Talk:History of Cambodia: Difference between revisions

The numbers of folks killed during the Combodian genocide are well-known enough among scholars (this includes undergrad students) that citations aren't really all that necessary. Approximately 25% of both urban and rural Khmer died, about half of Chinese city-dwellers, all or nearly all Vietnemes city-dwellers, and about 40% of the Lao. These figures apply to "new" (that is, non-base) citizens. Among base citizens, 15% of rural Khmer, 36% of Chams, nearly 100% of Vietnemese, 40% of Thai, and 15% of the upland minorities (including the Khmer Loeu) died. These numbers are from Kiernen's chapter on Cambodia in Century of Genocide, p. 343. Similar numbers are presented in Kiernen's The Pol Pot Regime, Melson's Revolution and Genocide, and Powers' A Problem From Hell. While scholars do exist who wish to say that genocide (as defined by the 1948 UN convention) did not occur in Cambodia, the numbers and methods used by the KR seem to starkly deny their claim. Keep in mind that the destruction of a culture, forced relocation of children, etc all count as genocide. In total, approximately 1.7 million people died in the period 1975-79, about 21% of the population.

It seems clear that the brutal treatement of the Khmer citizens does not count for genocide (class is not even cited in the 1948 convention). Ethnic Vietnemese, Chinese, and Chams were certainly genocided, however; I don't know enough about the Thai to say one way or the other.

The regime basically did control every aspect of life. A basic work day was fieldwork from 4-10 am, an hour for lunch, then work until around 6 pm in the fields. There was a break for dinner, followed by more fieldwork or the tending of garden-plots. See Century of Genocide for more detail. What you're claiming as "outrageous" is, in actuality, pretty well known. Further, only Khmer was allowed to be spoken, religion was outlawed (Muslim Chams were forced to eat pork), etc.

"Older faiths such as Mahayana Buddhism and the Hindu cult of the god-king had been supplanted by Theravada Buddhism, and the Cambodians had become part of the same religious and cultural cosmos as the Thai. This similarity did not prevent intermittent warfare between the two kingdoms, however."

please check your fact. the last time i checked the history of the southeast asian region, the khmer empire established theravada buddhism well before the thai gain control on part of khmer empire. also, khmer culture predate that of thai and thai were from the southern china region. thai addopted and assimulated khmer culture and religion through conquests and capturing of khmer royal court. what is written here is the reverse and incorrect.

---

I just finished breaking this article into series. The component articles need lots of wikifying. Help will be appreciated! --Jiang 03:40, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

This article makes no reference to the NVA supplying of the Khmer Rouge with weapons and other supplies. Not much of what happens makes sense without it. Stargoat 23:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

It should be noted that:

The U.S. bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War in an effort to eliminate NVA and VC targets was illegal. The article mentions in reference, that the U.S. bombed within 10-30 miles of the Vietnam border, but does not mention that this bombing was illigetimate for the following reasons:

1. Cambodia had not entered into the Vietnam War.

2. NVA occupation was involuntary; on the part of Cambodia.

While this does not change the elapse of events noted in the article, it has important historical value in the involvement of world powers in indo-china and United States Foreign Policy; in Cambodia.

Wardell-Burrus, Travers Travers2586 12:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Remnants of the old society

In "The new government sought to completely restructure Cambodian society. Remnants of the 100 year old French colonial society were abolished and religion, particularly Buddhism, was suppressed.", the "100 year old French colonial society" was removed. I think a real question, considering that Cambodia was French colony for 100 years prior to the CPK takeover, is whether the CPK was changing Cambodian society, or whether it was simply casting off most of the 100 years of French colonialism, and the colonialists attempt to take over Cambodian society. Cambodia has a long history, and the French foreign colonialists were only there for 100 years, and their influence was mostly limited to the cities, is getting rid of this foreign influence once control is taken from them and their puppets and trying to restore Cambodian society, autonomy and so forth from it's 100 year absence more of an attempt to fundamentally change Cambodian society, or more of an attempt to shake off 100 years of colonialism? Hanpuk 18:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Cholas in Cambodia?

I find the architecture of temples in Cambodia to be similar to the Chola architecture. Also, I've read that Cholas ruled parts of Cambodia. Recently, I heard that Thevaram, a Tamil language hymn was recited on the occasion of the coronation of the new king there. Is that true? If so, can some one make a mention of the Cholas in the article? -- Sundar 10:37, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

You're probaly thinking about the Sri Vijayans. The Khmer people were never ruled by the Cholas, the greatest extant reached the north of the malay peninsula. Its probaly simmiliar because the Khmers blended Indian and native indo-chinese culture together. CanCanDuo 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu

i was reading this article and it struck me how familiar the passages were.. Then i looked back at Diane Law's book 'the worlds most evil dictators' ISBN - 9 781405 488266 and was surprised to see the two match word for word. What dores this mean for the article? rewrite? alwrite? (cough). Billcarr178 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

CIA involvement in Sihanouk case

I have a problem with following statement

  The United States saw Prince Sihanouk as a North Vietnamese sympathizer and
  a thorn on the United States, and using the CIA, it began plans to get rid of
  Sihanouk.[2]

The problem is that reference [2] does not support fully above statement. Is there any evidence that CIA planned to get rid of Sihanouk? I've tried to find something on the net but failed due to time constraints :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.37.168 (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Chinese policy allowed; US and UK policy deleted

Please adjust your attitude, TheTimesAreAChanging. Firstly you use the word "garbage" in in an edit summary; you accuse me of using a "fabricated" quote (an accusation supplied with no evidence whatsoever, and despite my having supplied multiple RS for it including a Yale professor); you inaccurately state the nature of the libel case against Pilger (none of the material I added had anything to do with the libel case); I eliminated all reliance on Pilger (though there was absolutely no need to have done); and having met all complaints, you simply proceed to hack out 2k of material.

Would you care to explain your, what from my position, are completed unjustified deletions? What you need to explain is why you have absolutely no problem whatsoever with having "China 'armed and trained' the Khmer Rouge during the civil war and continued to aid them years afterward" in the article, but any mention of Western support and policy is immediately and aggressively deleted. Note that is too late to go back now and deleted the Chinese material and claim "even-handedness", since you have already demonstrated that you have no problem with it being there (I already drew your attention to it in one of my edit summaries, and it is still there).

I expect decent answers to all these questions, as these ought to have been straightforward additions, particularly in light of your demonstrated contentedness with regard to the mention of Chinese policy. I have no POV, but yours is to eliminate all mention of Western support. It is disgraceful. ColaXtra (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

But, the alleged Western support is still mentioned.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The part about Chinese support was left because it was actually during the Civil War whereas allegeed western support occured post 1979 so should be mentioned there not under the civil war section. Stumink (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• The imbalance is more profound than that. ColaXtra would have you believe that this article has extensive commentary about Chinese support for the KR, and that there is no mention of any Western involvement. In reality, the article currently devotes several paragraphs to the US role in the Cambodian civil war (with entire blockquotes denouncing the US), along with one sentence describing the Chinese role in the Cambodian civil war. Post-1978 Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge is never mentioned except in the paragraph devoted to the alleged Western support. ColaXtra has conflated all of these issues, and employed the very strawmen tactics he accuses me of.
• In addition, ColaXtra has asked me why I think the "quote" from Brzezinski is inaccurate. My answer is that it's unlikely Brzezinski would go out of his way to incriminate himself by making wild claims to journalists, only to repeatedly deny those same claims; if it were actually true, Brzezinski would have been prosecuted like Oliver North. However, I have not removed the "quote".
• ColaXtra later proposed an even worse revision in which the alleged post-1978 Western support was inserted in the middle of the genocide. The text went directly from "The UK government trained the Khmer Rouge and later recommended that the Khmer Rouge should be involved in Cambodia's post-genocide governance" to "Thousands starved or died of disease during the evacuation and its aftermath". My statement that this was a "ludicrous" place for the material apparently offended him.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, quite a pickle. This has taken up far more of my time than it has been worth.

So where do we start? With this reasonable suggestion: "western support occured post 1979 so..." That's fine with me. Indeed, I did move it as you requested to the next section; if it's been moved back subsequently, not guilty.

Now to TTAAC. Remember: the original carping was "fabricated quote; libel; POV".

The "fabricated" quote has now been downgraded to "I don't think he would have said that"/"inaccurate". And total silence on the libel, so I'll take that as a tacit admission you were either lying or didn't have a clue what you were whimpering about. POV? I think I dealt with the absurdity of that claim above. The only "POV" that could possibly be claimed is that I believe it outrageous for any country to have supported the Khmer Rouge, whether that's China, the US, or the pUKe. Long and short, I sought balance where he sought censorship.

So what's the next cry about? OK, so now the justification has switched: what I wanted to add was "extensive commentary". Well, even if that were in the original yelping you gave for your deletion, which it was not, "extensive" commentary can be cured with a bit of pruning—so why did you pull it up by the roots? How—what was it, three lines of text for the UK–US mentioned combined?—can constitute "extensive" commentary is not clear to me. Even allowing for differing interpretations of the word extensive, we still have the switching and the by-the-roots.

"ColaXtra would have you believe..." No, I really don't think so. I imply the completely opposite, that Chinese support is merely "mentioned", right after where I explicitly quote the lone sentence that constitutes that mention. Besides, trying to lie about the article on its talk page is unquestionably just about the most stupid thing imaginable. Has anyone ever tried it? And I repeat: this question of balance/"Boo-hoo, it's too extensive" is completely new whining, just freshly squeezed out here now like a stinking turd. He's just moving the goal posts, which is pretty tedious. I do wish he'd make his mind up.

Anyway, like I said, this has wasted enough of my time. Let's delete my additions, save for the UK one, if it's all the same with you?

Surely we can all now agree that there's consensus? Yep, and we're done. ColaXtra (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

So basically, you're just trolling?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Hansard sources

TheTimesAreAChanging has deleted sourced material from Hansard which he has not even read and is now edit waring over this statement that he has not read. He claims that it does not say that the British government trained Khmer terrorist. Here is what the piece actually says which he would know if he just read it first.

Mr. Mullin :Following the unwelcome public interest that was aroused by Mr. Karniol's report--a similar report appeared in The Sunday Telegraph, which is not a Labour newspaper, and there were several excellent television programmes-- Mr. Dennis Gallwey, the MI6 officer responsible for the military training programme for Cambodians, was hastily withdrawn from his post at the British embassy at Bangkok. I gather that he has since retired. British advisers are, however, still to be found training Khmer Rouge terrorists in Thailand.

and Mrs. Clwyd : I shall add to what my hon. Friend is saying by quoting from a letter written by Susan Eliot, who has worked for many years with Cambodian refugees. She has evidence that in Malaysia, British advisers have helped to train Khmer Rouge guerrillas. She states :

"The training was conducted by Malaysian army officers, through the medium of English language, with British and American trainers acting as advisers. Not only were the troops trained together but they travelled to and from Bangkok."

Both are British MP's debating in parliament at the time.I suggest that you revert your mistake.Kabulbuddha (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

So now the Malaysians trained the KR? That's a totally different allegation! These highly speculative allegations from primary source politicians are not statements of fact. Lots of the quotes said the opposite, or made far weaker claims. Taking a few select quotes out of context from primary sources doesn't cut it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This is sourced from the UK parliament minutes,these are British MP's discussing the British government training Khmer Rouge terrorists in a debate in the Houses of Parliament.It sates clearly that British advisors are training Khmer terrorists in Thailand and Malaysia You have provided no good excuse to excluded this reliably sourced information from the article at all.Your claim of what the source said was wrong because you never even read it and your excuse for deleting it was that the source was not verified which is rubbish.I have also reported you for edit waring at the discussion about you on the Admin noticeboard.Kabulbuddha (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You must be another Zrdragon sock?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

ColaXtra cited NATO's Secret Army: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe for the following claim: "The UK government trained the Khmer Rouge and later recommended that the Khmer Rouge should be involved in Cambodia's post-genocide governance". When you check the source on Google books, you realize it actually says: "Britain had helped train Khmer Rouge allies". Removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is about you deleting sourced material that I posted not about ColaXtra.What is zdragon?Kabulbuddha (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your source is invalid. We use scholarly sources for these historical articles. Those are the rules.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but you do not get to decide which sources are acceptable here, sources should be reputable and Hansard is certainly that,there is no rule to use scholarly sources for historical articles, you made that up.I will take it further up the chain of editors than you as this is going now where.Kabulbuddha (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)