learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by Tired on April 15, 2025 10:45

The fundamental problems in Khmer Rouge’s ideology are highly prominent. It begins with the hierarchy that they created within the Khmer Rouge. Those who were seen as “empty vessels”, or easily malleable in terms of personality and following orders were seen as the highest in society. Those who could obediently and submissively follow their rules, such as children and country peasants were given more authority compared to the rest. In the film ”The Killing Fields”, The main character Dith Pran explains how he has to sit in silence in order to survive in the society Khmer Rouge built, illustrating that only those who don’t have any outward personality, or have any ‘thoughts’ were considered the best. Another fundamental issue with the KR ideology is that anyone with knowledge or had some remote form of intelligence were killed. In the film “The Killing Fields” and “First They Killed My Father”, we can see clear examples of this. In “The Killing Fields”, Dith witnesses the soldier call for all people who had been a ‘doctor, journalist, or student’ to stand up and they would supposedly be forgiven by Angkar. We know that this isn’t true, and they’d later get taken away and killed. The same thing happens in “First They Killed My Father”, where Luong overhears her parents talking about how the father’s job could get the entire family killed. We can also see that because one man had used french medicine for their child, he was tied to a tree and beaten and left to die. The idea that intelligence or Western ideology was seen as a shameful thing was their downfall because these are key factors to a working society. If nobody knows how to do anything other than work, then they simply cannot survive.

It’s hard to draw a line for what’s ethical and unethical to bring change. But there are some rational and fair reasons that we can create based on the failure of Khmer Rouge’ Kampuchea. Violence, torture, and any physical harm to others should never be allowed to bring change. Putting people through the thinnest and worst possible conditions will not only hurt their output of labor and work in the long run, but it will also cause them to be psychologically weary and tired. Especially because the Khmer Rouge had made them constantly listen to their propaganda and beliefs, Cambodians were coerced to immoral opinions. Although one can argue that suffering can teach big lessons, there should be an extent to how much suffering one undergoes to understand what they did wrong or how to do better. In the film, Luong’s sister and brother get beaten by soldiers simply for eating food, which is a basic right all people should have. Furthermore, if the movement or society bringing change is causing people to fear speaking to others about it because they fear getting killed, that is a large sign which points to the tyranny of the supposed change. As historically seen, “because the KR were so secretive, America's warnings were by definition speculative, based mainly on rumors and secondhand accounts” (102 Power). The only reason they were able to keep things undercover was because the victims were too afraid to speak up, knowing full well that they’d get killed if they had said anything. In another excerpt, it talks about how the Cambodians who did tell their accounts in the camps referred to what they were saying as “information” but not fact, because they did not want soldiers to find out that they had told the outside world of their atrocities and suffering. Overall, we should learn from the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge and not make any person go through what the Cambodians did.

One of the most compelling ideas in this post is how the Khmer Rouge elevated those seen as “empty vessels” while persecuting the educated. I fully agree with this point that this was a flaw in their ideology; it created a society that valued obedience over critical thought, which is ultimately unsustainable. The way that this idea was connected to both The Killing Fields and First They Killed My Father was especially strong, especially the examples of people being punished or killed merely for having been doctors or using medicine. That really demonstrates how destructive the regime’s fear of intellect was.

Also, the point about the ethics of bringing change is also well thought. It effectively manages to argue that suffering and fear cannot be valid tools for progress, especially when basic human needs like food and safety are taken away. This ties in well with other discussions I’ve seen in all of the other posts as well as my own, about the dehumanizing effects of totalitarian regimes.

This analysis is very strong overall, but it could be improved slightly by adding more to some sentences for clarity. I think that possibly adding more context could strengthen the argument. However, still, this post is thoughtful, well-supported with examples, and shows a detailed and strong understanding of both the historical context and the emotional weight of the films.

Originally posted by succulentplant on April 15, 2025 12:58

With armed struggle and war a reality of life for people all over the world, one draws the line as to which means are ethical and unethical depending on the effect and rate of the change. If the suffering will ultimately quickly lead to peace and freedom, then I do believe that it is worth the fight. However, if not much were to change then I’d consider all of the suffering meaningless and unnecessary. I believe that a “better society” is so important and certainly worth fighting for. However, the fight is truly not worth it if it requires the sacrifice of millions of people. When it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, desperate efforts to end the suffering for good and preserve the society are necessary. On the part of the international community, many actions could have been taken to ameliorate the harm done to the people of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge between 1975-79. For instance, American advisers living in Vietnam, such as Kenneth Quinn, should have reported and documented the numerous accounts of victims describing the horrors they witnessed. These accounts should have been taken with great consideration due to the frequency of similar reports and the grand atrocities they describe. Had the victims’ accounts been taken seriously, the international community may have been made aware of the situation sooner and therefore would have taken action sooner. Additionally, the government of the international community should have made the issue more known to the public. For instance, the government of the United States should have shared their knowledge, despite limited, with the nation, as citizens hold tremendous amounts of power. Rather than do this, the US government hid valuable information and downplayed the severity of the situation. This led to many Americans not being well educated and an overall lost interest in the crisis, making the US less willing to aid the people of Cambodia. Additionally, the international community should have acted by any means necessary to ameliorate the harm done to the people of Cambodia, especially having witnessed the Holocaust and Vietnam crisis. The United States held back from aiding, which was partly due to their alliance with NATO. Despite their alliance, they should have still acted, as sometimes violence is a valid force if used to end suffering and reach peace. National sovereignty should be overridden to stop the immense suffering of people, especially in cases of genocide, in which the perpetrators aim to murder an entire population of innocent people. The national sovereignty could have been overridden by greater military interventions made by the United States, which would have served as a warning to the Khmer Rouge to cease their course of action. Furthermore, the United States could have aimed to override national sovereignty by threatening the Khmer Rouge more harshly, having extreme global power. Not just the United States, but other nations as well could have attempted negotiations and applied greater pressure on the Khmer Rouge.

I agree with the idea about suffering being worth it if it can quickly bring peace and freedom, however, I do believe this is very hard or almost impossible to achieve as any conflict, no matter how quick it may be, would leave lasting consequences and pain and would likely pave way for more conflict in the future. The topic about suffering is very hard to see as an outsider since one would generally believe that people going through a political conflict would only suffer during the time frame in which there is unrest. I think this usually goes deeper as many people lose their homes, lose their family members, and lose their sense of life so much so that their lives are basically ruined from that point onward. In war and in conflict, I do believe that suffering is most of the time unnecessary as the destruction of people's lives is almost never justifiable no matter the cause as there is no perfect ideology in the world which has no flaw or no weakness to it. A main way I think about it is asking all the people who's lives were destroyed after a conflict if they feel like their suffering was worth it and if they would go through it again in another if they were to relive their life. In my opinion, most people would likely say no to this, I know I as an example wouldn't.

Originally posted by facinghistorystudent on April 15, 2025 10:51

Some fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology were that they believed that Cambodians were selfish and corrupted by capitalism, making them greedy. This could be seen in the movie First They Killed My Father when the soldiers would scream at the civilians that they had to renounce private property and let go of their selfish desires. Additionally, they wanted to restructure society, promoting agricultural work which could also be seen in the movie. I do not believe that these ideologies were simply a failure in the KR leaders’ interpretation and execution of communism. Instead, I believe that these ideologies and their outcomes highlight the inherent flaws within communism. There are various other situations throughout history where communism has led to an authoritarian government similar to the one in Cambodia, such as the Soviet Union and China. Additionally, the restructured society that KR leaders forced upon Cambodian citizens is not uncommon for communist nations to go through. In order to go from a society with class distinctions to a classless society, going through some form of restructuring as a nation is unavoidable. The end result of the restructured society that the KR leaders forced onto Cambodian citizens might have been unique, but the actual action highlights an inherent flaw with communism ideology. In order to become a classless society in the way that communist ideology promotes, it is necessary to go through some form of restructuring as a nation. Another inherent flaw with communist ideology that was demonstrated by the lack of individual rights for Cambodian citizens. Due to communism’s promotion of a classless society, individuals are pressured to let go of individual wants and needs in favor of the wants and needs of society as a whole. This resulted in extremely harmful effects for Cambodian citizens, as many were forced to work in fields in terrible conditions, and were separated from their families. According to “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea” by Sok Udom Deth, “Many people secretly tried to supplement their diets by eating roots, leaves, and insects. Hundreds of thousands of people died of starvation, overwork, and/or disease.” As we saw in the movie, they were expected to view everyone as equal, so one person could not have more benefits than another person. Also, as we saw in the movie, anyone who went against their communist ideology in any way, such as the man who gave his son medicine from a foreign country to save his life, they would be tortured and executed. This is a flaw within communist ideology as a whole, as it was believed that these executions were necessary and excusable because they were done so that the revolution could move forward. While the situation in Cambodia might have been a more extreme case, as it led to genocide, the fundamentals of their communist ideology are the same as those in many other communist nations throughout history, demonstrating that it was not an issue with the interpretation and execution of communist ideology in Cambodia specifically, but that the issue lies within communist ideology itself.

I agree with the statement about the Khmer Rouge’s belief that the Cambodians were corrupted by capitalism. I find that point interesting because it seems that it’s another example of one race or religion thinking they are better than another. I do think this shows that the USA could’ve had a bigger impact because the United states throughout History has been against communism and has gone to war to stop the spread of it. If the Khmer Rouge wanted to have a communist society and they were killing and harming thousands of innocent men, women and children why didn’t the USA step in sooner. The part in which they said, “Also, as we saw in the movie, anyone who went against their communist ideology in any way, such as the man who gave his son medicine from a foreign country to save his life, they would be tortured and executed.” I wrote about something similar to this as going back to my previous thing, they thought they were superior to them. What I didn’t really write about was the impact that the ideology of communism had on the country and the people. I think that the idea of communism should’ve resulted in the US coming in and helping.

Originally posted by 01000111 on April 16, 2025 20:27

I believe that armed struggle and war is an unfortunate reality all around the world for many people and is often used as a threat to other countries in order for certain people to push an agenda or ideology. In my own opinion, I do not think violence should be used to bring about change as many times it could be done peacefully. Despite this, I see how we have grown as a society to use armed struggle as it is sometimes the only way to stop an oppressor or a threat. The oppressor in this case would be unethical however because change could be brought in a way where no unnecessary blood is shed or without the need of making other people’s lives more miserable. I say miserable because an example was how in the movie, the main character’s family was living a comfortable life among others but were forced to live under horrible conditions in labor camps. This is completely unethical as no one should have any right in removing people from their homes and placing them under inhumane conditions only to push an agenda or ideology onto others. There is really no way to make a perfect society and so I believe no suffering is tolerable for the upbringing of a different leadership like the Khmer Rouge. Also, the phrase of a “better society” is very subjective and up to one’s own interpretation which can be dangerous as it can give rise to people who think they are doing better for those around them but are instead committing horrific acts. I think that what should be done when it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse is that it should be stopped and re-evaluated. Through this, people would be able to see if the ideology which is causing so much struggle is in reality “worth it” or something that should instead be avoided. This is more easy said than done due to what was seen with the Khmer Rouge’s fight for power and control. Those leading the movement did not want to let people, even for a second, think about the ideology and how it could be better or worse for them. Doing this helped them be more successful however it also caused further struggle as people were often punished severely over very simple and unfair things. With this, some problems in Khmer Rouge’s plan and ideology can be seen like their unfair treatment and standards where people were even killed over simple things like wearing glasses. Many lives were destroyed due to the radical thinking of the organization and I believe it displays at least something inherently wrong with communism as this is not an isolated incident. Just next to Cambodia, Vietnam had been fighting against a radical communist group with the help of the Americans and it kind of shows a pattern about communism. The ideology seems to begin most of the amongst those who are the most frowned upon or hated in a society like peasants and farmers who got tired of being treated unfairly. Interpreting communism as their only method for possibly improving their lives, they follow it and then have to take over the country for everyone else to follow the rules. This is wrong as the ideology of communism would only complete its promises through a complete control of a nation and not only with partial power.

I would say that I agree with how violence should be used circumstantially if the lives of a community are being made more “miserable”. However, like this person said, it is really hard to distinguish between regular violence and targeted violence especially when you need to go by international law. I do agree with how they say the Khmer Rouges’ ideology was extremely tainted since they forced people to live in what fit under their definition of a better society. Their ideal vision was just an extreme version of isolationism, and in reality they made no one live better since so many died in proportion. The only lives that were made better were those who were actually in the Khmer Rouge since they received all the benefits, and material goods that they forced the Cambodian people to give up. Their perception of communism is pretty similar to mine since I was a firm believer that on paper communism seems like a nice and dandy idea, however it was proven multiple times in multiple different countries that communism will not work in real life. I also agree with how not only was communism corrupt, but the Khmer Rouges’ execution of it was corrupt as well. The Khmer Rouge preached about communism and all being equal, but higher ranking members of the Khmer Rouge reaped the benefits of communism. There also cannot be people in the same class if there is a group barking orders with the threat of punishment and death.

I think that the most compelling idea that my peer had was that an international community sending humanitarian aid, imposed sanctions, embargoes, and overall stepping in, would have stopped the genocide. Overall, the take over of the Khmer Rouge was ignored; this genocide had about zero coverage, especially in relation to the Vietnam War. After the United States imposed it in the Vietnam War, America wanted a complete separation from South East Asia. My peer’s response and the mention of the Vietnam War reminded me of A Problem from Hell, when they discuss the United State’s hesitation to report, and how even when news outlets covered this, they were often simply ignored. I believe this to be a very large factor as to why this genocide was able to continue on without much criticism. Had international places acknowledged them, the results could have been very different as the Khmer Rouge could have surrendered out of fear. At the same time, there is also no knowing if that would have created even more conflict between these places, as well as resulting in further violence.Again and again it is seen that the U.S’s inability to intervene has caused the loss of so many lives, and it seems that they almost never learn their lesson.

Another moment I found to be very impactful was the use of the quote “to keep you is no gain, to kill you is no loss,” as it fully brought me back to the reality of how extreme these values are. The quote itself ignites an intense amount of fear in the people reading this as well as the ones who experienced it. This quote fully highlights the mindset that the Khmer Rouge had.

Originally posted by bluewater on April 15, 2025 13:47

The Khmer Rouge’s ideologies were far too unrealistic, violent, and extremist. Their policies against technology, medicine, and capitalism were far too extreme and their punishments for those acting against them was death or torture. Cambodia, being a former colony of France, will always retain some of the western influences put onto it. To eliminate western ideologies in any country let alone Cambodia would be nearly impossible as the world had experienced several global wars and were participating in global trade. Pol Pot’s transformation of Cambodia to an agrarian socialist society was too drastic. I believe that this was not just communism’s wrongs but rather Pol Pot’s ineffectiveness in implementing his plans. He moved people from cities into the jungle and forced them to farm for his army while also starving, beating, and murdering them. His implementation of his plans were ineffective as he planned the killings of his own people who were creating food for the military. His unnecessary cruelty was also highlighted in an excerpt from Chapter 6 of A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide which states a Cambodian saying, “to keep you is no gain, to kill you is no loss”. Pol Pot turned his nation into one with no individuality and where people felt oppressed by the government. This is a similar feature in many communist governments but Pol Pot’s systematic murder, torture, and oppression of his own people was a major part in why his people rebelled and he failed.

Change in society should be to bring better things and innovation for the people. These changes should better everyone’s lives and can include economic, social, or technological advancements. Change in society should not be accomplished through excessive violence, torture, and the harm of civilians. Some societies do require violence for change in the case of dictators, tyrants, and rulers who only bring suffering. However, civilians and those unaffiliated with the leader should be spared as they are also victims. In Pol Pot’s case, it was evident that his changes brought great suffering to Cambodians as millions were displaced, killed, tortured, or died from circumstances revolving around his policies. Disease spread in Cambodia and it wasn’t treated because of Pol Pot’s policies of not using western medicine. When it becomes clear that a struggle for change makes society worse, the leader’s power should be stripped or the leader should be taken out of power. Violence was necessary in Cambodia and it took the Vietnamese army to end Pol Pot’s reign.

The international community could have sent humanitarian aid, imposed sanctions, placed embargoes, or stepped in to stop the genocide from occurring. After the Vietnam War, the United States was reluctant to send forces in as the people were outraged at the results of the war. However, the United States and United Nations could have helped the victims by granting them food, shelter, and other basic necessities. Even if these nations didn’t step in directly, they could’ve also threatened or warned the Khmer Rouge against this. In the Bosnian genocide, the United States threatened to send airstrikes, bombs, or troops to stop the massacres but in the Cambodian genocide, nothing was done.

Post your response here.

Originally posted by User0729 on April 15, 2025 20:42

The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia sought to create a classless, agrarian utopia rooted in radical communist principles. Even though it was made in order to improve and create a better Cambodia, those principles led to the deaths of nearly two million Cambodians through starvation, forced labor, torture, and execution. Their methods and goals had deep fundamental flaws both in their understanding of communism and in the way they implemented it into their society. The devastation in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge showed how their flawed misinterpretation of Communism and abuse of power led to a worse state of being and created the complete opposite of what was intended. The Khmer Rouge’s version of communism was not rooted in Marxist analysis or a gradual transformation of society but a desire to completely erase the past and start from “Year Zero.”One of the fundamental problems in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was its rejection of urbanization, education, and intellectualism. The regime viewed cities, clothes, and even glasses as symbols of capitalism and corruption, and this led to the targeting of educated people(teachers, doctors, professionals, and even individuals who wore glasses as enemies/traitors of the regime), They believed that by abandoning the cities and forcing everyone into intensive agricultural labor in the rural and farmlands, that they would have a self-sufficient society and wouldn't need the West or any other major power. In First They Killed My Father, this is made clear when Loung is evacuated from her home and forced to hide her identity as the daughter of a former government official. As she and her family are stationed in the countryside, it shows the complete removal of individual identity and the transformation of people into state tools as they are overworked and starved to provide for the soldiers and those above them. The children were taken from their families and indoctrinated into becoming soldiers and into torturing those who were accused of treason and disloyalty. People were starved and worked to death, not because there was no food, but because the state controlled distribution and punished those it suspected of disloyalty. (re-education as shown in the film) Although the principle of removing class and power from the state, the power imbalance that occurred because of this is what caused deep resentment, on top of removing their lives from them, from those enslaved to the soldiers because they reaped all the benefits that the slaves worked. The regime also thought that in order to create a perfect society, they had to eliminate any potential threat to them. This led to mass executions, torture, and the establishment of detention centers like Tuol Sleng (S-21), where thousands were imprisoned and killed. There was also deep paranoia and distrust within the regime, particularly Pol Pot, which spiraled into chaos, leading to internal purges that destroyed many members. This cycle of fear and violence prevented any stability or development and turned Cambodia into a prison state fueled by terror. People would lie and give others up in order to receive any benefit from their seeming "loyalty," further holding down the regime. The Khmer Rouge’s failure was one of its leadership, governance over the people, and morals because its actions were not guided by reason or some sort of political democracy but by total control, selfishness, and paranoia. They weaponized an interpretation of communism that justified mass murder and total state control. The Khmer Rouge’s brutality was unique in its intensity and its rejection of even the basic needs and rights of its people

This take is amazing, because I fully wrote most of this in my response to the critique of communism as a whole. In this scenario, it didn't work, and in general, it doesn't work. That's just the sad truth- a completely equal utopia is nearly impossible. I really liked how Tuol Sleng was brought up, because if there is any sign that it didn't work by any means under the regime, then it was this by far- the killing of 16,000- brutally, in one prison, for basically no reason, is the epitome of inefficiency. Where can you find people to do such heinous acts, and what possible motivator for it could there bee. This system of complete fear is ridiculous because no one wants to truly live this way. Radicalism never works, yet some were willing to kill their own countrypeople over it, without thinking twice, in the name of Angkar. The point of lack of love for the people makes complete sense, because you essentially enslaved 90% of the nation, enlisted another 9.9%, and then had the 0.1% living it up, eating normally, watching western shows, doing all these forbidden things. That is one point that didn't get brought up as much as I thought it should have, and the only real critique I have for the piece- the hyppocracy of the leaders. Pol Pot did not practice what he preached rules for he- but not me. Medicine was a huge factor of life, there was none, disease and insects took over the populace, but of course, the ruling class kept all those goods. The point of cycles of violence and fear are completely right also. This is because if the Vietcong had never arrived, I believe that the KR could have remained in power for extremely long without external issues (like the US or Russia). They would have continued being in power because the populace just lacked knowledge, information, weapons of revolt, and means of transport. Any revolt would have been an uncoordinated mess. The simple fact is that fear and lack of information going around- fully prevented everyone from revolting, not the lack of hatred for the KR. It's a 1984' esque society. At the end of the day- this is a great LTQ.

Originally posted by traffic cone on April 15, 2025 11:18

The fundamental problems that existed in Khmer Rouge ideology and plan that resulted in the destruction and loss of so many lives in Cambodia are the extreme uses of violence, forceful removal of citizens , along with the removal of classes and intellectual individuals. The Khmer rouge insisted that everyone in Cambodia had to align with their views and could not associate with western imperialism, although their harsh nature resulted in the slaughters of many they considered who were not loyal without any evidence to prove so. This impulsivity seen within the Khmer Rouge to slaughter those as “ killing by mistake is better than keeping an enemy alive was their methodology. Additionally many of those who were forcefully removed from their homes , like those who lived in phnom penh , were told that the Us was going to bomb the city “ In fact, potential bombings by the US and food shortages were not the whole story. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge leadership had been planning Phnom Penh’s evacuation since the early 1970s as part of their ideological scheme of a total communist revolution. Foreigners were ordered out of the country. Soldiers and officials of the Khmer Republic were immediately executed. Everybody, young and old, sick or not, was ordered to leave the city immediately to engage in agricultural activities.”“The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea” by Sok Udom Deth () suffered greatly as they had to lose all their belongings and live in camps. These worker camps were a major cause of death as the conditions were extremely harsh and everyone was eventually subjected to brutality. As seen in the movie First they Killed my Father, the family of the little girl has suffered greatly after losing all their personal belongings, property, and individualism resulting in the placement of the worker camp and the inevitable loss of the parents lives, amongst many others. Lastly a majority of the intellectuals , those who were government officials, teachers, monks, doctors, and etc were targeted, greatly losing their lives and risking the lives of their families. Additionally the girl was treated like “ all children from the age of eight were separated from their parents and placed in labour camps, which taught them that the state was their ‘true’ parents. For the Khmer Rouge, children were central to the revolution as they believed they could be easily moulded, conditioned and indoctrinated. They could be taught to obey orders, become soldiers and kill enemies. Children were taught to believe that anyone not conforming to the Khmer laws were corrupt enemies.” ( “Khmer Rouge Ideology.” Holocaust Memorial Day Trust”) Many people like the girl's father had to lie about his profession in order to survive as long as possible however when they discovered his identity shortly after he was killed. When regarding whether the qualities of the Khmer Rouge leaders displayed a callous interpretation of communism or what is wrong I think it addresses both. As communism in an ideology of having everything equal amongst citizens and a society without classes and additionally individualism, the Khmer Rouge used these principles while making it quite extreme with the extreme amount of force they had used.

I strongly agree that the critical problems with Kampuchea were its extreme deeds of violence and deportations toward its citizens. The Khmer Rouge's cruelty toward its own people was the main reason for the suffering of so many Cambodians. Families were separated, people were killed, and children were taught to hate those who didn't stand with the Khmer Rouge. This point was also made by many other classmates and they also believed that Pol Pot's policies were what led Cambodia to suffering. I liked your insight on the film, First They Killed My Father as it showed the dehumanization of Cambodian civilians during the time. The children became weapons for the war against the Vietnamese while those in camps were made to be farming tools. Another thing I found interesting was the mention of the saying, "killing by mistake is better than keeping an enemy alive" as it really showed how unforgiving the Khmer Rouge was. Both Pol Pot and communism played a role in this genocide as both influenced the policies leading to the systematic murder of those who were deemed to be higher and the enforcement of one social class. Communism is not completely at fault here as Pol Pot twisted it in his own way but we cannot ignore its influence on Pol Pot's decisions and policies. Overall, I agree with all of the points made in this response and I think that it demonstrated your thoughts well. There are some minor grammar and spelling issues but this response shared many ideas that me and other classmates had as well.

Originally posted by souljaboy on April 15, 2025 10:40

Some of the fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rogue’s ideology and plan that caused the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia are that it’s rooted in communism and is an extremely nationalistic country. One example of a plan that caused the destruction of several lives is that they wanted to return the country to Year Zero. Pol Pot’s goal was to eradicate family structures, culture, and traditions. It was a movement of mass violence that led to the death of approximately 1.7 million people and was inspired by leaders like Mao and Stalin. The Democratic Kampuchea showed that communism taken to an extreme can lead to brutal and oppressive regimes exemplified by Khmer Rouge leaders. It’s not that communism itself is inherently wrong, but definitely at the fault of the Khmer Rouge leaders.

Cambodia was completely destroyed the country and is a prime example of a revolution that has gone wrong due to the government’s approach. An armed struggle is usually a method that oppressed people use in order to find justice or independence. One draws a line between ethical and unethical methods to bring change through determining if human rights violations have been crossed or taken advantage of. For example, if there have been mass executions, torture, forced labor, starvation, and more, then there has been a clear ethical line that has been crossed. Suffering is tolerable to bring about a “better society” when it offers an advantage to everyone in the end. It should bring more good than harm, and when it becomes the other way around, it just becomes a state of terror for all citizens, regardless of who you are. When it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, the revolution should be stopped immediately. The government and the rest of the country should’ve recognized such signs when S-21 prisons, where over 12,000 people were tortured and killed, died in mass without a real cause.

The international community should have reduced the harm done to the people of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge by interfering with the revolution—the U.S. pulled out of their war with Vietnam and were able to engage with Cambodia but became extremely reluctant to do so. China and the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN) were able to support the Khmer Rouge, and Vietnam was the only country that intervened with their military to stop the Khmer Rouge in 1979 and overthrew the regime themselves. They also established the People’s Republic of Kampuchea. National sovereignty should be overridden to stop the immense suffering of people if a country is committing mass violence against its own people. Human rights should be prioritized over land and intervention by the international community should save hundreds of thousands of people. Later on, the establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia came, too late, to put an end to the killings going on in Cambodia and were slowed down due to the corruption in the country. This shows that the mass violence in Cambodia could have been ended through the U.S. or several other countries that weren’t in any wars that could have helped Cambodia but didn’t.

I really liked this response, there were many strong points that I agreed with. Specifically, I liked the point that talked about how the problem with the Khmer Rouge was not directly communism, but how certain leaders took advantage of their power, taking the situation to an extreme. I agree with the fact that Cambodia follows a certain rule of communism that a lot of other countries do not. The idea of Year Zero also resonated with me because it was interesting hearing about how getting rid of family, culture, and traditions played such an important role in the violence. I also liked the point about what happens when a revolution crosses a line. I talked a lot about this in my reflection, and how the Khmer Rouge took it way too far. That made me think about the fact that violence just for the point of change can end up hurting innocent people. I think you did a great job discussing your opinions and you made me think of new points and new perspectives. One thing that I think could be changed a little is some rewording of certain sentences, and clarifying a little bit on points. Overall, I think this response was really good and I enjoyed reading it.

Originally posted by Fahrenheit.jr. on April 15, 2025 11:05

As war and violence are inevitable around the world, the struggle for change must be evaluated for justification by its goals and by the means employed, so suffering inflicted upon innocent people cannot be justified by the ideological ways of society. The Cambodian Genocide exemplifies the Khmer Rouge's view of superiorizing ideological society over the greater good of individual citizens. The communist group crossed ethical boundaries when targeting and killing innocent civilians. As highlighted in The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea, the Khmer Rouge emptied cities, forced labor onto, and killed anyone with ties to the former government or who spoke a foreign language because they were seen as a threat. In this case, ideology trumped humanity. The means by which the KR attempted to create an ideological society targeted innocent people, and therefore, their goals are not justifiable because of the mass harm it caused. No matter the true goodness of the goal, it is never justifiable when mass suffering has to occur to achieve it.

Contrary to the Machiavellian idea, the end cannot always justify the means, especially in cases where the suffering is greater than the benefits of the outcome. Again, the article The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea, details the suffering of children and how starvation, disease, and work resulted in mass deaths. These experiences were deliberate and permitted by the KR. They approved this because they believed suffering to be necessary to achieve a classless communist country. However, the deaths of two million people is a disproportionate means of achieving a “better society”. The large number of fatalities proves the unjustifiable means the KR utilizes. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge serves to control the people rather than liberate them. In doing so, they are forcing extremely unhealthy circumstances and often death onto the lives of innocent people. This cannot be allowed or justified. The suffering is widespread, and although it is claimed to be a necessity, it serves no true purpose in bringing about the idealistic society. The Cambodian suffering is not tolerable, and in the future, the suffering should end when it affects the lives of innocent people to the extent that their future cannot outweigh the current suffering. A better society is not worth being constructed if its foundation is on the deaths of millions of innocent lives.

When it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, as in Cambodia, an international response is necessary to intervene, especially in a case in which the suffering to make a change is greater than the outcome, and society becomes worse. Intervention from foreign powers is needed to break the cycle of suffering in other countries to ensure a restorative state where lives are not being spared. The Cambodian Genocide serves as a perfect example of the need for other countries to intervene, as Vietnam invaded and was able to break up the cycle. There should have been earlier international involvement from other countries when the KR was first seen making moves. Larger powers such as the US should have intervened more as they had the resources to do so, and innocent, powerless people were being oppressed. Without the Vietnamese invasion of the KR-controlled Cambodia, even more people would have lost their lives, following the millions who already were killed.

First off, great job! All of your points are well-written, clear, and organized well. I have no suggestions about the mechanical aspect of your post, or about the depth of discussion you dive into. My ideas and opinions regarding the questions presented are similar to yours. I completely agree with a prominent idea in your writing, which states that the end of a struggle cannot always justify the means, especially in cases where the suffering is greater than the benefits of the outcome. I firmly believe that if the fight is truly not worth the expected outcome, then millions of innocent people shouldn’t have to undergo immense suffering. I also agree with the fact that an international response and intervention is mandatory in a violent struggle. This especially holds true regarding countries with far greater resources and power, such as the United States. You also stated that the earlier this involvement is, the better, which I completely agree with. Rather than intervene early, the US government hid valuable information and downplayed the severity of the situation, ultimately leading to many Americans not being well educated and an overall lost interest in the crisis, making the US less willing to aid the people of Cambodia. Overall, nice work and great ideas!