Talk:Pol Pot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pol Pot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] How can the Khmer Rouge be Maoist?

It is widely known that Pol Pot and his Khmer Rough rounded up tens of thousands Vietnamese and Chinese civilians and intellectuals who lived in Cambodia. I find it very strange that Pol Pot was considered "Maoist" yet he killed so many supposedly "Maoist" people during his reign. That's quite contradicting.--Secret Agent Man 03:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The VCP and Ho Chi Minh were much more Stalinist than Maoist. In fact I wouldn't call them Maoist at all -- they were supported by the USSR and opposed by China post-1975. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 23:35 (UTC)

I concur with this. The purpose of reading an article here is to discover facts, not opinions. Is there EVIDENCE for US support of Pol Pot before '78? Is there EVIDENCE that people such as Chomsky were pro-Khmer Rouge before PP came to power? In either case, are we saying that supporting an individual before he comes to power (for whatever reason) makes one directly responsibly for the crimes he commits? That is, did US support for Stalin from 1941 to 45 make Roosevelt responsible for everything the Soviets did in Eastern Europe after WW2?

Kiernan's book (The Pol Pot Regime) details out how the Khmer Rouge tried to preserve relations with the PRC while pretty much pissing everyone else off.... I am afraid I do not have a copy, so I am unable to furnish qoutes for the article. I would appreciate it someone could do so... With that being said, I really hope this article can be "fancyied" up since it deals with an important aspect of history. ---Timber Rattlesnake

The Khmer Rouge were apparently very ungrateful to Mao for propelling them to power. In "Mao: The Unknown Story", Jung Chang and Jon Halliday highlight the case of a Khmer Rouge politician who openly praised Mao, suggesting the Khmer Rouge had been influenced by his ideas. For this, he was denounced as an "antique bastard", and tortured to death. The Khmer Rouge statement at the time also denounced Mao (although he was dead by this point). So it can at least be said the Khmer Rouge never considered themselves to be Maoist.

"This, combined with the fact that Pol Pot and most of the other senior party members themselves had no working class experience (unlike Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh) led to an idealisation of peasant life in Cambodian Communism." Where does the writer get the idea that Mao had woking class experience? He was from the countryside and never worked in a factory.Zotlan

'about a million Cambodians found death by execution and forced labour'

Is this an accepted number? I've heared about 500.000, more or less equal to the casualties from American bombings, a few years earlier.

Estimates I've read range from a low of 900,000 to a high of 2 million. Ed Poor

I've read from 1-3 million. No matter the number, it's going to be hard because nobody kept records like Hitler or even close. But to popular belief it is no less than 1 million, but possibly more than 3 million.

The Vietnamese installed a puppet government of Khmer Rouge who had fled to Vietnam to avoid the purges, but Pol Pot kept fighting from his base on the Thai border, again supported by China, Thailand and the US.

Was Pol Pot actually supported by the US? I can't make sense of this sentence. -- GayCom

I I remember correctly, the answer is yes. The US supported Pol Pot in his fight against (also Communist) Vietnam. Andre Engels
Yes, the U.S. was directly supporting Pol Pot even WHILE he was executing a large proportion of Cambodians, and the U.S. government was quite aware of this. It is one of the worst, bloodiest blots on United States foreign policy. --John Knouse
The text that is being discussed reads again supported by ... the US. Higher up the article it has (unusually) been found necessary to specifically assert that the US was anti-communist. The US asserted that its bombings were in support of, or were sanctioned by, the Lon Nol government which was opposed to Pol Pot (and Sihanouk). The use of the word again therefore looks like an attempt to smuggle Chomsky's thesis past NPOV. A comparison of this article with those for History of Cambodia and Khmer Rouge is illuminating. -- Alan Peakall 18:36 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

I can't tell if this article is correct or is some kind of a whitewash. Several phrases have the ring of propaganda. I'm tempted to move the whole thing to talk and request everyone to start over! --Ed Poor

Ed, where do you see the whitewash? This paragraph seems to be quite clear:

"Following the fall of Phnom Penh, politicians and bureaucrats were killed, all other inhabitants were driven out of the city into the countryside, where they were forced to do physical labour. Phnom Penh was turned into a ghost city, and many died of starvation, illnesses or execution. Education, religion, private possessions and families were abolished. Pol Pot became paranoid, and saw internal and external (Vietnamese) plots everywhere. Enormous numbers of suspects were tortured and killed." That seems about as clear as possible about the horrors that resulted from his rule. soulpatch

For the record, let me begin by saying that I happen to think that the word genocide is appropriate when describing what was inflicted on Cambodia by Pol Pot. But we have to be consistent here. On the one hand, is it perfectly legitimate to use what some might describe as an emotionally charged label like "genocide" without qualification to describe the actions of political rulers (like Pol Pot), but on the other hand it isn't acceptable to use the word "torture" to describe beatings, sleep deprivation, and witholding of pain medication, because it is an emotionally charged label and we we should let people decide for themselves whether those activities constitute torture rather than telling them? Can we tell the readers when something constitutes genocide, but we can't tell the readers when something constitutes torture? Out of consistency, since it is apparently disallowed to describe anything as "torture" in this encylopedia, I have modified the referenct to genocide by Pol Pot to make it clear that human rights activists consider it genocide. soulpatch

Oh yeah, I forgot. The US and the Khmer Rouge are comparable so the same standards apply. My bad. --mav
Your sarcastic response doesn't bother to address the point that I made. The question is whether we are going to have a consistent policy on the use of words to describe atrocities in this encylopedia. You yourself said elsewhere that we should not characterize something as "torture" in this encylopedia, since that would be telling people what to think, and instead we should let them decide for themselves whether an act is one of torture. So this same standard should also apply towards the use of the word "genocide". soulpatch
What the CIA has done is in the gray area as far as I am concerned (like most of the stuff they do and have done). Now if they pulled out the fingernails of the detainees and made them eat their own feces then that is obviously torture. Likewise the directed mass murder of millions of people can be, without much controversy, labled as genocide. BTW, I am a liberal who hates to have to defend Bubba and his posse of cowboys while my rights as a US citizen are degraded for so-called security purposes. But I will not at the same time sit idly by while some people exaggerate the facts. --mav
Well, some of the very activities that the CIA has done according to the Post investigation are described further down in the torture article as bullet-point examples of what constitutes torture (beatings, for example), so I am wondering how we can cite those examples of CIA activity at one point while tiptoeing around the word "torture" even though the article's definition includes them as examples of torture. Do we change the definition? And I might add that there actually is some dispute about the meaning of the word "genocide" in this encyclopedia, where it was debated at one point over whether the term "genocide" applied only to ethnically-based slaughter or also to other types of mass murder. There is actually controversy with just about any emotionally charged label, whether it be torture or genocide or anything else. It seems to me that if we can settle on a definition, we should use it. If you think that the CIA activities are not torture or are in a gray area, it might benefit the article to lay out in detail what you consider to be unquestionable acts of torture versus those that are borderline, and that can be hashed out and discussed in detail in the torture article's talk page, in some attempt at working out a definition. My concern is that we don't apply a double standard here, where actions by the US are whitewashed and labels that we would apply to countries the US doesn't like are never used to describe US activities. soulpatch
I'll take a look at the torture article. There is a whole continuum of severity involved in "beatings" though. I got beat-up rather severely once but I wouldn't call that "torture" at all. Torture is inflicting unbearable physical pain with some goal in mind - even if that goal is simply to cause unbearable pain. So simply beating somebody up isn't necessarily torture. --mav
I am curious if your definition of torture is universally accepted by human rights organizations. I honestly don't know what these organizations would say on the subject. I would say that I consider your definition to be more limited than my own. I do view beatings of prisoners to be a form of torture. Obviously it is not as elaborate as, say, electric shocks, removing skin or nails, or other such actions, but I think the unbearable thing is not easy to define, since that is subjective (one person may have more tolerance for certain kinds of pain than others). Perhaps we should consult the definitions from Amnesty International and other human rights organizations. soulpatch

I'm not sure about the purpose of the new paragraph about the US and Pol Pot. The same point is essentially made earlier in the same article, in the paragraph that reads:

Prior to 1970, the Khmer Rouge was an insignificant factor in Cambodian politics. However, in 1970 Lon Nol deposed Sihanouk, because the latter was seen as supporting the Viet Cong. In protest, Sihanouk threw his support to Pol Pot's side. Sihanouk's popularity, along with the United States invasion of Cambodia shortly after the coup, and subsequent bombings by the US (which continued illegally even after Congress voted to suspend them) drove many to Pol Pot's side and soon Lon Nol's government controlled only the cities. Sihanouk was soon side-lined by his more radical colleagues.

Why repeat or elaborate on the same point further down? If there is additional information about US involvement in the rise of Pol Pot, it should be merged with the above paragraph that I quoted, or else the above paragraph that I quoted should be merged with the new section. soulpatch

The US acted despicably in Cambodia without any sound strategic reason to be there, or in Indochina at all, but if they (we) killed 2 million people in a country with 12 million population then it was the most spectacularly successful civilian bombing of all time and deserves full documentation and maybe even a separate article. That is to say, prove it or take it out. Ortolan88

Did a merge. Also marked the bit about U.S. bombing of Cambodia leading the Khmer Rouge victory as controversial (which it is) and separated out the death tolls (which aren't controversial).

Moved Marxism -> Maoism. Much of the Khmer Rouge ideology was derived from Maoism (such as the focus on agricultural development of the peasant which isn't in classical Marxism at all). Basically, the Khmer Rouge undertook Cultural Revolution like policies with the belief that Mao wasn't radical enough.

One quote is that the ideology of the Khmer Rouge was "Maoist ends with Stalinist means".

-- User:Roadrunner

I still wonder why you reverted my last edit. Of course the Khmer Rouge were maoist. But I don't like the phrase "Though adherents to a form of Maoism, the Khmer Rouge were anti-Soviet..." it was normal for a maoist to be anti-Soviet at the time why not "Adherents to a form of Maoism, the Khmer Rouge were anti-Soviet..."  ?? User:Ericd


Oopss.. I see what you were trying to do. Changed the sentence.

Ericd:

Roadrunner's right. The Khmer Rouge, in addition, favored a direct route to communism.

172

I changed it a little. Something has to be mentioned to distinguish the ideologies of the Khmer Rouge and the Cultural Revolution.

Changed perverted to extreme. This actually gets some larger debates on how one chooses to view the Cultural Revolution.

“Perverted” was the apt term, not extreme. Pol Pot diverted from the principles of Maoism ideologically, hence “perversion”. ‘More extreme’ implies a contrast in ideological fervency and dedication.

I agree completely with the difference between perversion and extreme, which is why I made the change. As I said before the problem is how we view Maoism and the Cultural Revolution. I changed the language again try to avoid the issue.
---------------------

“Virulent” is not a compromise between “perverted” and “extreme”. So far, only the word “perverted” can account for the ideological contrasts. The reference to Stalinism is way off. Pol Pot was quite the enemy of Stalinist-style modernization. 172 172

The paradox is that the USA were supporting maoists (realpolitik ?). The paradox is not that the Khmer Rouge were anti-soviet.

About perverted/extreme : It's not an easy question to connect the Cambodian genocide with Khmer Rouge ideology, ideology doesn't explain all.

User:Ericd

The US directly and indirectly supported Pol Pot, even though he was an adherent to a perverted form of Cultural Revolution-era Maoism.

Is this the intended meaning? --mav

How does "perverted" keep showing up? Why not "called himself a Maoist" or "adherent to a form of Cultural-Revolution-era Maoism" or "adherent to a Maoist sect". It's not as if there was a Maoist Bureau of Standards. The "perverted" can't be anything but POV. Ortolan88

Pol Pot altered Maoism. That's why it's a "perverted" form. He also drew a lot from Khmer nationalism. You people put me in the unusual position of having to defend Maoism, which I oppose.

There is a point of view that argues that Pol Pot refined Maoism and that the ideology of the Khmer Rouge was more purely Maoist than the ideology of the Communist Party. This gets into the really messy question of what is Maoism

and who defines what Maoism is. At some point that should be added to the article on the Khmer Rouge, and I suspect that you and I take opposite sides of the question.

IMHO it's better in Wikipedia to explicitly state a debate

rather than to merely allude to it in words.

--- User:Roadrunner

I changed the sentence to emphasize the contradiction that ericd was trying to get at without getting into messy ideological debates. That one word (perverted vs. extreme) is the tip of an iceberg and its better to describe the iceberg elsewhere.

-- User:Roadrunner

Talking about a perverted form of maoism mean the is an non-perverted form of maiosm that's not sure... we will never get out of such a debate so it's better not to go in in the article.

User:Ericd

Actually, I think we should to into the debate somewhere in the article. It's just too complicated to express in one word.
Also I reverted, moving the article up makes it sound like the United States intentionally supported Pol Pot in the early 1970's.

No the right place is in the Khmer Rouge article !!!

There seems to be a lot of text in this article that isn't directly related to the subject (sic Pol Pot). This text needs to be moved or deleted. Please keep the subject of the article in mind while editing. --mav

Pol Pot studied in Paris I still wonder to what extend if he wasn't more influenced by Robespierre than Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Mao. User:Ericd

Removed sentence about U.S. support. The United States most certainly was not supporting Pol Pot in the early 1970's.

Also the Shawcross thesis is highly controversial and the whole section needs balance.

User:Roadrunner

I agree with you US supported Pol Pot after 1978. Not before. 172 moved one paragraph. I think his attitute is not really NPOV. On About the Shawcross thesis it seemsz accepted by historian than american bombing destabilized Cambodia and served Pol Pot's propaganda but the sentence "would probably not have come to power without" his highly speculative and controversial.

User:Ericd

This probably belongs in the Khmer Rouge section but there the main reason the Shawcross thesis is controversial is that it gets into the very painful question of "who in the United States is responsible for the Khmer Rouge". While it is necessary to mention Shawcross, I think that the article is quite unbalanced without mentioning the views of American Conservatives who point out that funding for the Lon Nol government was cut by Congress, and that a number of leftist intellectuals (namely Noam Chomsky) were quite supportive of the Khmer Rouge until it became clear how awful they were.

User:Roadrunner

I think that the claim that Chomsky ever "supported" the Khmer Rouge is itself highly controversial.

It is somewhat controversial in the sense that Chomsky denies it, but personally I find his denials rather unconvincing. It probably would be better to hash it out in the Chomsky article.

Also, even if it were true that he did (and I doubt that it is), that bears no relationship that I can see to the historical events surrounding how US government policy helped or didn't help the Khmer Rouge come to power, which is the revelant question for purposes of this article.

Actually "what is the relevant question" is itself a controversial question.
How is it relevant? Even if what many consider the slander against Chomsky were true, he didn't set US policy (he had 0% influence on US policy), and his views on the Khmer Rouge after they came to power have absolutely nothing to do with what the the events and policies were that led to them coming to power. The people in the White House during that period were Nixon and Ford, not Noam Chomsky. soulpatch
This is getting far afield of Pol Pot, but I think that Chomsky understates

and underestimates the influence he has on foreign policy. Political leaders make policy but they do not do so in a vacuum. It seems pretty clear to me that in 1975 Ford wanted to continue funding to Lon Nol but couldn't because of the national mood. The other reason this is relevant is that Chomsky's views on the Khmer Rouge are relevant in order to evaluate his the legitimacy of his opinions on other things.

The national mood was one of being tired of a very long war. Chomsky had nothing to do with creating the national mood, and he CERTAINLY had no influence on Ford. I also don't agree that Chomsky's views on one thing bear necessarily any connection to his views on anything else; people can be wrong about one thing without being wrong about something else. It happens all the time. Who is right about everything? In any case, if that does belong somewhere, it is relevant in the Chomsky article, not here. soulpatch
On the other hand, I would agree that the Lon Nol funding issue is relevant to the subject. (That being said, I also think that if the Khmer Rouge had not developed into a major opposition force, which happened after 1970, it would have been a moot point, since Lon Nol wouldn't have anybody to need US funding to help put down, so the question of what led the Khmer Rouge to develop into a major force after 1970, and the degree of US government's complicity thereof, still seems like a fundamental issue.)
What this basically comes down to is that both pro-war conservatives and anti-war liberals would like to tar the other with the taint of being war criminals and responsible for the actions of the Khmer Rouge.
I actually don't think either side is accusing the other of conscious complicity in this matter. See my comments below. I would point out that the "anti-war liberals" weren't conducting the war, it was the "pro-war conservatives". You can't blame people who aren't in power for how those who were in power conduct a war. That is why the whole Noam Chomsky thing is not relevant to this article.
I think regardless of the outcome of this debate, Chomsky's attitudes toward the Khmer Rouge are relevant in an article about the Khmer Rouge.
My feeling is that his views would only be relevant in such an article if he were actually a signficant figure in the history of the Khmer Rouge; but he wasn't. He had no influence on the Khmer Rouge coming to power, and he had no influence on the US policy that (many believe) led to the Khmer Rouge coming to power. He was just one voice on the sidelines. I just think that any discussion about his views on the Khmer Rouge belong in the Chomsky article, not here. soulpatch
If people want to discuss the charges (which many consider slander) that Chomskey "supported" the Khmer Rouge, then discuss it in his own article, but any discussion of how people on the sidelines of policymaking felt about the war has no bearing on the central question of how those policies affected the outcome in Cambodia. soulpatch
However, I think for which there is general agreement is that no one in the United States government in 1973 wanted the Khmer Rouge to win, and no one in the anti-war movement in 1973 really understood what sort of policies that the Khmer Rouge were going to implement.
I would agree, except to go further to say that no one in the West really undestood what was going to happen in Cambodia. I think the important point about US complicity in Cambodia was, as Shawcross put it, Cambodia was a "sideshow". The US just didn't really care what was happening in Cambodia enough to bother with the implications of its policies.
I think the more difficult question is whether a reasonable person who

did care about Cambodia *should have known* what was going to happen.

I don't think anyone is accusing the US of deliberating setting up the Khmer Rouge so that it would commit those atrocities. The problem with US policy was simply that it cavalierly engaged in policies that did not take into account what it was doing to Camodia. I don't think anyone in 1973 knew what was going to happen in 1975. soulpatch
David Horowitz has quoted Chomsky (possibly unfairly) in such a way that he appears to be making such an accusation. I agree that all the Chomsky related discussion should go in his article. However I am happy that my earlier removal of again has withstood the storm. I had not realised that I was treading on eggshells at the start of last month. Incidentally, has anyone checked whether Sino-Vietnam War is any better an article title than Anglo-French War would be? -- Alan Peakall 17:57 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
Personally, one thing that utterly amazes me is little people complain about Nordom Sihanouk's actions in the matter.
That is a good point. I agree that Sihanouk does deserve blame in this matter. soulpatch
U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge in the 1980's is somewhat more difficult to morally defend, but even there one could point out that the Khmer Rouge were one part of a general anti-Vietnamese coalition and that the government of Hun Sen (and Hun Sen himself) consisted largely of former Khmer Rouge officials and didn't exactly have clean hands.

soulpatch

Guys, please. Anything that changes the meaning of an entry is not a "minor change". WTF is going on with this article?

Rewrote section about the 1970's to remove references about U.S. support. U.S. support for the KR was in the 1980's and is mentioned below.

--User:Roadrunner

172 Read:

That same year, Richard Nixon ordered a military incursion into Cambodia in order to destroy Viet Cong sanctuaries bordering on South Vietnam. Sihanouk's popularity, along with the United States invasion of Cambodia, and subsequent bombings by the US (which continued illegally even after Congress voted to suspend them) drove many to Pol Pot's side and soon Lon Nol's government controlled only the cities. It has been argued that the Khmer Rouge may not have come to power without the destabilization of the Vietnam War, particularly of the American bombing campaigns to 'clear out the Vietamese sanctuaries' in Cambodia. William Shawcross argued this point in his 1979 book "Sideshow".

As you can see above the US role is already in the article. I'm going to resote Roadrunner's version which removed the duplication. --mav


It’s not redundant. Roadrunner said it himself: Rewrote section about the 1970's to remove references about U.S. support. U.S. support for the KR was in the 1980's and is mentioned below.

Nixon's bombing is referenced in one context, the def-facto alliance in another --172

I'll wait to see what Roadrunner has to say. --mav

was a Cambodian politician most famous for his leadership of the Khmer Rouge

I don't think the words politician or famous are the best way to describe this tyrant and mass murderer. "Infamous" would be more accurate. --Uncle Ed

well, I think of politician as a morally neutral word. So is famous. The problem with "tyrant" is, not everyone may agree. Many people think Ronald Reagan and other US presidents are responsibile for massive suffering around the world, but -- whether I agree with them or not -- I would want such people labled in clearly pejorative ways in Wikipedia.
I think the article must include discussion of mass murder in Cambodia. But "infamous mass murderer" smacks of editorializing that violates NPOV. Please don't misunderstand me -- I am not defending the guy. I hate Hitler, but the article on him rightfully begins by describing him as a leader of Germany. Slrubenstein
Is my version OK? Zocky 21:14 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
The word famous carries a connotation of approval. "Well known" is neutral. "Notorious" carries a connotation of disapproval. Just thought I'd point this out. Zocky's version is probably better than mine :-) --Uncle Ed
I think leader is better than politician in that case.
Ericd

The article seems more a history of the Khmer Rouge than a biography of Pol Pot. Should it be recast? --Uncle Ed

Probably a bit... But Ed, please bear NPOV in mind. I'm sure that even in this issue, one side wasn't all good and the other all bad. "Forced to flee" sounds about right to me.Zocky 21:25 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
No, "forced to flee" carries the connotation of persecution. Someone who is trying to subvert a government to create a murderous tyranny isn't being "persecuted". Let's not be pro-Pol Pot, as that would violate the NPOV you just cited. --Uncle Ed
Persecution is the function of the state, not of the individual. I'm sure (in fact, I know) that many of the Soviet dissidents had very distasteful world-views (remember, not all opposition to soviet government was liberal democratic), but persecuted they still were. I don't know enough about Cambodian government before Khmer Rouge, but from what I have, I don't get a picture of idyllic democracy. Zocky 21:32 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
I disagree that "force to flee" carries any connotation of sympathy for the person who fled. It simply connotes the fact that the person was being pursued, and in order to save themselves they ran away. Lots of people, good and bad, have historically been pursued and thus have been "forced to flee". There is no POV inherent in that phrasing. soulpatch

172, we have gone over this before: "virulent and deviant" are NOT NPOV terms. --mav

The deleted content was NPOV because it asserted an empirically verifiable fact, not an opinion. Can anyone reasonably conclude that Pol Pot’s variant of Maoism wasn’t changed substantially and radicalized? Can anyone conclude that Khmer nationalism wasn’t a very important factor? I understand the bad connotation surrounding the word “deviated”. In this context though it denotes major modifications worth mentioning in any illuminating article pertaining to Pol Pot.

172

Either choose more neutral sounding adjectives or use as few adjectives as possible. Words like "virulent" and "deviant", while possibly true in an objective sense, still do evoke an emotional response in the reader which is far from NPOV. Please see your talk page. --mav

Fine, then resotre that text with better adjetives. I can’t think of any off-hand, but I’m sure that you can. Otherwise, I’m sure that we can all agree that this article needs to address his ideology.

172

"radically revised" is much better. BTW you shouldn't expect others to NPOV your edits. That is your job. --mav

---

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize the connotative suggestiveness of those words in that context since I’ve grown accustomed to reading those words in the literature about Pol Pot’s ideology. In that context I was expecting a more denotative interpretation. But this is an encyclopedia article, and I should have been more careful.

172

OK... I've removed the highly speculative bit ("or perhaps it was...") for the 3rd time. 172, you're really hung up on that bit, aren't you? It's completely non-informative and it is speculation, and it doesn't have the encyclopaedic feel to it. Write it matter-of-factly or just leave it out. Any other opinions? Zocky 14:52 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

It is a vast oversimplification to say that Pol Pot was anti-modernist. OPne reason for the forced relocation of many people to the countryside was to increase rice production in order to increase foeign capital that could be invested in industry. I am not saying that the ends justified the means or that the means were even effective, I am saying that the reasons for Khmer policies are not so simple, and not so easy to classify. Slrubenstein

This paragraph has to be revised right away:

"Some believe that under Pol Pot's regime Cambodia was the country that came the closest to existing as a pure Marxist state. Pol Pot believed that Communism was incompatible with an industrial civilization and thus attempted to deurbanize society and eliminate all forms of industry. Collective farms were implemented as the sole form of egalitarian, susitance living, and the campaigns of killings were implemented as a way of eliminating the intelectual opposition of those who refused to particiapte in the system."

I don't know where to begin explaining where that notion is way off. Perhaps “communalism” instead of “Marxist” would be appropriate. Bypassing socialism and favoring a direct route to communism goes against all the conceptions of Marxism.

For now, I'm going to change "Marxist" to "communalist". But this is only a temporary solution pending dialogue and more revisions to that paragraph. 172

It doesn't matter if it's "way off" or not. Some people believe this, so it's worth mentioning. user:J.J.

Yes, some people misinformed people believe things that are incorrect. I haven't read the work of a single expert, however, who claimed that Pol Pot was a "pure" or orthodox Marxist. By his own account, by-passing the intermediate stage of socialism means that he's not a "pure" Marxist. I think that the writer, by mistake, meant "communist" or "communalist" rather than "Marxist". I've heard some saying that Pol Pot's regime came close to pure "communism", and there's a good argument for that, but I’ve never heard any expert claiming that Pol Pot’s regime closely adhered to Marxist ideology. It's sometimes easy, however, to confuse terms like e "socialist", "Marxist", "communist", "communitarian", etc.

172

Yet another Wikipedia page whose bizarre ideas could only come from one country - the USA, and only from the fevered minds of the denizens of that country that lean to the right.

I don't really know where to start in all of this mythology, but their notion that the cities were evacuated because the CPK had some strange ideological desire to seems to be a decent starting point. The reality is that the US Air Force bombarded the Cambodia countryside for years, killing hundreds of thousands. This drove food growing peasants out of the countryside and into the cities - overcrowding them and causing a massive food shortage. The CPK took over a country on the verge of starvation. Evacuating these people back to the countryside to grow their own food is the most practical, logical thing the CPK could have done. Yet throughout Wikipedia, someone seems to be trying to paint it as some mad, ideological, Luddite, whatever thing to have done. I'm sure if the CPK had let things be, there would be much moaning about how the communists engineered a famine or whatever nonsense.

-- Lancemurdoch 06:36, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would also like to know why vietnam invaded cambodia. perhaps this is not the article for that.

i would like to know more about pol pot in paris. whta happened to him there? what did he see? who else was with him? who were his influences there?

Vietnam invade due to a refugee crisis from the Maoist utopia. TDC 00:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Another page protection?

Very Verily,

You will not get away with arbitrarily reverting the work of anyone else but me. After all, when I'm not a party in a dispute, **I** can intervene as an admin to stop the edit war. And I am not a participant in the Cambodia-related edit wars (my edits to the Cambodia-related pages have solely entailed adding past protection notices).

If you refuse to discuss your differences with Hanpuk directly, as opposed to griping about superficial behavioral red herrings on other users' pages, **I** will protect the page. BTW, I will not be acting in a capacity in which I can be accused of protecting "the wrong version" I will protect the most recent version of the page once the three revert rule has been violated, irrespective of whose version is protected. I'll will post this notice: This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page. 172 08:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Saloth Sar --> Pol Pot, request for details?

The article says Saloth Sar was better known as Pol Pot... but doesn't mention why. Did he change his name? (why, when?) Was it a title or epithet? (meaning what?) A pseudonym? (taken for what purpose?) —Muke Tever 01:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Must be his revolutionary name. Lenin and Trotsky also had revolutionary names, their real names: Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov and Lev Davidovich Bronstein.

It is most commonly thought to stand for "Political Potential," but Pol Pot usually referred to be called "Brother Number One."

  • I've seen the above cited before, but find it highly unlikely that Pol would have named himself in English as opposed to Khmer or French. Philip Short's Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare gives the name "Pol" as being a reference to the name that Sar used when writing for an underground newspaper as a teenager; "Pot" having been added according to a Khmer alliterative naming custom (as with Son Sen, Vorn Vet, and many others). Ergot 18:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Pol Pot means Politique Potentielle which is the French for Potential Policy (Member Avi, July 26th 2006)

Philip Short writes in his book "Pol Pot: The History of a Nightmare" that Saloth/Pol regularly changed his alias to make it more difficult for Cambodian authorities to figure out who, and what, he was.

[edit] Hopelessly slanted

This article is hopelessly slanted. It repeats much of the same propagandistic POV material, often verbatim, that can be found at Khmer Rouge.

Of course it does. The communists and their empty-headed fans always do their best to rewrite history to try to make their favorite thugs look like enlightened statesmen.

I won't repeat the discussion; see the talk page for Khmer Rouge. It is apparent that a number of censors just won't allow any questioning of their right-wing fairy tales. Shorne 00:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The killing fields are no more a fairy tale than the holocaust. Try going to Cambodia, and see if you can find ANYONE who didn't lose a relative to Pol Pot's mass murder campaigns.

[edit] Please see Khmer Rouge

Readers are invited to see the talk page for Khmer Rouge, where I am tearing the POV-pushers limb from limb. Shorne 22:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation requested

User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 10:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Changes that need to be made

Like I said, the evacuation took place after Lon Nol fled in mid-1975. It's true that Sihanouk was "head of state" at that time but the Khmer Rouge were de facto in control since they'd marched into Phnom Penh.

Also, a couple weeks (?) ago I changed the info on starvation to read a little less like pro-KR POV. Phnom Penh was overcrowded, yes, but the current version presents it like the KR tactic was the only way to keep the city and other urban areas from starving to death, despite the fact that this insane and impossible kind of "self-sufficiency" had always been rooted in their ideology and they refused offers of outside aid. J. Parker Stone 20:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What school did he study at in Paris?

"In 1949, he won a scholarship to study radio engineering in Paris. During his studies, he became a communist and joined the French Communist Party. In 1953, he returned to Cambodia." Anyone know what school/instituion he studied at? And who/what provided the scholarship? 58.147.26.57 17:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It was a technical school; I can look up the exact institution if anyone really cares. The scholarship was provided by Norodon Sihanouk to a number of students in an endeavor to help modernize Cambodia. Ergot 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin et al

Based on popular opinion is what he did to the Khmer people considered genocide? If not, can it be comparable to what Hitler and Stalin did? Obviously Stalin had more years to do what he did and Hitler had a few more than Pol Pot for the most part. The Rwandan Genocide may have been the fastest, but is Pol Pot comparable to any of those dictators? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.9.252 (talk • contribs) .

I would submit that yes, Pol Pot is comparable, in that he, as the leader of the government in question, is responsible for the things that went on "on his watch." Is he the same as the others that you mention? Well, that's why one would want to compare, to figure that out. In any case, I would point you to the Khmer Rouge page and corresponding discussion page. There is a great deal of discussion about genocide, autogenocide, etc. --Easter Monkey 04:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some points

Not sure how or were to include some of these points here ,or even if they all belong here, but I'll just express them here freely for comments and as ideas. The rise of the Khmer Rouge to power was preceded by a CIA coup against the Cambodian government and a masssive US assault on Cambodia. US bombing of Cambodia killed at least several hundred thousand people. This amounts to a US-sponsored genocide prior to Pol Pot. It was this US assault which lead to the rise of the Khmer Rouge as it fought against the US-backed dictatorship. Prior to the CIA coup the Khmer Rouge were a minor party but they gained much more popularity after it.

Eventually the Khmer Rouge took power and committed genocide but at the same time Indonesia invaded and conquered East Timor, murdering between one-forth and one-third of the population. This was done with US support & funding. As atrocities increased against the East Timorese US funding also increased to insure that Indonesia wouldn't run out of weapons to exterminate them with. Coverage in US media (which largely consisted of regurgitation of state department & indonesian lies) declined as atrocities increased. When they reached their highest point coverage dropped to zero. This happened at the same time as Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia, which the media were giving lots of attention to while ignoring the US-backed genocide in East Timor.

The Khmer Rouge were kicked out of power by a Vietnamese invasion, which ended the genocide. That is the enemy of the US put a stop to Pol Pot's genocide, and the US's response was to support Pol Pot's guerilla war against Vietnam. The US assisted Pol Pot's attempt to get back in power, which failed, fortunetly.

From what I understand, looking at contemporary documents, full realization of what was happening in Cambodia did not occur until after the the KR fell; I don't think any American knew where East Timor was until very recently.--Dudeman5685 23:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you obviously do not understand all that well. Numerous reports about the Khmer Rouge atrocities were reaching the West in the mid-to-late 70s (that is, while Pol Pot was still in power). So much so that Chomsky infamously attempted to dismiss these reports as "Western propaganda", even basing his "Propaganda model" around them, which rightfully earned him the eternal infamy of "Pol Pot apologist". 212.251.124.246 15:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Your points don't merit inclusion here because you are just parroting Noam Chomsky and some other leftovers from the 1970s. The rise of the Khmer Rouge to power was proceeded by "neutralist" third-word icon Norodom Sihanouk murdering his political opponents and selling out Cambodia to China/North Vietnam for large amounts of cash.
In the name of "neutrality", applauded by the western left, Sihanouk invited the Vietnamese to set up bases in the country and to use its ports for arms shipments. He also cut a deal to sell the national rice crop to the vietnamese. When Cambodian peasents started selling the rice direct to the NVA/Viet Cong in the border areas, Sihanouk sent in the army and triggered the initial peasent revolt which grew into the Khmer Rouge insurgency.
After having led a campaign of murder, repression and corruption for over a decade, the country had enough of the man and deposed him. Sihanouk, angry that his slaves had dared to overthrow their god-king, went to China and turned into a cheerleader for the Khmer Rouge and the violent destruction of the Cambodian government. He didn't care how many people died in the civil war or how much of cambodia would be destroyed. He didn't even care what the Khmer Rouge would do once they were in power. He wanted revenge and he didn't care if Cambodia was destroyed in the process.
What happened after Sihanouk was deposed was that the Cambodian government told the Vietnamese that they could no longer use Cambodia as a base, they could no longer use the country's ports to bring in weapons and that their army had to leave. The Vietnamese reacted by giving the Khmer Rouge almost unlimited quantities of weapons which they used against the government.
The Vietnamese and Chinese gave the Khmer Rouge whatever weapons they wanted and sent them off to destroy Cambodia. By the end of the war, the majority of the people were living as refugees in slums surrounding the major cities. The war had destroyed all the material wealth of the country. After that, the Khmer Rouge finished the job by killing lots of people.
You ignorantly talk of "US Genocide" and simply parrot the old line of the idiots who supported the KR in the 1970s. You also Parrot Chomsky with regard to East Timor. Indonesia took over East Timor on its own because the indonesian nationalists considered it part of Indonesia. Its existance was only due to western colonialism. The scale of what happened in East Timor was not on anywhere near the scale of what happened in Cambodia. In fact, it has nothing to do with Cambodia. Its nothing more than a lame excuse for Chomsky to explain his ill-considered stands in the 1970s with regard to Cambodia.
You are also an apologist for Vietnamese imperialism. The Vietnamese did not invade Cambodia to end genocide, they invaded it because they considered Cambodia to be their property. The Vietnamese installed a puppet government run by a former Khmer Rouge official. They didn't care one way or the other about the Khmer Rouge crimes. They just wanted their new slave colony to be run efficiently.
You repeat the old lie that the US "supported" Pol Pot after the Vietnamese invasion. The truth is that the US refused to allow Vietnam's puppet regime in Cambodia (led by a former Khmer Rouge Cadre) to take Cambodia's seat at the UN. The US considered official recognition of Vietnam's colonial regime in Cambodia to be worse outcome than allowing the deposed KR government to hold on to a seat at the UN.
As far as "full relization" of what was happening in Cambodia, people did know what was going on. They (led by men like Chomsky) simply refused to accept it. Right before they took power, they openly published lists of those they intended to kill. After they took power, the Khmer Rouge kidnapped and murdered westerners at sea. They invited a leftist friend of theirs into the country to see the new Cambodia and they MURDERED him. (Malcolm Caldwell). Everyone knew what was going on, but the friends of Cambodia didn't want to believe it.205.188.117.9 06:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Kampuchea

There is Democratic Kampuchea article. The Pol Pot article should rather inform about him. Xx236 09:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent Discrepancy in Numbers

In the last line of the introduction it is said that, "Today the excesses of his government are widely blamed for causing the deaths of up to two million Cambodians." Yet, below under Democratic Kampuchea the following is listed: "Pol Pot's regime killed 4-5 million people between 1975-1979..." Both of these statements can't be true, can they? Blinutne 18:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Now neither are right. Cambodia's population was only 7-8 million before the Khmer Rouge took over. If the person who put in 4-5 million can cite a reliable source that says over half the population died, then it could stay. Otherwise, it's inaccurate. I have never seen an estimate over 3 million, most are between 1.5 and 2 million.

in addition, this part: "The Khmer Rouge refused offers of humanitarian aid, a decision which proved to be a humanitarian catastrophe: millions died of starvation and brutal government-inflicted overwork in the countryside. To the Khmer Rouge, outside aid went against their principle of national self-reliance."

seems to conflict with the two million number as well. it seems that for "millions" to do from these reasons, nobody could have died from outright killing. you can't really take "millions" (plural) out of 2 million to get the number of people who died from reasons other than starvation and overwork. Murderbike 23:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographical details needed

It seems to me that most of this entry belongs in the Khmer Rouge section, rather than in Pol Pot's biographical entry.

If anyone can dig up information on his formative years and the evolution of his ideology, then this section would be more complete.

I've reworked most of the page to do this. I've decided not to rework the 1975-1979 section because its too political a subject and I'd rather work on other things. Its difficult to seperate the Khmer Rouge from Pol Pot because he was the movement and large parts of his life can only be detailed in terms of the movement. I've done my best to show the evolution of the ideology, how it differs from Marxism, Maoism or anything else. 64.12.116.134 03:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

Someone put a clean-up tag some months ago, with reason. I've trimmed a bit the first section, but even a quick look on the article shows that it needs trimming, besides Wikifaction. My attention-time, and I supposed anyone's else, is limited, and I do not wish to learn all details of Pol Pot's primary school education when reading an article on him. Lapaz 23:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The cleanup tag was added months ago when the content of the article was little more than an arguement over events 1975 to 1979. The current article contains a large amount of new material that was recently written. The page is being slowly improved and if you don't have the time, please leave it to the people already working on it. 168.127.0.51 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Carter claim

A statement was added to the article to the effect that the Carter Administration was supporting the Khmer Rouge in 1977. This claim is simply false. It is not supported by the cited source. The closest the source comes is the statement:

In 1981, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said: "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot." The US, he added, "winked publicly" as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge.

The quote is from 1981 long after Carter was out of office. The quote is not sourced or dated as far as what time Brzezinski is talking about. China was sending arms to Cambodia and supporting Pol Pot since the early 1970s. They required no encouragement to continue a policy that was already in place.

In general, the source used is completely politically biased in favor of the current Cambodian government under the control of ex-Khmer Rouge member Hun Sen and Vietnam. It repeats the old discredited Vietnamese political message from the 1980s that Vietnam and its army had to rule Cambodia to save it from the Khmer Rouge. When, in fact, Vietnam's new administration was full of Khmer Rouge. 168.127.0.51 15:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Brzezinski could only have been referring to the time Carter was president, because that was the time Pol Pot was active. Besides, in all probability he was talking with regard to his capacity as national security adviser. It's true that the Chinese wouldn't need encouragement, but if there had been strong objections by the US, then I believe they would have thought twice. Anyway, because this is a sensitive issue, I won't restore the content in the article, but I will put the link here, so it is easily accessible to anyone interested.
http://www.zmag.org/meastwatch/pilgerpot.htm
--Atavi 12:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I can accept statements about Carter Administration policy after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. After Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, the Chinese/Thais/Americans were all complicit in various activities. If the date were changed from 1977 to 1979, I would not have as much of a problem with what you wrote. 168.127.0.51 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
At this point I should perhaps say that although I did write the text about which we are having this discussion, I didn't come up with the idea itself.
User:64.192.107.144 had written a text, which I quote:
In 1977, relations with Vietnam began to fall apart. There were small border clashes in January mostly due to refugees fleeing Cambodia into Vietnam. Even though this arena had recently experienced a celebration of the end of the Vietnam War, the President of the United States, Jimmy Cater, continued to arm and support socialist governments around the world including the Khmer Rouge. He failed to realize that socialist governance has failed the test of time. Therefore, the United States in effect became an accomplise in the Khmer Rouge campaign.
I thought that it was too biased, but in the same time I wondered if there was any truth in it. I searched the web and came up with the link I provided. Combining the paragraph written by someone else and what the reference was saying I wrote my text.
I don't know much either about Carter policy or Cambodian history.
What I am trying to say is that it seems would be better suited to write any text about Jimmy Carter, if indeed any mention should be made.
--Atavi 10:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slanted - hardly any mention of international factors

The way the article stands now, it mainly says: An evil ignorant man rose to power and did bad things. Which is not completely wrong but it doesn't explain how he could rise to power from a marginal leader of 18 comrades (as mentioned in the article) to an all-out dictator. The main cause for that was the Vietnam war and especially the US strategy (denied at the time and completely illegal) of bombing Cambodia back to the stone age. This devastation caused the complete destruction of the country, destabilisation and was the root cause behind the rise of the barbaric Pol Pot regime. And all of this is well documented, e.g. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Sideshow.html or if you want a more respected source, the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/newsmakers/1952981.stm As long as this is missing this article, to me, is completly missing in NPOV. --84.188.210.25 23:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The article gives a comprehensive account of the rise of Pol Pot and the CPK insurgency covering events from the 1950s to the 1990s. As mentioned in the article, Pol Pot's insurrection against the Cambodian government began in the mid-1960s before the large-scale bombings you are referencing. It is simply impossible to say that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were the product of US bombings in 1970.
The first source you cite (Shawcross) has nothing to do with Pol Pot. Its a history of America's role in the Vietnam war from an America-centric perspective. This article (Pol Pot) specifically is written from the perspective of Cambodian history rather than how Cambodian history relates to American politics or American wars.
The only relivant material in the second source is: "His critics refer to Kissinger's complicity in the illegal carpet-bombing of neutral Cambodia, designed to deprive North Vietnam of troops and supplies, but which sowed the seeds for the murderous Pol Pot regime.". The quote is not sourced and makes any number of claims that are politically disputed to say the least:
  • "illegal carpet-bombing of neutral Cambodia". The statement is factually wrong in that most of the bombings were done with the complicity of the Cambodian government. Calling Cambodia neutral is factually wrong. Cambodia had Vietnamese bases on its soil and was allowing the shipment of weapons to Vietnamese forces through its ports. During the peak of the bombing in the 1970s, the North Vietnamese were arming and training an insurgency aimed at destroying the Cambodian government. How is it possible to consider Camboidia as a "neutral".
  • "sowed the seeds for the murderous Pol Pot regime". This is not supportable. The CPK insurgency which became the Pol Pot regime started before Kissiinger was even in the government. And if you want to start looking at complicit war criminals, start with Prince Norodom Sihanouk and continue with the Khmer Rouge murderer who was installed by the Vietnamese as ruler of Cambodia (Hun Sen).
The material you wish added to the article is itself NPOV. The old simple-minded explainations that the Khmer Rouge went "insane" because of American bombs is nonsense. It disregards the history of Cambodia itself and replaces it with ill-constructed theories with no basis in fact. 168.127.0.51 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Given the lack of discussion and the vagueness of the NPOV claim, I'm removing the tag from the section now. 12.96.162.45 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What if...?

What if the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot hadn't brought communism to Cambodia? How would life there be different?

Cambodia would have been spared the bloodbath of the Khmer Rouge era. But communism would still have been brought there. What happened after the Khmer Rouge (Vietnamese occupation and a puppet government) would have happened earlier as it did in Laos. The Vietnamese would likely still have left around the end of the cold war and their puppet government would likely have survived (as it did with the KR era). In summary, many less people would be dead or maimed but the basic political situation would not be radically different than it is today.

[edit] date of death

Why is the year and day Pol Pot died different...on the same page?!?

[edit] supporters section

I've removed the "supporters" section. Its not appropriate for this article. If you want to create an article on that group, create a seperate one. I can't find any mention of the group aside from a geocities page and the reference here. They are marginal (at best) and don't deserve free advertising in a biography.

12.96.162.45 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personality

I've read in a couple places that, in person, Pol Pot was actually a pretty nice guy. I don't really know if there is anywhere to put this in the article at all, but if anyone has any bright ideas, go for it. 71.65.240.196 09:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maoist Category

Its wrong to list Pol Pot under the category Maoists. Neither Pol Pot nor Mao Zedong considered him Maoist. ITs true he had good relations with China but that was simply power politics he also had good relations with The USA, and ASEAN. Since all of them feared the expansion of the Soviets and Vietnam. In addition he had much better relations with China with the free market Deng Xiaoping (who actually went to war to save him in 1979), than he ever did with Mao. The only thing in favor of calling Pol Pot a Maoist is the western generalizations that say his policies were similar to Mao's Cultural Revolution and classify North Korea as Stalinist. Anyway if neither Maoists nor Pol Pot consider him a Maoist I think its pretty inaccurate on a strictly factualy basis to label him a Maoist. We can't play the role of determing what poltics someone "really" has. Saying that Pol Pot isnt a Maoist is in no way a value judgement of Maoism after all there are still real evil Maoists such as the Gang of Four, but its simply a factual inaccuracy. We cant label Tony Blair a conservative or Guliani a democrat for example just because they might have some conservative or democratic polciies. The only legitimate way you can label Pol Pot a Maoist is if you can provide a primary source where he openly states that he is in favor of Maoist policies. --Gary1234 19:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] wait...

i don't think my first post got through so i'll try again

In the section The Path to Power (1969-1975) it states

At the beginning of 1976, the movement was estimated to consist of no more than 1500 regulars.

but then later it states

In early 1972, Pol Pot toured the insurgent/Vietnamese controlled areas and Cambodia. He saw a regular Khmer Rouge army of 35,000 men taking shape supported by around 100,000 irregulars.

 Is it a typo? besides the year 1976 doesnt fit with the section 1969-1975.

sorry if this is a double post —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tissueissues (talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Pol Pot's Death: Poisoned?

From the outset it struck me as odd that ther KR leadership would allow Pol Pot to live after his show trial. Mercy was generally not the KR way, and Ta Mok (who was running things in Anglong Veng) was/is the antithesis of a merciful guy. Also it would make no sense to have Pol Pot blathering in public about things the KR leadership would rather keep secret. Even if it was for money, it would have made more sense to pay for his death than to pay for his life.

So it came as no surprise when nearly a year after his death, there was a very brief wire story asserting that one of the "house arrest" guards admitted that Pol Pot had been murdered by an injection of poison to the heart, and not from stroke or heart attack.

This was not widely reported, I saw it only once and no one seemed to pick it up. I have never seen it mentioned in any subsequent reporting about Pol Pot.

Maybe someone from FEER or the Phnom Penh Post would remember this?

First off the KR's led by Pol Pot killed millions (more like 4 million) They were supported behind the scenes by both PRC & USA and were opposed to VN & USSR. In fact some of the KR upper crust (if you can call shit like that upper crust) reside in the USA or at least their offspring do. I have met a few young women who attend certain metro non pub colleges whose parents were KR bastards. Thank your lucky stars that VN ended the madness in Kam poo chia. They are never given credit for doing so -- always other reasons are given. It was a humanitarian thing the VN government did in going into Cambodia. Paul Potts

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/l/Talk%7EPol_Pot_7ca2.html"