Based on the Khmer Rouge’s ideology, everyone was equal, yet they neglectfully failed to factor into their ideology that children, the ill, and elderly adults are not equal to healthy adults. People in the camps were forced to grow food that they themselves couldn't eat; food was sent to work and training camps, thus contradicting their ideology. The differentiation of the amounts of food that the Cambodian people were given led to the starvation of many. Instances like these are examples of the fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology, which caused the deaths of many Cambodians. This demonstrates something inherently wrong with Communism because in most stances with Communism they introduce the idea that everyone is equal but certain people always end up having an unfair advantage like in the case of the Khmer Rouge that I stated before were the soldiers and the people in the work camps had a wider variety of food and also the locations where they were established they ate from the food carts that the people from Loung’s camp where she was with her family. Their Communist ideology of being equal will never work due to the fact that the people at the top and their soldiers will never voluntarily choose to live the same as citizens. The international community should have shown any type of sympathy towards Cambodia; they saw and heard thousands of people who were being starved and murdered, and they decided that they were not interested in saving thousands of women, men, and children. National sovereignty when the lives of thousands of innocent people are being threatened, because when that happens, it is not a question of whether a country is neutral or not; it's a question of whether one has compassion for the lives of others. No suffering is tolerable to bring a “better society” because, in order to bring a “better society,” suffering would not be part of it. What should happen when it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse is intervention from a country that has the resources to help, because that means that they have the resources to make sure that the country is taken care of.
posts 16 - 30 of 39
I believe that the fundamental problem in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology which resulted in their inevitable destruction was their dedication to returning to year zero without private property and rejecting all western aspects. While I don't believe that Communism has proven to work out in the long run when implemented at a large scale, I do not believe that the sheer failure of the Khmer Rouge was due to communist ideas but rather their extreme interpretation of communism. For instance, the Khmer Rouge eliminated all concepts of private property in their communist utopia, however because of this, the entire nation was thrown into poverty with only the Khmer elite holding wealth. In the eyes of the Khmer Rouge, education and western practices corrupted the nation and its people, they believed everyone would be far happier if they were all equally poor. The leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, “envisioned a totally new, classless, and self-independent society, in which the peasants were regarded as the backbone of the society. He reputedly claimed that if the Khmers could build Angkor, they could do anything. Cambodia was to be started anew, at Year Zero” (“The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea”). However, the problem with returning to “Year Zero”, is the fact that they would lose all scientific and cultural progress that the world has made throughout history. For instance, during Khmer rule, countless Cambodians died not only to violence but also largely to disease. The Khmer Rouge refused to allow any Cambodians to obtain western medicines, they believed that allowing such things would result in the corruption of the population. Due to these beliefs many died meaningless deaths which they could have avoided if given the correct treatment. Furthermore, this brings into question the ethics and morality of the Khmer Rouge where it becomes evident that even during wartime, their utter disregard for human wellbeing and life is far worse than it should have been. While during times of war it is more likely for people to experience hardships and there is a larger grey area in relation to what is acceptable. The Khmer Rouge in my opinion still crosses the line when it comes to their actions in a war torn nation. They take advantage of the instability in the region and the sheer exhaustion of the population for conflict. Because of this, they pushed everyone out of the city and committed mass religicide and classicide. According to the article, “as soon as they took over Phnom Penh, the Khmer Rouge ordered all citizens to evacuate to the countryside on the pretext that the US would bomb the city, and that there were food shortages for the overcrowded urban population. 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”(“The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea”). All together I attribute the horrors of the Khmer Rouge to their personal faults in their interpretation of communism rather than the actual ideology itself.
It is important to acknowledge the unfortunate reality that the United States can’t or won’t always help other countries. There is always tragedy happening somewhere in the world and the United States or any other powerful nation can’t always rush into the rescue as some would want them to. This all being said, there is a line where interference makes sense. It was clear before the Khmer Rouge took power in Phnom Penh that there was tragedy that would follow. It was convenient, politically and financially, to ignore the warnings but “the omens of imminent mass violence were omnipresent but largely dismissed”. I think that if there is evidence prior to the event that there will be mass tragedy then action should be taken to prevent it. This of course is the ideal situation, where interference doesn’t do more harm than good. With the situation in Cambodia it is unknown exactly what the effects would have been if the United States stepped in. Ultimately if interference can limit the damage even if not perfect, I think it should be done. The amount of suffering a country faces shouldn’t be put on a scale or comparison to determine how important it is or how bad it is. I think that to step in there should be a way to successfully end suffering or even just lessen it. If there is a possibility of making it worse instead of better than that is when I’d say to stay out of it.
As I stated above a prevention of power to the Khmer Rouge would’ve been the ideal situation but even though that is unrealistic there are other measures that other nations can take to provide help. As the United Nations did, helping to provide medical attention and more food can save many people. Usually in tragedies like the one in Cambodia, survivors are in poor physical condition and often famished. The best thing anyone can provide to help survivors is physical help. Justice is obviously a good gesture but when millions of dollars are put to a small amount of justice that could’ve gone to bettering the lives of victims, it can feel like a waste. So although I am all for getting justice for victims and appropriately punishing the perpetrators of the violence, I would say that the first priority is for money to go to better the lives of survivors in the aftermath of losing all their belongings and the life that they once knew. This money could come from the United Nations, the United States or any country with the means to. The unfortunate thing is that most nations will only invest money into a problem if there is a benefit somewhere for them. Nothing is ever done without political intentions and so I think as long as the benefits that helping bring to a country don’t in turn have negative effects on the same country that they go into help then personal gain is not such a bad inevitable truth.
“What is infected must be cut out”. “It is better to arrest ten people by mistake than to let one guilty person go free” (A Problem from Hell by Samantha Power). Murdering everyone to start at year zero seems like the simplest answer because it is in the sense of an idea, starting fresh eliminates any worry of the old regime coming back. But murder is never simple for any reason and will never be the right choice.
The question of when national sovereignty should be overridden to stop the immense suffering of people is such a difficult question because essentially you are being asked to draw a line of how many deaths is too many. When someone dies it is not just them who no longer lives, their family friends really anyone they have ever interacted with in their life will feel the affects. This is just for the death of one person. In terms of intervention of national sovereignty, unfortunately one death caused by the leader cannot be enough to justify intervening. One death, the nation could justify, could be for any reason and it is simply not enough for action from another country to be taken. In my opinion as soon as there is enough evidence that an actual genocide is going on action should be taken. As said in the excerpt from A Problem From Hell, Americans were so stunned by the horrors of what they were hearing about Cambodia that they didn't take action. This to me is honestly a sorry excuse for not taking action because it is not in the nation's best interest. When you aren’t actually living through the death it is hard to comprehend but as an ambassador, government official, researcher, whoever you are it is your job to be strong enough to take that news and take action. I wish to ask those making the decisions regarding intervening or not if you were facing genocide in your nation would you not pray to anyone else to help you?
For bringing change one ethical way is for the government to do it under the laws of the nation. However, a lot of the times change needs to be brought in through removing the current governing body whether it be one dictator or a whole government. When needing to change the regime things become more complicated because it feels as though one way or another there is going to be conflict that ends with people dead. This is the case where I feel the border between ethical and unethical exists. How can you be ethical in not killing anyone but affect change? You could take over peacefully but one needs force either way to affect change and most likely the current ruling regime is not going to give up without a fight.
In the course of history it is important to understand that conflict is going to occur whether we like it or not. We do however have the decision to treat people with kindness and not involve innocents into the schemes of another party. In the greater context of the world and peace, life is short and every human deserves to have an uninterrupted safe and happy life instead of being harmed by the decisions of a few people who hold power.
The Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot had many major flaws in their regime and plans for the future of cambodia. They wanted Cambodia to immediately become a classless agricultural society that was completely rural unlike what it was before. In order to put the poor plan into action they displaced millions from their homes, eliminated education completely, and killed political enemies to the regime. The ideology around this was that the transformation could happen pretty much overnight and reset society completely which was obviously a terrible look on the situation which turned out to be a huge mess. These ideas resulted in mass starvation and the whole Cambodian genocide with the regime clearly valuing ideological purity over true human lives resulting in the death of nearly two million.This in my eyes does not prove that communism is inherently a dangerous ideology however it is one that when taken to the absolute extreme can hurt people. Through history armed struggle has been utilized sometimes to enact political changes. Ethical limits need to be added on to this however because the slaughtering of civilians and mass human rights violations. Destroying basic human rights to reach a political end goal is never justified no matter how noble the political cause may be which is why there needs to be ethical limits on what can be done. These limits must aim to protect the innocent people who are harmed in these instances. The Khmer Rouge did not pay attention to these ethical limits and their policies promoted violence and the killing of innocent people which completely ignores the rules around the ethics. The goal of a better society does not pass these ethical boundaries and that is exactly what the Khmer Rouge was trying to do, bypass the rules in place in order to build this better society they were dreaming of. During the Khmer Rouge it is definitely true that the international community could have done way more sooner. At the beginning they did not have as much information but even with what they had they could have for sure stepped in to help the Cambodians who were being genocided. Countless organizations mainly the United Nations could have applied a lot more pressure to the situation and also set up more humanitarian aid and help for the people injuried and displaced. Overriding national soverignty becomes very difficult in this situation though. Many however think that invading the national sovereignty becomes crucial when handling a genocide situation like the one in Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge so it is seen as something the should have been done by the United Nations to prevent deaths of innocent people. International forces can definetly intervene when things like the Khmer Rouge come to power and begin genocide but not enough was done fast enough in this instance. Also many of those put on trial did not truly serve the right amount of time for their crimes which adds another layer to what more could have been done.
The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was a brutal communist regime from 1975 to 1979, who caused the deaths of about 1.5-2 million people through forced labor and starvation. Their goal was to create a complete new society through evacuating cities, abolishing money, banning ethnic minorities, and getting rid of education. However, all they did instead was cause massive suffering for the people and destroy much of the country. One of the main questions that arises as we look back on the Khmer Rouge is at what point should other countries step in to stop mass suffering from happening within a country? This question is especially important in the present day, given the US and Israel’s impediment upon Iran sovereignty. The main issue with the Khmer Rouge’s ideology is how extreme and unrealistic their goals and aspirations were. Their plan was to turn Cambodia into a classless society in a short period of time, led by their leader Pol Pot. They quickly killed off anyone of a higher education from the previous government and rid money and private possessions from society. In Sok Udom Deth’s “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea”, the author explains that the Khmer Rouge fully believed that by removing all modern influences, they could return Cambodia to a pure and ethically cleansed farming society. However, they were very oblivious to the complex nature in which societies are actually run. Despite their efforts to create a farming society, food production quickly collapsed, leading to a large number of people dying from starvation and over working. I don’t think that the tragedy that came at the hands of the Khmer Rouge necessarily proves that communist itself always leads to disaster. Instead, it shows how dangerous a certain application of the ideology can be. That being said, I am unsure whether this is truly a communist regime. In a communist society, it is supposed to be classless, where everyone has equal access to goods with no inequalities. This however, was not truly the nature of the Khmer Rouge, as members of the government had severe authority over everyone and more access to private resources. This leads me to believe that the question is not whether communism is always bad, but rather can true communism ever fully be implemented given human tendency and spirit. In the case of the Khmer Rouge, this implemented a very violent, destructive version of “communism”, in which they thought they must destroy anyone who disagreed with them in order to build their new society. In “A Problem from Hell”, Power explains how the leaders treated anyone who didn’t fully comply as an enemy, not as an opportunity to grow. The issue does not come from communism itself, but the ways in which the leaders carry it out. Another important thing to think about is what the international community did to stop what was happening. Since Cambodia was completely shut off from the outside world, many governments claimed that they did not know what was actually going on within Cambodia itself, even though there were many journalists and reporters who were documenting the case. These countries did not care about human rights, but rather the politics during the Cold War. I think that it is essential that these global super powers do anything in their ability to help reduce suffering and protect the basic human rights of any soul, even if they aren’t a citizen of their own nation.
Khmer Rouge
The rule of the Khmer Rouge was doomed from the start. The idea of getting rid of any and all technological advancements was an idea that never should have happened. They were rooter in the base of communism, but they had a higher class leadership group, showing that it was clearly not communism being practiced. The Khmer Rouge shutting themselves off from the rest of the world and getting rid of all technologies created so many problems that led to their downward spiral. I think the inherent ideas of communism are not exactly the problem, I think it is the way the Khmer Rouge did it, because they weren’t really acting in a communist way at all. As we saw in First They Killed my Father, the way the KR did things let to lots of torture and brainwash and suffering and killing. The parents of the kids were killed by the KR quickly, and the kids were put in intense brainwashing. I think the idea that these people are told to accept any suffering that is to come in order to create a better society is ridiculous. It is such an excuse that is used in order to enact torturing and suffering on groups of people, and people are either brainwashed into believing it, or they are forced into dealign with it. If the situation becomes worse under a new regime then it was before, no amount of possible success in the future should be an excuse for that change. It almost always is just an excuse for power and control from the leaders. I think if it is super clear that struggle for change is making things much worse, like what was happening in Cambodia, than other countries need to step in no matter what. There is too much worrying from other countries about their own policies or politics and everything, and too little worrying about human rights and the condition of these people suffering in these countries where change is being made for the worst. I think the international community had to step in at some point, especially considering if they knew about the atrocities early on. When it is a matter that is affecting so many people in such a terrible way, it is no doubt that that should be stopped immediately by major powers. I think that the Vietnamese interfering with national sovereignty should not have been punished like it was. I think the fact that they ended the suffering of the Cambodian people is a good thing, and in a case like the cambodian genocide the sovereignty of a country should be overridden in order to secure the safety of the people and ensure the human rights are being protected. The US had a lot of chances and possibilities of doing something about what was going on in Cambodia, but they sat back and didn't want to do anything more in the region. Despite knowing what was happening, they still sat back and let it happen.
One of the most compelling ideas in your post is the distinction you made between communism as an ideology and the Khmer Rouge’s extreme interpretation of it. I agree with your point that communism itself does not necessarily require an agrarian society, and that the Khmer Rouge’s version of it was very different from what Marxism originally described. Your explanation that Marxism focuses more on industrial production and worker control over the means of production helps show that the Cambodian genocide cannot be explained by communist theory alone. Instead, it suggests that the Khmer Rouge adapted and twisted certain ideas to fit their own goals. That argument is interesting because it pushes people to think more critically about whether ideology itself was responsible,l,e or rather, whether the leadership and the way the ideology was applied matter more.
I also thought of your discussion of the contradiction between a classless society and the way the Khmer Rouge treated people based on their location, whether in the city, where people were strong. The example you mentioned from the film clearly shows that members of the Khmer Rouge had a lot more privileges and resources than the average citizen, which goes directly against the idea of equality they were trying to achieve. Your point about starvation also connects well to this because a work-based system would logically require workers to be fed enough to actually sustain their labor.
One suggestion that could improve your post, if you would like, is to add a bit more explanation as to why the Khmer Rouge adopted such an extreme version of agrarianism. Expanding on that could make your argument even stronger and give more historical context to your post, but still, even without that, your post was amazing and very well written.
Originally posted by star.gazing on March 09, 2026 16:53
When I first think about the question I really think “What could the US have done?” instead of the whole international community, because throughout history the US has been that “global police”. The US is only a true “global police” when its interests are reflected in assisting that nation. It’s honestly difficult to grapple with the fact that more than a million people died because it “wasn’t in anyone's national interests” so we turned a blind eye. I think that Samantha Power makes a good point in saying that not even the US public was interested during the conflict, they were so disillusioned from Vietnam that nothing in South East Asia mattered, not even violations of human rights. So I would say my answer for what other nations could have done is more, they could have done more. During the regime the US only provided public statements of its distaste for the Khmer Rouge but that isn't enough, saying that you don’t support something doesn't make it stop, it doesn't save people’s lives. Vietnam took action, invading Cambodia to overthrow Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, they did not go to kill civilians. Yes, all invasions and wars are started because of national interest but in this case should have been justified (in my opinion) because they freed the citizens of Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge, and helped them. Millions more could have died if Vietnam did not interfere, and that leads us to the question of national sovereignty. I think in the global case national sovereignty is constantly overridden and then justified depending on who is involved. For a long time it seemed like the United States could pretty much do anything as an economic superpower, get involved with the economics and function of practically all developing countries and especially in the Middle East, the US sees something that isn't capitalist or democratic and it just has to interfere. But, that's just the justification for meddling in other nations and overriding their national sovereignty, "bringing democracy to all” is not the real reason nor is it a valid reason for interfering in another nation, because the US was never just bringing democracy, it creates a sphere of influence and easy access to resources. And so why did the US not use those same ideas to interfere in Cambodia, to actually help the Cambodians. People seem to forget that we are all human and that a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are so interconnected as a human race and yet we just sit back and watch atrocities happen, we're disillusioned to every crime and conflict because we've been bred to be bystanders. National sovereignty should be overridden in dire cases, cases that are not selfish, cases that if without interference innocent civilians will die. Lets put it this way (not that genocides should ever be compared) if the Nazis hadn't actively started a war and were instead just wiping out their entire Jewish population would the US or any nation override Germany's national sovereignty to be able to stop the genocide? Why does interference depend on the people and the location? It's selfish, and it's scary to see that our world only functions off interest. Yes, what's best for our own nations should be top priority but when people's lives are at risk, no matter what, we can't just be bystanders. In Cambodia, any nation (especially those part of the UN) could have helped people evacuate, provided supplies and food security, and most importantly put boots on the ground (without insane civilian casualties) and end the Khmer Rouge. If the Vietnamese pushed the Khmer Rouge to the Thai border in the span of two weeks just imagine what any other military power could do. Other nations also should have assisted better with the refugee process or with the rebuilding of the nation. It’s important to recognize how much financial and industrial capacity developed nations have and how that power can be used to help the rest of humanity, and yet it doesn't, yet those nations sit back, relax, and wait till someone else gets the work done, unless it's a “threat to our own nation's interests.” It's just insane to me. (sorry I'm going on an unprofessional rant here)
So, in summary, nations did NOT do enough to assist Cambodians and national sovereignty should have been overridden the SECOND that refugees along the Thai border reported human rights violations, or even before that, since the US is so anti-communist. Why was it not anti-communist for the Khmer Rouge? It just didn't matter anymore, the Vietnam War broke US spirit and will in South East Asia and so nothing could be done by other nations besides Vietnam, but at that point the civilian casualties were high. How do we stop human rights violations and genocide before they happen?
The most compelling idea of this post was the statement they had, which was that nations only work in their own interest, which, as I was reading Samantha Power’s sections of her book, I also thought about. After reading this post, I agree with the ideas they came up with because all of their ideas were interesting and included more ideas of the parts of the book rather than the movie, which is something many people would find challenging, because it is very easy for one to just focus on the movie due to it being a visual which goves people and better understanding of the situation and the affects of the genocide. There is a post with similar ideas to this one, but the other post focuses more on society during the Khmer Rouge, and they also mention how Vietnam's invasion should not be punished because of what was happening in Cambodia; the lives of innocent people were being brutally killed. In my opinion, my views of the Khmer Rouge and the world's response to it are very similar to those of the author of this post, because as I read and wrote my post, I thought about how little interest the world had in what was happening in Cambodia, and it had to take the communist country of Vietnam to intervene and yet because they were the only one that intervened and rescued the people of Cambodia they (the Vietnamese) were met with sanctions by the UN.
Originally posted by humanrights07 on March 10, 2026 21:11
“What is infected must be cut out”. “It is better to arrest ten people by mistake than to let one guilty person go free” (A Problem from Hell by Samantha Power). Murdering everyone to start at year zero seems like the simplest answer because it is in the sense of an idea, starting fresh eliminates any worry of the old regime coming back. But murder is never simple for any reason and will never be the right choice.
The question of when national sovereignty should be overridden to stop the immense suffering of people is such a difficult question because essentially you are being asked to draw a line of how many deaths is too many. When someone dies it is not just them who no longer lives, their family friends really anyone they have ever interacted with in their life will feel the affects. This is just for the death of one person. In terms of intervention of national sovereignty, unfortunately one death caused by the leader cannot be enough to justify intervening. One death, the nation could justify, could be for any reason and it is simply not enough for action from another country to be taken. In my opinion as soon as there is enough evidence that an actual genocide is going on action should be taken. As said in the excerpt from A Problem From Hell, Americans were so stunned by the horrors of what they were hearing about Cambodia that they didn't take action. This to me is honestly a sorry excuse for not taking action because it is not in the nation's best interest. When you aren’t actually living through the death it is hard to comprehend but as an ambassador, government official, researcher, whoever you are it is your job to be strong enough to take that news and take action. I wish to ask those making the decisions regarding intervening or not if you were facing genocide in your nation would you not pray to anyone else to help you?
For bringing change one ethical way is for the government to do it under the laws of the nation. However, a lot of the times change needs to be brought in through removing the current governing body whether it be one dictator or a whole government. When needing to change the regime things become more complicated because it feels as though one way or another there is going to be conflict that ends with people dead. This is the case where I feel the border between ethical and unethical exists. How can you be ethical in not killing anyone but affect change? You could take over peacefully but one needs force either way to affect change and most likely the current ruling regime is not going to give up without a fight.
In the course of history it is important to understand that conflict is going to occur whether we like it or not. We do however have the decision to treat people with kindness and not involve innocents into the schemes of another party. In the greater context of the world and peace, life is short and every human deserves to have an uninterrupted safe and happy life instead of being harmed by the decisions of a few people who hold power.
I agree that murder will never be the answer to solve any problems, despite any other conflicts or complexities within the nation, violence is never the answer. It is impossible to measure the amount of change or need for change through murder. Any type of murder or genocide will never be the answer to solving problems. However, when people to resort to unspeakable violence it becomes almost incomprehensible. Once the violence crosses the line of comprehension help of any kind comes almost impossible to find. The KR was able to get as out of hand as they did because there was no aid from any surrounding nation. It also becomes hard because so many people want to change so many things about their nation but government hasno idea where to begin. The KR thought the most effective way to start from year zero was to rid society of everything and almost everyone that was previously there. When this drastic of a change is attempted, even if the change is called for, it will never be beneficial and is impossible to carry out in a humane manner. There are other ways to bring about change that may not be as immediate but can be as affective. A genocide will never be the solution as no one deserves to die because thier government failed them.
Originally posted by StevenAdrianCharles93 on March 11, 2026 00:21
The rule of the Khmer Rouge was doomed from the start. The idea of getting rid of any and all technological advancements was an idea that never should have happened. They were rooter in the base of communism, but they had a higher class leadership group, showing that it was clearly not communism being practiced. The Khmer Rouge shutting themselves off from the rest of the world and getting rid of all technologies created so many problems that led to their downward spiral. I think the inherent ideas of communism are not exactly the problem, I think it is the way the Khmer Rouge did it, because they weren’t really acting in a communist way at all. As we saw in First They Killed my Father, the way the KR did things let to lots of torture and brainwash and suffering and killing. The parents of the kids were killed by the KR quickly, and the kids were put in intense brainwashing. I think the idea that these people are told to accept any suffering that is to come in order to create a better society is ridiculous. It is such an excuse that is used in order to enact torturing and suffering on groups of people, and people are either brainwashed into believing it, or they are forced into dealign with it. If the situation becomes worse under a new regime then it was before, no amount of possible success in the future should be an excuse for that change. It almost always is just an excuse for power and control from the leaders. I think if it is super clear that struggle for change is making things much worse, like what was happening in Cambodia, than other countries need to step in no matter what. There is too much worrying from other countries about their own policies or politics and everything, and too little worrying about human rights and the condition of these people suffering in these countries where change is being made for the worst. I think the international community had to step in at some point, especially considering if they knew about the atrocities early on. When it is a matter that is affecting so many people in such a terrible way, it is no doubt that that should be stopped immediately by major powers. I think that the Vietnamese interfering with national sovereignty should not have been punished like it was. I think the fact that they ended the suffering of the Cambodian people is a good thing, and in a case like the cambodian genocide the sovereignty of a country should be overridden in order to secure the safety of the people and ensure the human rights are being protected. The US had a lot of chances and possibilities of doing something about what was going on in Cambodia, but they sat back and didn't want to do anything more in the region. Despite knowing what was happening, they still sat back and let it happen.
The most compelling idea of this post was the way you pointed out how Khmer Rouge's ideology was a bad idea from the beginning. The way that they believed in starting over from the beginning by getting rid of all technological advancements made it so even more problems would evolve and so people were unable to communicate with the rest of society. I like how you made the connection with the fact that because there were classes in this new society, it means communism wasn’t what this should be called. Although the Khmer Rouge did have some attributions that technically made this a communist society, all in all it wasn’t because of the way they went about doing so. I also mentioned that they had no excuse with all the killings they made happen, as they knew this wasn’t going as planned from the start and still kept with the idea so I like how you mentioned this in your post. Although you mentioned parts of the film that we watched in class and how the KR did things to torture and kill people, it would’ve also been good to include some of the attached articles as they really helped me make the connection with the film and what really happened because they show others points of view.
Originally posted by Citydog18 on March 09, 2026 23:08
The rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the late 1970s led to one of the most devastating human tragedies of the modern era. Khmer Rouge was led by Pol Pot, his regime wanted to reshape Cambodia based on their interpretation of communism. They attempted to do this which lead to the suffering and deaths of millions of people. Extremist ideologies, unrealistic economic planning, and torture lead to the Khmer Rouge to not last.
One of the biggest problems with the Khmer Rouge’s plan was their belief that Cambodia should go back to its deep roots as a rural agricultural society. Khmer believed cities were corrupt and equality could only exist if everybody were farmers. In 1975, when Khmer took power, they forced millions of people to leave cities into the countryside, starting completely new from nothing. Families were separated from each other, hospitals were emptied, and people who were already sick or old were forced to walk for miles. Many died during evactuations and once in the countryside, people were placed into labor camps where they were expected to work long hours with little to no food or medical care. Another problem was how the Khmer Rouge viewed education. They believed educated people were enemies of the revolution. Teachers, doctors, engineers, and even people who wore glasses were accused of being traitors. Most of them were imprisoned in camps or executed. By killing educated people, Khmer destroyed the country’s ability to function because hospitals had no trained doctors, farms didnt have planners, and basic systems that kept society together were gone.
Khmer also tried to get rid of private property, religion, and family structures. Children most the time were separated from their parents and raised in state controlled groups. Religion like buddhism which had been important in Cambodian culture for centuries, was banned by Khmer. By trying to get rid of important social and cultural institutions, the government created fear and confusion. Another problem was the crazy amount of paranoia within the hierarchy of leadership. Khmer constantly feared enemies, inside and outside of the country. As a result, they carried out purges in their own ranks and citizens. People were accused of being spies or traitors with little to no evidence. These people would be sent to prisons to be tortured and executed. This culture of suspicion meant that people were afraid to speak, question, or trust their neighbors.
Whether this genocide shows something inherently wrong with communismitself is still debated by historians. Communism focuses on creating classless society where resources are shared more equally. The Khmer Rouge took an extremely radical approach to this. Instead of slowly reforming and building society, they tried to erase everything overnight. The policies were extreme and unrealistic. They ignored how a society would actually function and treated people as if they were tools on farms. The Khmer Rouge’s rule is an important reminder of how destructive ideology canbecome when leaders prioritize their vision of the people they are trying to unite.
I certainly agree with your point that the KR’s belief that Cambodia should become agrarian was one of the biggest problems with their leadership. Your point about how the KR “destroyed the country’s ability to function” is spot on. It also begs the question why would leaders knowingly destroy their own country? This thinking is radical and unrealistic, even for communism, as you note. I think that the KR was so extremely radical that it wasn’t communism at all because it wasn’t representative of prominent beliefs. It certainly wasn’t representative of what the majority of the country wanted because it did not wish for the wellbeing of all Cambodians. Essentially, they were so far on one end they fell off, is how I see it. Do you agree? Even so, do you think that the atrocities committed by the KR is enough to warn off the presence of communism altogether? Knowing that ideologies like this can form, should we shun communism (even more so than we do now) so that this extremism can not possibly happen again? Or, as I believe, should we be weary of future similar occurrences and ensure a prompt humanitarian response (which as we know the United States did not give during the Cambodian genocide)?
I appreciate your in-depth research on the inner workings and mission of the Khmer Rouge. Your response is thought-provoking!
Originally posted by seltzersareawesome on March 09, 2026 19:44
The history of the Khmer Rouge is an example of what can result from an idealistic but flawed plan to recreate society. Pol Pot and his followers sought to create a country in which all people were farmers. No person was supposed to be in a higher status than anyone else. They believed that because their ancestors had created the massive temples at Angkor Wat, they too could do anything if they worked hard enough. However, there was a massive flaw in their ideology. They saw people as nothing more than tools to get the job done. As we see in the movie First They Killed My Father, the first thing that happened was the destruction of the family unit. As shown in the movie, the young heroine Loung Ung had to hide that she was the daughter of a government official just to stay alive. They saw city people, teachers, and even people wearing glasses as enemies of the state. They got rid of money, schools, and religion. Everyone had to go into the country to farm rice. They were supposed to farm enough rice to barter for weapons.
This level of destruction makes us question how much pain and suffering is "okay" in order to create a "better society." The "Year Zero" policy was immediately evident in Cambodia. The forced exodus out of the capital city of Phnom Penh, as seen in the film, is a frightening and chaotic event. The goal of this exodus was to crush the spirit of the people. When a government is killing the parents of children and training children like Loung to be soldiers or plant landmines, they have clearly lost the right to rule. The point at which change is "fair" must be at the level of protecting the rights of the people. Any movement that requires a "trail of death" in order for change to happen has not lived up to the purpose of the mission. The rest of the world failed the people of Cambodia from 1975-1979. Because of the Cold War, countries like the U.S. and China were more concerned with maintaining their own political interests in the region than with the "killing fields." Cambodia became a "ghost town," and the rest of the world just observed the horror from afar. This leads us to the question of when other countries should intervene in the genocide. National borders should not be used as a protective measure for a government that is actively killing its own people. It was eventually Vietam that intervened and put a stop to the Khmer Rouge in 1979, but not without the UN still referring to the Khmer Rouge as the "official" leaders of the country due to messy global alliances. Whether we are reading the history books or the story of Loung Ung, the message is the same: when a government treats people as if they are only useful for a "perfect" revolution, the result is not progress, but tragedy.
“The point at which change is "fair" must be at the level of protecting the rights of the people. Any movement that requires a "trail of death" in order for change to happen has not lived up to the purpose of the mission” (seltzersareawesome) This point is most compelling to me because it highlights the idea that change is only fair if people are protected. The extent to which the Khmer Rouge took the idea of change was not fair in any way, with the result of displacement, death, and genocide. I completely agree with this idea that change is only just to a certain extent. The path towards change must not be violent, discriminative, or a threat to human existence, maybe the end goal convinces people that atrocities are justified and necessary but these actions can never truly be just, nor are they the right actions to take to make change. This post also emphasizes the inaction of other nations besides the eventual (benevolent) invasion by Vietnam. Another post that emphasizes this same idea is the post made by sillygoose617 who goes through all of the levels of inaction especially in the United States, they make the point that a lot of nations did not act because they didn't expect the process of political change to result in genocide. Yet, the facts were clear, the horrors occurring in Cambodia, and there was enough information to make the fact that they "didn't expect it” an inaccurate reason as to why no one acted besides Vietnam. So really what seltzersareawesome is trying to say is that the idea of change results in violence no matter what but the extent to which the Khmer Rouge took that violence is unjust and inhumane.
Originally posted by mwah_thequeen on March 06, 2026 10:43
The Khmer Rouge period in Cambodia shows how a political ideology can become extremely dangerous when it is enforced with absolutely no limits. Their goal in Democratic Kampuchea was to create a completely classless, agrarian society by restarting the country at “Year Zero.” In theory, communism promotes equality, but the Khmer Rouge tried to force equality by eliminating anyone they saw as a threat. They emptied cities, banned religion, separated families, and forced millions into labor camps. The fundamental problem was their belief that violence and total control were acceptable tools for building what they thought was the perfect society. When human lives become secondary to ideology, this type of destruction seems to become almost inevitable.
I do not think Cambodia proves that communism itself automatically leads to genocide. Instead, it demonstrates how extreme interpretation and unchecked power can turn any ideology into something so brutal and cruel. The Khmer Rouge leadership treated their ideas as the absolute truth and labeled disagreement as betrayal. Their paranoia and secrecy created a system where fear controlled everything. The issue was not just the theory, but the way it was applied with cruelty and zero accountability, once or ever.
In A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, Samantha Power explains that U.S. officials had information that suggested mass atrocities were happening, but often responded with doubt or hesitation. Reports were questioned or minimized because acknowledging genocide meant they had to take action. This shows that the failure was not only internal within Cambodia, but also international. Governments prioritized political concerns over human lives.
When thinking about ethnic limits in armed struggle, violence that deliberately targets civilians crosses the line. No better society can justify starvation, forced labor of even children, and mass executions. Once it became clear that Cambodian society began collapsing under the Khmer Rouge, stronger international pressure, sanctions, and humanitarian action should have happened sooner. National sovereignty is important, but it should not protect a government committing mass atrocities against its own people. When immense suffering is clear, the global community has a responsibility to respond, once they admit it was a genocide.
The tragedy in Cambodia reflects both the dangers of extreme ideological enforcement and the consequences of international inaction. It is a reminder that protecting human life must come before protecting political systems.
Another major issue was the Khmer Rouge’s complete rejection of outside influence and expertise. By isolating Cambodia from the rest of the world, they eliminated any possibility of accountability or correction. Foreign journalists were expelled, borders were sealed all up, and information was being tightly controlled, meaning no information would come in or out. This secrecy allowed atrocities to continue to be unseen. It also made it easier for other nations to claim uncertainty about what was happening. If there had been more transparency and a stronger international investigation early on, global pressure might have built faster. The Cambodian genocide proves that silence, whether intentional or just passive, will only enable injustice to grow unchecked.
I really enjoyed reading your post and thought you had some very interesting points. One of your most compelling points was on how the Khmer Rouge turned their identity into something purely destructive. I actually wrote part of my response on a similar argument, in the Cambodia genocide does not necessarily mean that communism itself is the reason genocides happen, but rather it happens when any ideology is interpreted in an extreme way and enforced without limits. When any ideology is pushed to the maximum in regards to physical violence, it will cause major issues such as a genocide, but it just happened to be communism in this scenario. I agree with this point because issues often arise over how a leader applies an ideology, not just the ideology itself. Your explanation of the complete restart through year zero shows how the Khmer Rouge put their own ideas and beliefs over human life. Another thing that I really liked about your piece is that you discussed international inaction. That being said, I think that you could have made your argument stronger by including some actions that the international community could have taken to help do something about it, rather than just saying that they should do something about it.
The Khmer Rouge believed that in order to fix Cambodia after Sihanouk’s mishandling of the nation, U.S. bombings, and other internal and external factors, they had to revert the nation to “Year Zero.” They believed that the nation had been corrupted by foreign influences and capitalism. Their ideas were overtly extreme and radical, believing everyone should become either a rural farmer or a soldier. This idea was likely due to their emphasis on self-sufficiency. Communism never translates very well on paper, despite the idea seeming utopian. Whether or not somebody believes that communism done right could be something positive, the reality is that properly carrying out communism without suppression of individual freedoms has historically been extremely difficult. It seemed especially impossible for the Khmer Rouge, whose attempt into turning Cambodia into a communist nation was done with extreme violence and government control. Is it even really possible to carry out communism without encroaching on individual freedoms? It’s incredibly difficult to wrap ones head around the Khmer Rouge’s implementation of their ideologies. It’s easy enough to understand their suspicions towards anything connected to the “old society” like government workers and intellectuals, but their belie that they could instantly turn Cambodia into a farming society by forcing people into labor camps completely ignores logic. It makes one wonder what the Khmer Rouge’s plans were for the future. Were they planning on keeping people in labor camps forever? The Khmer Rouge did take communist ideas to an extreme, but the application of those ideas was the problem.
The question as to what means are ethical and unethical to bring about change is almost impossible to answer in a way that properly encompasses all of the different complexities and variables in different situations. Nonetheless, the Khmer Rouge in particular carried out their “change” in such an extreme unpardonable way that it feels like a poor example of a nation teetering moral lines to bring about change. For example, in revolutions, it is typical for their to be a multitude of civilian casualties but, if successful, most would agree that the freedom the nation receives afterwards is worth it. A more specific example of this case would be the Haitian Revolution against France led by Toussaint Louverture, where Haiti’s win ended slavery in the colony and paved the road for many other nations to follow suit. Returning to the Khmer Rouge, where it was clear that their struggle for change was only expeditiously worsening the country, nations with the ability to help should have stepped in to prevent its self-destruction. It would be unfair to claim that Cambodian civilians should have resisted when their lives were at the most immediate threat. In reality, many people did things they were not proud of in order to preserve their own lives, like selling out targeted family members to the Khmer Rouge in order to not put themselves in any danger. In many situations, it can be argued that continuing to support a destructive system only allows more harm, and that is correct, but it is important to realize that during war moral responsibility usually conflicts with survival.
The United States’ decision to stay out of the Khmer Rouge’s massacre of its own people was in simple terms a decision led by the guilt of past errors in the region. Many people argued that getting involved was not worth putting American Soldiers lives at risk, but I’m gonna slip in a personal opinion: I were a soldier, I would much rather fight a war aimed at protecting civilians than one fought for conquest and ambition. This doesn’t only apply to America either, if a nation has the military power to give aid to a struggling nation then there shouldn’t be a question as to whether ot not they should provide it. The issue with all nations is the lack of concern placed on things happening outside their borders, hence why there should be national sovereignty to step in, when possible, to stop the immense suffering of people.
posts 16 - 30 of 39