way, birth rates under the KR are a murky issue and 33/1000 is certainly not universally accepted, as Sharp's survey makes clear. Its closer to being the the upper bound.

But lets examine these assumptions: How do you know the census is inflated?' The census would have had to be hugely inflated to have any substantial effect on aid (who claims this anyhow?). Fudging the numbers to this extent with impunity would have been unprecedented. It would also defeat the purpose of going door to door to collect accurate information. It would also serve to minimize the DK genocide, which the new government was certainly not interested in doing. It would also show that the population was recovering, thus undercutting the case for aid. A census is a serious undertaking, the fundamental purpose of which is almost always to get accurate numbers; the very few cases of massively faked censuses have invariably been discovered (see Soviet Census cover-up of 1937/1939). (What amount of aid did Cambodia (not its refugees) receive in 1980 anyhow?) What about refugee flows? If Etcheson and the CIA are to be believed, net migration was probably negative (I don't believe that myself actually). What about - this is crucial here - disputing Banister's assumptions of a moderate population increase from 1979 to 1980? Kiernan does not dispute it. Etcheson shouldn't dispute this either, because doing so will make his massive estimates for the DK death toll less plausible than they already are. Banister's assumption appears to be widely accepted by scholars who are careful not to minimize the KR death-toll. What about birth rates for 1980? Again, if Etcheson and the CIA are to be believed, in 1980 Cambodia had not even fully recovered from the supposed 1979 humanitarian catastrophe. You also cite high official birth rates for 1981, forgetting that you have just disputed the census as being an economically-motivated overcount. Who says the 1980 figure from the same source can't possibly be correct? That's cherry-picking, from the same tree.

Again, some the above may well be true, but it's unlikely that all of it is true. I don't see why we should go through all these contortions just to promote the 500,000 figure from "impossible" to "implausible". Just to make the Heng Samrin "regime" seem less of improvement over the DK's killing fields? There are still plenty of valid but milder criticisms of the Heng Samrin-Hun Sen regime to make, none of which smell of KR-apologia. The Samrin regime should also be credited with improving living standards at a very difficult time, and often is. The only reason I still won't say Etcheson's number is "100% false" is because it may simply refer to the overwhelming majority of deaths from 1979-80. It is certainly possible that most deaths had at least something to do with malnutrition. The "excess death" interpretation of Etcheson however is indeed nearly impossible. As for the undocumented 650,000 figure from some journalist - it's a farce IMO, and I encourage you to either delete it or to replace it with Etcheson. Either way it should not be presented as a undisputed fact (especially in this article, where it's a ... footnote) and certainly not as an excess-death number. Readers should not be mislead on such a crucial point. If you do use Etcheson, I would appreciate a recap of his argument from his 1984 book here on the talk page.

FINAL update: A search for the figure on google books in Etcheson, 1984 yields nothing! You'll need to provide both a page number and a summary of his argument, if you want to cite Etcheson. The figure however can be attributed to none other than the convicted mass-murderer Kheu Samphan (I am not saying he is Etcheson's source, we don't know what Etcheson even claims), in his 1980 letter to the "Cambodia Friendship Association": " During these 11 months of invasion, more that 500,000 Kampucheans have been massacred and more than 500,000 others have died from starvation... The aim of the Hanoi authorities is very clear: to empty Kampuchea of its population, establish there the Vietnamese settlement in its place, annex Kampuchea to be an integral part of their "Big Vietnam" under the sign of "Indochina Federation" and to carry on its expansion in Southeast Asia.[216] " Guccisamsclub (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's take this point-by-point:

• "33/1000 is certainly not universally accepted...Its closer to being the the upper bound." No, the emerging consensus of experts is that the pre-war birthrate was under-reported and the birthrate "only" declined by about one-third during the KR years—before nearly doubling in 1979.
• "Why would birth rates be so high in 1979?" The best demographic evidence suggests that the birthrate increased by 91% during 1979-1980.
• "To get this result we have had to go against an official census... [and] documented birth rates for 1980." According to Patrick Heuveline and Bunnak Poch, fertility remained as high in 1980 as it was in 1979 before declining in 1981, but the fertility rate remained over 7 births per woman through 1985.
• Who claims [the 1980 census was inflated] anyhow?" According to your own source, Banister and Johnson 1993 (if you could be bothered to read them): "There is much uncertainty about the accuracy of the 1980 administrative count. Ea Meng-Try noted that under the Vietnam-backed government, the heads of solidarity groups in the countryside kept household records. He claimed that in 1980 it was in their interest to exaggerate the numbers of households and people in their jurisdictions, especially in those areas where the population suffered from food shortages 1979-1980; this subsistence crisis reflected poorly on the Vietnam-backed leadership. Others argue that the 1980 provincial population figures may well have been inflated by local officials because access to resources distributed through Phnom Penh was based in part on the population in their jurisdiction. The local population figures were also to be used for planning United Nations assistance, a factor that could have led to excessively high population numbers...On the other hand, even carefully prepared censuses the world over tend to undercount their populations" (page 91). Bainster and Johnson are merely assuming that, since a census will generally be an undercount, the final result is roughly accurate. As Sharp notes, a similar adjustment to our starting population would result in an even higher number of excess deaths under the KR.
• "What about - this is crucial here - disputing Banister's assumptions of a moderate population increase from 1979 to 1980?" There's no need to dispute it, given the astronomical birthrate and influx of tens of thousands of Vietnamese settlers.
• "If...the CIA are to be believed, net migration was probably negative". Banister and Johnson assume that net migration was negative in 1979, and positive in 1980. This does not contradict the CIA.
• "The figure however can be attributed to none other than the convicted mass-murderer Kheu Samphan." Since you edited your post to remove the implication that the KR invented the figure, this is a meaningless distraction.
• "A still largely anecdotal claim of "500,000" famine excess-deaths." Although 500,000 is the most widely-repeated figure, Heuveline believes the actual toll of the 1979 famine was likely on the order of 300,000.

I do find that the high birthrate renders Brinkley's figure implausible. Banister and Johnson also suggest that the famine was not quite as severe as widely reported, concluding: "International aid of 317,000 metric tons of grains in 1979 and 132,000 metric tons in 1980 seems to have staved off nationwide famine, although regional famine did occur and suffering among the affected population was tremendous." (Page 78) I would be happy to drop Brinkley and use Heuveline's figure instead.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That's excellent work. It was always a question of degree and context in the first place. thanks to you, we finally have a properly-sourced figure. PS. May I ask you to stop researching my edits, it does get a little annoying. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I got a copy of Etcheson's Rise and Demise through my community college. Rummel cited page 148 for an estimate of 500,000 famine deaths under the Samrin regime. The figure is from a table listing various estimates of deaths in Cambodia during the civil war (defined as 1970-1975) and under the KR (defined as 1975-1978). Under the "Causes of Death" section is a reference to famine during 1978-1981. For that period, we are given a figure (in millions) of ">0.5". Not having read the book yet, I have no idea whether there is any other context to provide.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What's the listed estimate for the excess deaths under the Khmer Rouge, out of curiosity? Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There are actually 12 different estimates broken down by source, ranging from Ieng Sary's 30,000 to Lon Nol's 2.5 million.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Added the Series on Communism Sidebar

I have added (and re-added) the sidebar on Communism. The Khmer Rouge were in fact Communists and I can see no reasonable argument for removing it. There are similar sidebars that deal with Fascism and Nazism that are attached to articles relating to those subjects. It provides a useful set of links for other articles dealing with the broader topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub I am not following your reason for continuing to remove the Communism sidebar? The Khmer Rouge were in fact Communists. As I noted above, similar sidebars exist for other totalitarian political regimes. Why are Communists exempt from this? You accuse me of POV editing but I am in fact following well established precedent in my edits. I am having trouble seeing a motive for removal other than to play down their political ideology. Unless there is a better reason for it not being placed there (i.e. they were not a Communist regime) I propose to re-add the sidebar. I will of course give you an opportunity to respond before doing so. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I do thank you for putting it up, since it prompted me to put "communism" into combo-box. However, I feel the edit itself does nothing to improve the article.

• First, few articles on Communist parties have this massive COMMUNISM portal at the top of the page. Even the CPSU lacks this monstrosity. The convention is rather to either link a small portal at the bottom or leave it out. The reason for this, I venture, is that Communist parties are known for a lot more than their contributions to "Communist" theory and practice. Therefore, putting up a huge box saying "look - commies, click to learn all about them" is undue. There is in fact no precedent for your edit - in the relevant articles. NSDAP is not a precedent because its a completely different topic. Of course you can argue that NSDAP=NAZISM=COMMUNISM=MARXISMLENINISM=KHMERROUGE, but that will have to be your own argument which has nothing to do with any precedent.
• To get back to this article, your communism portal serves no purpose other than to upset the layout and single out "communism" as THE most important thing to contextualize the Khmer Rouge. Are things like Trotskyism, Luxemburgism, Titoism and a huge hammer and sickle really the first thing readers should be see when they want to learn about the Khmer Rouge? Clearly, reliable sources would say "no". But if readers want to learn more about Communism, Maoism, Stalinism etc. they can hardly miss the links already present in the article. There is also a communism portal linked in see-also. Lots of other banners, boxes, info can be added to the article. If we added all of that we'd have a garish mess providing zero additional information.Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Impact of US bombing

Could someone please include a discussion of the causes of the famine under the KR, notably the accusations that the US bombings played a major role in destroying the country's infrastructure and forcing large numbers of persons to relocate from the rural areas to the city, thus causing the collapse of agriculture and subsequent famine? I don't feel qualified at all to write on the topic, but I recall reading several times that the critics of the US intervention source these claims to none other than the US intelligence community... Should this not be discussed when discussing the mass deaths under the KR? 27.55.89.210 (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a very good point. The bombing also destroyed a huge number of livestock and farmland. Also, the civil war was as damaging to the society as the actual bombing. But estimates of the impact are made difficult by the sheer magnitude of the KR regime's subsequent atrocities and blunders. Of course, it also falls under the rubric of "inconvenient" history that many people would rather ignore or minimize.

One thing to consider here though is that Vietnam and Laos suffered no comparable famine, despite being subjected to similar ordeals in the war.Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Guccisamsclub:. I have a copy of Herman and Chomsky's work Manufacturing Consent in front of me. On page p315 of this text, the writers cite the Finnish Inquiry Commission of Kimmo Kiljunen as attributing 600,000 deaths to the U.S. bombing campaign, 75,000 to 150,000 directly to executions by the Khmer Rouge and 1,000,000 from all causes during KR ascendancy. 86.147.16.15 (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet the 600,000 figure is more than twice the total number of war-related deaths caused by all sides, with U.S. bombing being only a minor factor, while we now know that the KR perpetrated at least 1,386,734 violent killings. Chomsky and Herman are covering their tracks for their past genocide denial.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is of no interest or relevance. Offer sources. 86.178.165.10 (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of bombing & civil war victims

Not really mentioned in the article:

• The current Prime Minister of Cambodia, Hun Sen says, "According to documents and research, the figures for people who died during that time (1969-75), would be around 700,000 to 800,000."
• In a footnote of Henry Kissinger's memoir of the Vietnam War, he wrote, "The casualty estimates by revisionist writers are often set at 300,000." He consulted a State Department historian who gave him an estimate of "50,000 based on the tonnage of bombs delivered." Ending the Vietnam War: A History of America's Involvement in and Extrication from the Vietnam War, Henry Kissinger, Simon ans Schuster, Feb 11, 2003, page 70.
• In an article in the Phnom Penh Post, Noam Chomsky says up to a million people were killed in Operation Menu. Noam Chomsky maintains the rage, Phnom Pen Post, 5 October 2010.
• In the fall of 2000, Bill Clinton released more data on the bombing showing a fivefold increase in the tonnage of bombs released. Based on the new data Tayler Owen and Ben Kiernan revised their previous estimate that between 50,000 and 150,000 Cambodian civilians were killed by the bombing saying, "the number of casualties is surely higher." Bombs Over Cambodia: New information reveals that Cambodia was bombed far more heavily than previously believed, Tayler Owen and Ben Kiernan, The Walrus, October 2006.
• Pulitzer prize winning journalist Neil Sheehan, estimates that "hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died" in the bombing.US Bombing of Cambodia -- Still Counting the Dead, The Irrawaddy, Dominic Faulder, October 2001, Vol.9 No.8
• Craig Etcheson says "Many of those killed in the bombing were just vaporized." US Bombing of Cambodia -- Still Counting the Dead, The Irrawaddy, Dominic Faulder, October 2001, Vol.9 No.8
• Christopher Hitchens wrote that 600,000 lost their lives in Cambodia due to the bombing and that "these are not the highest estimates." The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Christopher Hitchens, Hachette Digital, Inc., April 10, 2012
• Historian Jeremy Kuzmarov says 100,000 to 500,000 were killed in the bombing. Samantha Power: Liberal War Hawk and Second Rate Scholar, History News Network, 09/03/2013
• Francois Ponchaud claimed that 200,000 people were killed in American bombings from March to August 1973, mentioning an unidentified Cambodian report. Cited in The big issue: Malcolm Caldwell, A carefully redesigned version of history, Noam Chomsky, The Observer, January 17, 2010.

Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Noam Chomsky says up to a million people were killed in Operation Menu." Really, you don't say? 1 million killed in a bombing campaign when the entire Cambodian population of the affected area was 4,000? Reading Chomsky on Indochina is downright comical. Chomsky tells us that North Vietnam did not attack South Vietnam; rather, the U.S. attacked South Vietnam, then attacked North Vietnam out of spite (thereby forcing a reluctant Hanoi to throw its support behind the South Vietnamese resistance to American imperialism), then carpet-bombed millions of civilians in Laos and Cambodia based solely on false intelligence regarding North Vietnamese bases, which we are left to conclude were as non-existent as Iraq's WMDs. How anyone can take the man seriously is beyond me. (Maybe it's because so few of his "fans" even bother to read his tedious, formulaic, and predictable communist propaganda?) Regardless, the citogenesis above merely illustrates the selective credulity of our "cognitive elite". Of note: Ponchaud gave no such estimate, but was merely quoting Khmer Rouge propaganda, while Etcheson gives a figure of "probably more than 5,000", noting: "I have conducted thousands of interviews with Cambodians who lived through that period of Cambodian history. I can count on one hand the number of people who described first-hand knowledge of civilian deaths from U.S. bombing."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly we should ignore the huge number of academic sources listed above and take the word of the politician from the administration who ordered the bombings. After all, politicians have an impeccable reputation for telling the absolute truth at all times. 86.178.165.10 (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If you read your own source carefully (Manufacturing Consent, pg 263 and note 31), you will find that the figure refers to total civil war dead. Everything starts to unravel from there...

• In the 1980's, 500-600K was the universally accepted educated guess. Since then, demographers Judith Banister and Marek Sliwinski came up with lower figures of around 300K(+/-50K). These figures are now the most popular ones, although a few demographers (can't remember the names, but can track them down) think the numbers may be higher. This is not to say that anyone really knows what the number is, because:

  (A) The sheer scale of mortality under Pol Pot makes it difficult to estimate what transpired before;

  (B) Nobody seems to give a shit. All the research done on total Civil War casualties would easily fit a single page. For comparison, quantitative research on Pol Pot's genocide will fill a whole book.

So your "huge number of academic sources" is nonexistent. Nobody knows, nor cares, basically.

• The same can be said regarding the estimated number of US Bombings victims. The "estimates" quoted above are mostly either non-academic or misquoted or or mistaken or based on the ludicrous assumption that all deaths were caused by US bombs. Kissinger (50K) and Kiernan (50-150K) are the only serious ones in that list. However, Kiernan's revised hypothesis that ""the number of casualties is surely higher" [than Kiernan's earlier 50-150K range] is also worthless. This is because the hypothesis was based on revised tonnage figures which were wildly incorrect, as Kiernan himself explained in a subsequent article in Japan Focus. Most scholars agree that it was in the tens of thousands, with Marek Sliwinski estimating 50K based on a survey conducted in the 1990's. The other sources are completely worthless. For example Ponchaud's figure is both ludicrous and based on false information:

  "Du 7 mars au 15 août 1973, 40 000 tonnes de bombes écrasent chaque mois le Cambodge,causant la mort de 200 000 personnes, selon les chiffres avancés par les révolutionnaires." (Cambodge: Annee Zero, 1976, KAILASH ÉDITIONS reprint 1998)

As Chomsky noted in Distortions of the Fourth Hand (1977), Ponchaud's DK source actually referred to those “killed, wounded, and crippled for life”, a major difference. In a subsequent English edition, Ponchaud corrected the error. The attribution of 1 million Menu bombing deaths to Chomsky in the Phnom Penh Post is a ludicrous misattribution, since - as we have seen - he quoted figures of 500-600K for the whole war and dismissed Ponchaud's figures as implausibly high. But in any case, there is no reason to source any estimate to Chomsky, because (A) Chomsky claims no independent expertise on Cambodia; (B) his work on Cambodia from the 1980's is clearly not up to date.

As for the rest:

(A) Hitchens writes "As a result of the expanded and intensified bombing campaigns, it has been estimated that as many as [...] 600,000 in Cambodia, lost their lives. (These are not the highest estimates.)" Either he does not know what he is talking about, or doesn't care. My impression is that he'll write just about anything, as long as it does not interrupt the flow of his polemic. Of course, it's fine to argue that US foreign policy fed the Civil War, but it is disingenuous to appear to conflate Civil War and Bombing casualties. This is a great example of why he is worthless as a scholarly source, much like his icon George Orwell.

(B) Quips from journalists are meaningless. I am pretty sure Hun Sen is merely repeating the early estimates put out by Democratic Kampuchea.

So to sum up: yes, it's an important topic and no, coming up reliably sourced figures is not easy. I think the range for the Civil War should be 275-600K (Sliwinsky, Banister, CIA, Vickery, other demographers) and for bombings it should be 40-150K (Kiernan, Kissinger, Chandler, Sliwinski).Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet Chomsky and Herman state that America and the Khmer Rouge bear roughly equal responsibility for atrocities during the decade of genocide. That many of Chomsky's lies are, on close inspection, slippery equivocations containing a built-in escape valve should the lie be discovered does not absolve him of being an intellectual totalitarian: Chomsky does not present arguments in a nuanced way allowing room for disagreement, but systematically distorts the historical record, leaving no bread crumbs behind that might allow inquisitive readers to challenge his analysis. Even if you are able to read between the lines, Chomsky's ideal reader is someone like the IP above, who having read Chomsky will be left worse off than if they remained wholly ignorant, because Chomsky's work is designed to render any future understanding impossible. The emotional appeal of Chomsky's propaganda is not diminished by innumerable logical contradictions and constantly shifting arguments, as when Chomsky went from blasting Barron and Paul for their reliance on "specialists at the State and Defense Departments" to claiming "we were probably the only commentators to rely on the most knowledgeable source, State Department intelligence"; either The Phnom Penh Post interviewer misquoted Chomsky, or Chomsky's dishonesty is simply so extreme that it can scarcely be believed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideology

The party's ideology is given as "Agrarian socialism, Khmer nationalism, and Left-wing nationalism". What about the obvious ones: Marxist-Leninist and Communist?Royalcourtier (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Should't the statement "The Khmer Rouge's ideology combined elements of Marxism" should be reworded as "The Khmer Rouge's ideology combined elements of Maoism"? The Wikipedia article on Maoism mentions - The Khmer Rouge of Cambodia is said to have been a replica of the Maoist regime. According to the BBC, the Communist Party of Kampuchea (Cambodia), better known as the "Khmer Rouge", identified strongly with Maoism, and it is generally labeled a "Maoist" movement today.[31][32] - Ysp2015 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khmer Rouge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110165813/http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0823iraq_rodman.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0823iraq_rodman.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)