learntoquestion ltq discussions

A fundamental problem that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology is that they tried to enforce communism in a way that everyone below the people who had superiority were equal, and those who are higher than them are able to take things away from them in order for the all knowing being, Angkar. This was shown in the movie First They Killed My Father as the soldiers took away Loung’s family car as they tried to make it seem like Angkar needed it. In addition to this, another problem that added onto the death of civilians is that the soldiers treated the civilians worse and gave them worse conditions to survive on, due to the fact that they were working for the cause of bringing up the society and giving back to Angkar. The third excerpt that we read also shows this as it gives a description of their long working hours and how they had to survive off of scraps in return. I don’t think that this makes communism inherently wrong since in a perfect communist society everyone would be equal to each other and would have a functioning society where everyone has the same benefits, but the Khmer Rouge’s interpretation of communism is where the issues spark up. Since the Khmer Rouge treated the civilians like they were prisoners in a way, it was almost as if they didn’t have a fully communist society as the soldiers and Angkar were above the civilians and had more superiority.

I feel like it’s a bit hard to say what could’ve been done on the international part to try and stop this sooner as some feared U.S. intervention would worsen the situation, but on the other hand I also feel like there should’ve been more intervention. There were clear signs of the horrors that were going on in Cambodia as there were many recounts on it, but majority of the time they were ignored. This was also touched on in the third excerpt as they said that there were numerous amounts of evidence showing the brutality of what was going on, and that people still thought that these recounts were exaggerations or rehearsed. I feel like the fact that many people assumed that they were exaggerating or rehearsing what to tell the public sounds like an excuse for people not to do anything to help them out. A start to aiding the Cambodians could be that they can start believing what journalists, diplomats, and relief workers were telling them instead of being skeptical about what they were hearing. Believing them comes with acceptance of the horrors that are occurring, and this could possibly lead to change as they accept that it is going on and something needs to be done. I think that the U.S. could’ve done more to stop the Khmer Rouge by finding ways to intervene in the way they were treating Cambodians, but also it’s complicated as Cambodians were being convinced that they needed to fight for the Khmer Rouge to protect themselves from the enemies, as shown in the movie when Luong was being trained. I think that if many countries came out and acknowledged what was going on there could be more change as there are more powers getting involved. But there are also downsides as too many countries trying to get involved can make it worse for the country and the people.

In my opinion, the Khmer Rouge’s vision for the future was flawed from the start, but their problem was that they were communist. The main problem was making people return to how they lived in the countryside, making them give up their homes, and modern technology was a very bad idea. This modern technology, which saved lives, also made them produce more food to keep them alive. With the inundation of people into the countryside, they knew they would have people starve to death; the amount of food required to feed the whole country would be impossible to produce. I feel it demonstrates the brutality and the madness associated with the vision that KR presented. Creating a police state from a regular society takes time, as seen in other societies. This creates a fear state, where people don’t like the regime and become against it.

Throughout the history of the world, change has always had some backlash associated with it, often negative, even when the change is a perceived positive for society. One example of this was the civil rights movement, where a certain group of people were against a movement that was positive for society. I feel that ethical change requires some sort of consensus, a group of people or the majority to decide to make change in society. An example of this would be a democratic vote on the process of such change, and have it run through and for the people. However in Cambodian society under the Khmer Rouge, there is no voice of the people, only Angkar. We can see this in the movie FIrst They Killed My Father“, Angkar”, which controls where the people go and how they live. This is an example of an unethical change, the leadership or government forces people to vacate and completely switch around their lifestyle so the government's vision of society is completed is an unethical change. For me, the line about how much suffering is tolerable starts at the harm of individuals in society. Once we compromise the safety of the well -being of any individuals of society, that is when the change should be stopped, even when the change is “good”. I feel when the struggle for change is making society worse, the change should be stopped.

During the reign of terror of the Khmer Rouge, I felt that the international community would have had only one option: go into Cambodia and overthrow the Khmer Rouge government and set up a new government. This would have posed many problems, particularly in finding a country, or countries to vote for having their troops go into a foreign country. I feel that it would be almost impossible for any country with a large military at the time, particularly one with a democratic form of government, to get behind a resolution or agreement to invade Cambodia. I feel that national sovereignty is very important, and shouldn’t be overridden for just any reason, and I don’t know that it necessarily should be violated, and I think that is for the UN to decide and the UN to decide to go into a country, its the organization’s job as a collective.

There were many destruction of lives in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The Pol Pots “Year Zero,” Philosophy, which had the idea of getting rid of everything that Cambodian modern society had, such as schools, money, religion, etc. People were forced out of places to then be placed in areas for farm work. “Year Zero,” ignored the realities and human needs, which lead to exhaustion and disease. The ideology treated many as enemies. Educated people, professionals, leaders, and even people who wore glasses were considered to be traitors. People with glasses were considered traitors because they were visualized as smarter than everyone and that wasn’t acceptable. People were tortured and there was much paranoia causing mass killings and much fear. They relied on strictness and violence rather than governance. The Khmer Rouge had massive changes through starvation, forced labor, and terror. They ignored agricultural intelligence and knowledge and destroyed Cambodia’s economy, which caused many sufferings and deaths. The question of whether or not this demonstrates something inherently wrong with communism or does it demonstrate the ineffective and callous interpretation and execution of the ideology by the Khmer Rough leaders is very questionable. While communism itself expresses political and economic ideology looking for a classless and stateless society, the Khmer Rouge interpreted this as a brutal and extreme way. They were combining the communist ideas with other factors. Since this was happening, many argue that the disaster in Cambodia was mainly the result of the cruel and unrealistic interpretation of the ideology by leaders such as Pol Pot rather than the own theory of communism itself. In the article, “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea by Sok Udom Deth,” it says that “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 population” and “Everybody, young and old, sick or not, was ordered to leave the city immediately to engage in agricultural activities.” This shows how cruel they were to the people no matter what they were dealing with. It didn’t matter to them if you had to suffer or not, they just needed you to leave and find your own way. The Khmer Rouge was so brutal that they had all these people suffer, no matter if it was from starvation, thirst, or no place to go. People even had to suffer if they had glasses and they could be dumb, but just because you had glasses you were considered intelligent and they didn’t support that. They didn’t support people with glasses because they would think they were smarter than them and they didn’t want that. The Khmer Rouge rigid ideology and violent enforcements lead to deaths of around two million people during the Cambodian genocide. This shows that ideologies can face problems with the leaders. Although at times ideologies sound better or good, in a way they can have many problems such as during this time with the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide.

There were many problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and plan that caused the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia such as taking away essentials for people such as memories of the past, family, and even tools that can only benefit them. Their whole vision depended on erasing anything personal or individual, which meant people were treated like pieces in a system instead of human beings. The Khmer Rouge claimed they were building a classless society, but they twisted communist ideas into something extreme and violent. Pol Pot believed that suffering proved the revolution was working, and Samantha Power shows in her writing that even reports of starvation and executions reached the outside world, the regime insisted that everything was necessary to “progress.” This was not a failure of communism in theory. But it is a failure of leaders who used ideology to justify cruelty and total control. Armed struggle has always been part of history, but the line becomes clear when violence stops protecting people and starts targetin them. A movement can claim it wants a better society, but if the path to that society requires mass suffering, then the movement has already failed and lost its purpose. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge kept saying the pain was temporary and justified, but the country was collapsing. No amount of suffering can be considered acceptable when the people that you claim to fight for are the ones being destroyed. When it becomes obvious a struggle is making society worse, the leaders have a responsibility to stop or change direction. The Khmer Rouge never did that, they pushed forward even as millions starved, were separated from their families, or were killed for reasons that made no sense. What makes this even clearer is that the Khmer Rouge did not just cross the ethical line by accident. They built a system where cruelty was normal and even encouraged. They believed that any sign of weakness or hesitation meant betrayal, so they kept escalating the violence. At that point, the struggle was no longer about improving society, it became about protecting that power of the people in charge. Ethical change should focus on reducing harm and giving people more control over their own lives. The Khmer Rouge did the opposite, they took control away from everyone and treated suffering as a tool. Once a movement reaches that stage, it is no longer a revolution, it is just another form of oppression, and the only ethical response is to stop it before it does more damage to people. The international community could have done far more to reduce the harm. Power’s excerpts show that the United States and other countries had enough information to know something terrible was happening, but they doubted the reports or did not see Cambodia as important to their interests. The Cold War shaped everything, and governments cared more about political alignment than about people suffering. Even after Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rouge in 1979, the United States and China still supported the Khmer Rouge’s seat at the United Nations, which slowed aid and made it harder for survivors to rebuild. National sovereignty matters, but it should not protect a government that is killing its own people. When a state commits mass violence, the international community has a responsibility to step in through pressure, sanctions, humanitarian aid or even anything they can do. In the case of Cambodia, earlier action could have saved lives. This tragedy happened because of an extremist ideology that was carried out by leaders who valued control over human lives and because the rest of the world chose not to act until it was too late.

The Khmer Rouge, a revolutionary regime, between 1975 and 1979 killed almost two million people. This was done through torture, starvation, and the displacement of people from the city to the rural countryside. They had to build everything up from scratch because ‘Angkar’ forbade the use of Western materials. Throughout those four years, the international community looked the other way as fear crept into their states.

The involvement of the international community to ameliorate the harm caused by the Khmer Rouge towards the Cambodian people is a controversial topic. This is because one wrong move can lead to an external conflict. Per the UN Responsibility to Act, the norm is that everyone who signed the document must use all of their resources to stop genocide if the UN Security Coucil calls for an intervention. While this is a legally binding document, countries are afraid of violating the sovereignty of the given country. However, the genocide was an internal affair meaning it was legally a domestic event even if they wiped out almost 25% of their population. Another point of view that was stated in an excerpt from “A Problem From Hell…” states that if they drew attention “to the slaughter in Cambodia (it) would have reminded America of its past sins”. The excerpt also mentions that “The media did not lead with these reports, and the politicians did not respond to them, but the stories did appear”. These two quotes show that if America got itself involved, they would be losing money and that was not in their best interest despite people’s lives on the lines. The press was posting stories about the situation but more involvement outside of the United States tired everyone out. In conclusion, there was a possibility of intervention through more awareness through the media but the countries were too afraid to violate the nation's sovereignty.

Through no intervention occurring, lots of suffering occurred to the Cambodian people. It’s very hard to determine which means were ethical or unethical for bringing about change. At the beginning of the year, we learned that the Jus In Bello and Jus In Bellum are two documents that highlight what is just and not during war. Specifically to this situation, I believe that it is ethical to target the military infrastructure and different operation forces. What is unethical is an intentional targeting of civilians, schools, hospitals and religious sites. Under the Geneva Convention, any mode of killing civilians even if it is a domestic affair is considered as a war crime. If the Khmer Rouge wanted to change the government, they could have done that without starving their civilians to death to promote change. They did not achieve anything with removing two million civilians, it was purposeless, only creating suffering for later generations and the history books. In the process many resources began to spread thinly. This argument can be countered as different people define what is unethical versus ethical differently. People’s moral, religious, and personal values all vary causing disputes about ethical methods.

We may never come to a full to a full agreement about the Cambodian Genocide however, these conversations are vital in deepening our understanding of world history both past and present.

The Khmer Rouge was just a total disaster becuase it caused the deaths of two million people and it really shows how dangerous an ideology becomes when leaders value their perfect vision more than actual human beings because they tried to force this overnight transition into a communist society but they did it through extreme violence and forced labor. I think it is important to acknowledge because as a student I have the privilege of looking back on this with the benefit of education which is exactly what the Khmer Rouge wanted to destroy since they basically tried to restart the clock and turn the whole country into a massive farm which meant they evacuated cities and forced everyone into camps and one of the most insane parts was how they targeted anyone with an education like teachers and doctors or even people who just wore glasses because they saw individuality and knowledge as a threat to their revolution. In The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea, Sok Udom Deth explains how they tried to build this extreme agrarian society while totally ignoring the reality that a country actually needs different kinds of workers to function and when you destroy the "knowledge class" you're just guaranteeing that people are going to starve and suffer which is exactly what happened when the economy collapsed and people were left with nothing. It doesn't necessarily prove that every version of communism leads to genocide but it definitely shows the horror that happens when an ideology is followed blindly without any compassion or common sense and it raises a huge ethical question about when a revolution becomes a crime because even if people want to fight for justice there has to be a moral limit and if your methods involve executing and starving millions then that change isn't ethical at all. This reminds me of the points made in A Problem from Hell by Samantha Power where she describes the horrific stories of survival and loss like the story of the young boy watching his father be executed which is just heart-wrenching and makes you wonder how the world could just stand by while this was happening. What makes it even more frustrating is that the rest of the world knew what was happening and many governments had the information but they chose to stay quiet because of Cold War politics or because they didn't want to mess with "national sovereignty" but honestly that shouldn't be an excuse to ignore a genocide especially when the US is always involved in other countries anyway so there is no consistency in saying we shouldn't intervene when it's convenient for us. The US and other powers often prioritize economic stability or political strategy over basic human morals and if they had actually stepped in earlier or put real pressure on the regime millions of lives could have been saved but instead they let the damage be done until it was way too late and the death toll was already in the millions. There isn't always a clear line for when a country should step in but when you see a whole population being destroyed you can't just wait for a specific number of deaths to happen before you decide it's a "moral" issue and the fact that we often care more about economic hardships or even simple things like concert ticket prices than people being slaughtered is a huge problem. Overall the Khmer Rouge is a horrifying example of what happens when we put politics and economics over human lives and I just hope that we can learn to prioritize morals over strategy so that something this terrible never happens again.

Originally posted by raybradbury12 on March 07, 2026 23:49

The tragedy of Cambodian people under the Khmer Rouge between 1975 and 1979 demonstrates how dangerous ideological extremism and political indifference can be. During this period, millions of Cambodians died due to execution, starvation, forced labor and disease. The destruction was caused both by the Khmer Rouge's radical interpretation of Communism and also by the limited amount of response from the International Community as this crisis went on. Looking at these factors help explain how such immense suffering was made known to people and still nevertheless was allowed to continue.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the Khmer Rouge's regime was its disregard for human life and its value. as described in the readings, “The key ideological premise that laid behind the Khmer Rouge Revolution was that to keep you is no gain, to kill you is no loss”. This statement shows the regime's belief that individuals had no intrinsic value outside of their revolutionary project and what the regime could use them for. Anyone who was suspected of being disloyal, educated, or connected to the former government was seen as reactionary and they were eliminated without any hesitation. The Khmer Rouge believed they were purifying Society but they were really creating a system that was built on fear violence and suspicion that was overall inefficient, corrupting and inhumane.

The philosophy directly contradicted the principles that many political systems claim to uphold. As the reading explains, societies that value individual liberty typically emphasize the idea that it's better to protect innocent people even if it means letting go of some guilty individuals. The Khmer Rouge adopted the exact opposite mindset and instead of protecting individuals they assumed that potential enemies existed everywhere as a result thousands and thousands of innocent people were in prison tortured or executed simply because the regime for descent and this caused an extreme paranoia and disregard for human dignity and they were major factors that led to the great amount of loss of life that happened in Cambodia.

However, the tragedy can’t be explained just by ideology. The response of the international community also played a role in allowing the suffering to continue. According to the reading from A Problem From Hell, “once US troops had withdrawn from Vietnam in 1973, Americans deemed all of Southeast Asia unspeakable, unwatchable and from a policy perspective, unfixable.” This quote highlights how the exhaustion and trauma of the Vietnam War caused many Americans and policymakers to just completely disengage from the region. After years of conflict, the US and other countries were extremely reluctant to be involved in Southeast Asia again, even when reports of atrocities began to emerge.

This reluctance contributed to the lack of meaningful International action while the Khmer Rouge were allowed to just continue carrying out their policies. Although some information about the atrocities were available through refugees and journalists and their accounts, many governments hesitated to intervene or even fully acknowledge the extent of this crisis. Concerns about political costs and just overall weariness of Southeast Asia and uncertainty about the facts and fears of another military conflict all contributed to the slow response. In situations like this, the principle of national sovereignty often prevents outside intervention but Cambodia demonstrates that the dangers of allowing governments to act without any accountability is extremely harmful; it allows entire populations to be harmed.

Ultimately, the Cambodian genocide illustrates both the dangers of extremist ideology and the consequences of global inaction. The Khmer Rouge’s belief that individuals' lives were expendable created a system where violence became routine and suffering was ignored. At the same time, the reluctance of the international community to confront the crisis allowed the regime to continue longer than it might have otherwise. Cambodia’s history can serve as a reminder that no matter the political ideology, there must always be respect for human life and that the global community has a responsibility to respond when there is undeniable knowledge of mass atrocities occurring.

I really liked this response and I agree with everything that was said. I really liked all that was said about the Khmer Rouge’s different interpretation of communism and how this was where a lot of the issues with the regime stemmed from. I think they did a really great job summarizing all of the issues within Cambodia at the time, and how it fostered this atmosphere of fear and violence. Another thing that really stuck out to me in this post was all that was said about the international community and its response to the events in Cambodia. I wouldn’t have considered adding that to my own post, but I think that their behavior really did play an essential role in allowing the Khmer Rouge to cause as much damage as it did. Another thing that I really liked in this response was what they said about the Khmer Rouge’s disregard for human life, and I think they chose some really good quotes to include that helped support their claim, such as “The key ideological premise that laid behind the Khmer Rouge Revolution was that to keep you is no gain, to kill you is no loss.” Overall, I think this was a really well done post, and I agree with all of the points they made.

Originally posted by kikidouluvmee on March 11, 2026 11:24

The Khmer Rouge was just a total disaster becuase it caused the deaths of two million people and it really shows how dangerous an ideology becomes when leaders value their perfect vision more than actual human beings because they tried to force this overnight transition into a communist society but they did it through extreme violence and forced labor. I think it is important to acknowledge because as a student I have the privilege of looking back on this with the benefit of education which is exactly what the Khmer Rouge wanted to destroy since they basically tried to restart the clock and turn the whole country into a massive farm which meant they evacuated cities and forced everyone into camps and one of the most insane parts was how they targeted anyone with an education like teachers and doctors or even people who just wore glasses because they saw individuality and knowledge as a threat to their revolution. In The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea, Sok Udom Deth explains how they tried to build this extreme agrarian society while totally ignoring the reality that a country actually needs different kinds of workers to function and when you destroy the "knowledge class" you're just guaranteeing that people are going to starve and suffer which is exactly what happened when the economy collapsed and people were left with nothing. It doesn't necessarily prove that every version of communism leads to genocide but it definitely shows the horror that happens when an ideology is followed blindly without any compassion or common sense and it raises a huge ethical question about when a revolution becomes a crime because even if people want to fight for justice there has to be a moral limit and if your methods involve executing and starving millions then that change isn't ethical at all. This reminds me of the points made in A Problem from Hell by Samantha Power where she describes the horrific stories of survival and loss like the story of the young boy watching his father be executed which is just heart-wrenching and makes you wonder how the world could just stand by while this was happening. What makes it even more frustrating is that the rest of the world knew what was happening and many governments had the information but they chose to stay quiet because of Cold War politics or because they didn't want to mess with "national sovereignty" but honestly that shouldn't be an excuse to ignore a genocide especially when the US is always involved in other countries anyway so there is no consistency in saying we shouldn't intervene when it's convenient for us. The US and other powers often prioritize economic stability or political strategy over basic human morals and if they had actually stepped in earlier or put real pressure on the regime millions of lives could have been saved but instead they let the damage be done until it was way too late and the death toll was already in the millions. There isn't always a clear line for when a country should step in but when you see a whole population being destroyed you can't just wait for a specific number of deaths to happen before you decide it's a "moral" issue and the fact that we often care more about economic hardships or even simple things like concert ticket prices than people being slaughtered is a huge problem. Overall the Khmer Rouge is a horrifying example of what happens when we put politics and economics over human lives and I just hope that we can learn to prioritize morals over strategy so that something this terrible never happens again.

The most compelling idea in my peer’s post was how they brought up the comparison of being a student and being able to look back at the benefit of education, while the Khmer Rouge wanted to destroy every part of it. I agree with this idea and when I was writing my response I didn’t think of this comparison of how we as students have the benefit of education and being able to learn, while the Khmer Rouge wanted to do everything to destroy it because they saw individuality and knowledge as a threat to their revolution. I think this idea is interesting because there can be ways that history can and should be connected to the current world and in this situation it happens to be as students. Me and my peer have the same views on this topic because we both talked about how the Khmer wanted to destroy aspects, such as education and schools. We also both talked about how they wanted to get rid of anyone who was considered ‘smart’ such as a teacher or even someone who wore glasses since they were seen as smarter than others, which is far from what they wanted. Through me, my peers, and other posts we all talked and mentioned how many deaths there were and how they did nothing to stop it until it had already been in the millions.

Originally posted by ilovelexi23 on March 10, 2026 08:36

The rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia caused the deaths of over 2 million people through several different acts. The Khmer Rouge's ideology and plans that caused the destruction of many lives in Cambodia included forced labor, execution, starvation and diseases. Under the rule of Pol Pot, the Cambodians wanted the society to become a society with no cities, money or social classes. Many people were forced to leave cities and join a farm, even if they had no experience in farming. This led to many of the problems they faced as they couldn't handle the harsh conditions and longing hours working. Another huge problem was that the Khmer Rouge did not trust people who were educated. Anyone who was seen as educated was killed and this included teachers and doctors which destroyed schools and hospitals. Another problem was anyone who had an opinion different to theirs, was seen as suspicious and executed. The Khmer Rouge claimed they were trying to create a fair and equal society in Cambodia. They believed in order to do this, they had to take extreme measures to create it but in reality it only made situations worse for people. With the ways to make society better causing mass deaths, is clearly unethical. The Khmer Rouge ruled with violence and instilled fear in people, which was extremely unethical. Society could have done more to reduce suffering. There could have been stronger reactions from international controls. Including the United Nations, they could have investigated the reports of violence and done more about it. I also think it would have been effective if people higher up in society were able to disagree with the way things were being handled and stick up for everyone and try to create change. Another way they could've helped would be to have helped people escaping Cambodia away from suffering. Cambodians fled to neighboring countries which were normally overcrowded and the refugee camps many of the times couldn't hold them. There was a lack of food, little medical supplies and supplies for people hoping for a better life. If people had the resources to get further, there would be less suffering and more places would be able to provide for them. These people had already lost their families and homes which made it difficult for them to live a prosperous life.

In conclusion, the tragedy in Cambodia under the rule of the Khmer Rouge shows how dangerous societies have been and how much suffering was caused to millions of people for years. They tried to change their society quickly with fear, violence and death which overall led to extreme suffering. Even when they said they wanted to create an equal and fair society, their unethical actions caused great suffering and mass death and destruction. This is important to learn as it helps us recognize the harsh past people faced and the traumatic things people went through. In order to keep this from happening again, it is important to see the warning signs and prevent further tragedies from happening in the future. The attempt to completely reshape society, even though they claimed they were trying to build a fair society. Their actions created widespread suffering and should be recognized as nothing but wrong and pure evil.

I completely agree with your point about how the Khmer Rouge claimed to have wanted a fair and equal society for Cambodians, but they tried to achieve this in brutal ways. It is extremely compelling to know the great lengths that the Khmer Rouge went to in order to suppress the Cambodians. The idea that they took away doctors and teachers because they didn’t trust educated individuals is shocking and this ultimately destroyed society by taking away schools and hospitals. They instilled fear into Cambodians in order for them to follow them and you bring up a good point about the Khmer Rouge doing this by executing anyone who shared a different opinion or was openly against the KR. I also have a similar view on ways other nations could have helped Cambodians. I think that sending medical supplies and food to Cambodian refugees and giving them better camps because most were overpopulated. After fleeing from the KR, many Cambodians had lost their homes and total lives. If they had more support after, it would have been important. Before that could even happen though, I do think that other nations could have intervened and government officials should have not so quickly dismissed this genocide because there was insufficient evidence.

Originally posted by 123456 on March 10, 2026 13:04

The first and most glaring problem with the Khmer Rouge’s vision of cambodia was the fact that it seeked to backtrack an extremely densely populated region to a time when people were more dispersed. In my opinion, it was extremely naive and shortsighted of the regime to assume that purely agrarian society would be functional with a population of many millions of people. This, in combination with communism, was very clearly a direct path to famine, starvation, and disease. I think that communism as an idea is wonderful - it brings equality to the forefront of society. However, I think it is overly idealistic, and is rarely, if ever, realistic. While Pol Pot and the KR took an extremely radical interpretation of it, it almost never ends in the general benefit of the country as a whole. In the case of the Khmer Rouge, the combination of communism and radical agrarianism was the perfect recipe for disaster.

It is interesting to examine the second question in the case of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge because they so clearly made society much worse. However, this brings into the equation the factor of intent. As much as one may think that they can help, even a massive group, ultimately there is a certain responsibility in attempting to create change. Generally, I would say that violence to create change is only justified if violence is being inflicted upon the suffering, and it would have to be a certain level of violence that cannot be tolerated. Otherwise, collateral damage and innocent lives would inevitably be lost to a cause that could be achieved through democracy and bureaucracy. When it is clear that a struggle for change is not benefiting the country but instead hurting it, I believe that outside intervention should occur on in the sense of “helping a neighbor”. In the case of Cambodia, the KR sank the country into the ground, and should have been stopped far before they were. The Vietnamese only intervened when they were invaded, not with the pure intention of assisting the country and its people.

Firstly, I am of the opinion that if you have the ability to intervene in something that is ethically wrong, you should take the opportunity. I would not only apply that to the individual but also to nations and how they navigate global conflict. However, I will also be the first to admit that this is an unrealistic expectation. In the case of Cambodia, however, the sheer brutality was so apalling and frequent that I think it was inexcusable for the US and most of the rest of the world to turn a blind eye to the situation. For example, in the second reading there were multiple quotes stating that officials from the US, France, and other countries around the world had no idea about what was happening. However, they used language such as they “could not believe it”. Such words give one the feeling that these officials were not ignorant but were instead ignoring the moral responsibility they know they had as powerful countries. Yes, political tensions were high due to the cold war and the situation in Vietnam, but I believe it is immoral to use that as a cop-out for doing nothing.

I think the most compelling idea in your post is your idea on agrarian society and how the Khmer Rouge’s most fatal mistake was assuming that this system would be able to feed Cambodia’s giant population. I like how you brought up the consequences, specifically starvation and disease, and how communism only made the problem worse for the average person. I also agree with your point about how, if a general population is being extremely harmed by an external force, that it is necessary to step in. You made a really good point about how the Vietnamese only involved themselves when it risked their people, but how if they had intervened earlier, there likely would not have been as much damage done to Cambodia.

I wrote about things very similar to what you did: how the Khmer Rouge’s plans to force the entire population under one rule and how, if people have the ability, they should intervene to prevent mass destruction.

Additionally, I really like how your response is written. It is written in a very eloquent and educational manner, which made it all the more enjoyable. I think that also strengthened your ideas and made your points stand out more. Overall, we wrote about similar things, and your response has nothing it could improve on.

The fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge's ideology and plan that caused the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia were the extreme measures taken to ensure no “enemies” existed within the state. All people with any minor sign of going against the regime, and its ideas, even if the person committed the actions in their past, were killed and tortured. Ethnic and religious groups like the Vietnamese, Chinese, Cham muslims, as well as buddhist monks, were all killed as well, as these ethnic groups were considered enemies of Cambodia, and religion was banned in the new Angkar regime, leading to either their forced labor, or outright murder. While i do think that total communism is inherently flawed, I think that was not the mistake that the Khmer rouge made. Not only were their methods extreme, but they eliminated techniques and strategies that would benefit both the nation and its people, displaying the opposite of true communism. I think many Khmer rouge leaders were both brutal and corrupt, and misinterpreted effective aspects of communist ideology.

With armed struggle and war a reality of life for people all over the world both past and present, it can be difficult to determine as to which means are ethical or unethical for bringing about change. While many revolutions are necessary to bring about beneficial change to a society, it is almost to completely avoid meaningless killing. In the french revolution for example, not only were the former monarchs of the french empire executed, but tens of thousands civilians were as well, which was originally considered justified by the revolutionaries. In almost all revolutions, unnecessary killings like these are committed, but are often forgotten because of the results of the revolution. Many, if not all of the individuals killed by the Khmer Rouge were innocent, and merely forced into their situations by the same revolution that aimed to “free” them.

On the part of the international community, to ameliorate the harm done to the people of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge between 1975-1979, various decisive actions could be taken. Not only would almost any nation be able to topple the newly formed Cambodian government, they could ensure that viable forms of communism could be instilled, if that is what the people decided. It makes sense, considering the failure of the US during the Vietnam war, and France prior to that, that most western nations wanted to avoid Southeast Asia in all forms. If military intervention was decided not to be used, humanitarian efforts could be supported, as well as aid given to counter-revolutionary forces, to topple the Khmer Rouge without sending in soldiers from the mother country. National sovereignty should be overridden if a nation violates either the geneva convention, or the UDHR, and the UN votes to provide aid to people within the nation. It is also permissible for a nation to interfere with a nation's sovereignty if they have citizens residing within the country that are being targeted by the perpetrating nation.

Originally posted by GreenBlock0213 on March 10, 2026 22:55

There were many problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and plan that caused the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia such as taking away essentials for people such as memories of the past, family, and even tools that can only benefit them. Their whole vision depended on erasing anything personal or individual, which meant people were treated like pieces in a system instead of human beings. The Khmer Rouge claimed they were building a classless society, but they twisted communist ideas into something extreme and violent. Pol Pot believed that suffering proved the revolution was working, and Samantha Power shows in her writing that even reports of starvation and executions reached the outside world, the regime insisted that everything was necessary to “progress.” This was not a failure of communism in theory. But it is a failure of leaders who used ideology to justify cruelty and total control. Armed struggle has always been part of history, but the line becomes clear when violence stops protecting people and starts targetin them. A movement can claim it wants a better society, but if the path to that society requires mass suffering, then the movement has already failed and lost its purpose. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge kept saying the pain was temporary and justified, but the country was collapsing. No amount of suffering can be considered acceptable when the people that you claim to fight for are the ones being destroyed. When it becomes obvious a struggle is making society worse, the leaders have a responsibility to stop or change direction. The Khmer Rouge never did that, they pushed forward even as millions starved, were separated from their families, or were killed for reasons that made no sense. What makes this even clearer is that the Khmer Rouge did not just cross the ethical line by accident. They built a system where cruelty was normal and even encouraged. They believed that any sign of weakness or hesitation meant betrayal, so they kept escalating the violence. At that point, the struggle was no longer about improving society, it became about protecting that power of the people in charge. Ethical change should focus on reducing harm and giving people more control over their own lives. The Khmer Rouge did the opposite, they took control away from everyone and treated suffering as a tool. Once a movement reaches that stage, it is no longer a revolution, it is just another form of oppression, and the only ethical response is to stop it before it does more damage to people. The international community could have done far more to reduce the harm. Power’s excerpts show that the United States and other countries had enough information to know something terrible was happening, but they doubted the reports or did not see Cambodia as important to their interests. The Cold War shaped everything, and governments cared more about political alignment than about people suffering. Even after Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rouge in 1979, the United States and China still supported the Khmer Rouge’s seat at the United Nations, which slowed aid and made it harder for survivors to rebuild. National sovereignty matters, but it should not protect a government that is killing its own people. When a state commits mass violence, the international community has a responsibility to step in through pressure, sanctions, humanitarian aid or even anything they can do. In the case of Cambodia, earlier action could have saved lives. This tragedy happened because of an extremist ideology that was carried out by leaders who valued control over human lives and because the rest of the world chose not to act until it was too late.

The most compelling idea in your argument is that the Cambodian people were pieces in the system instead of just the consequences of the Khmer Rouge’s actions. I never thought about it that way but after reading your explanation, it is clear that the poor treatment of the civilians was always going to happen as it was part of the plan. By deconstructing the family and weaponizing the youth, the Khmer Rouge made sure that cruelty wasn’t just a policy, but the bases of their new society. The way they systematically dehumanized people shows us that when a government treats its people like tools, they are not fit to run the country anymore. It wasn’t a consequence of the regime but a vital piece of it. The cruelty that they used was normal and encouraged from a young age as children were taken away from their parents. Overall, I do believe in the opinion of my peers. What happened in Cambodia is a tragedy that needs to be heard about. In my own response, I also mentioned that the line is crossed when violence doesn’t protect civilians but begins to target them. These are innocent people who did not do anything but paid the consequences of the Khmer Rouge’s actions

Originally posted by perfectbug on March 09, 2026 16:14

The Khmer Rouge’s ideology was fundamentally bad. I strongly believe that communism is bad at its core, and that people should be rewarded for harder work. However, I understand the bias that I have as a BLS student in Boston who is planning on going to college. I am privileged and that would naturally make me against communism, but with that acknowledgment I still believe that communism is bad. Communism prevents social mobility and is an attack on human rights, preventing them from purpose. Furthermore, the Khmer Rouge was even worse as it had inherently violent policies that caused so many deaths. There is a constant argument that the US should do what's best for their own country before helping others, and while I do not completely agree, the argument counter’s itself when the US is in other countries and making agreements with other countries all the time there's no consistency. Therefore the US has some responsibility to help other countries. At the same time it is not always fair to blame the US for not stepping into issues. I believe that there is no direct line that defines when another country should step in. The US can not wait until the number of deaths from a genocide goes from 1,999,999 to 2,000,000. However, as a big power the US leaders should have a moral idea of when to step in and I believe this would differ depending on the issue. In “A Problem From Hell,” an article on the South East Asian struggles during the late 20th century, we hear many horrible stories about certain circumstances. Specifically in the “This is Not 1942” section there is a story regarding an eleven year boy who remembered his fathers execution. He said “Then they mass executed them, without blindfolds, with machine guns, rifles, and gerandes… My father was buried underneath all the dead bodies. Fortunately, only one bullet went through his arm and two bullets stuck in his skull… My father stayed motionless underneath the dead bodies until dark, then he tried to walk to his hometown during the night…The soldiers then placed my father in the middle of the rice field, pointed flashlights, and shot him” (119). This eleven year old recalls his uncle telling the Khmer Rouge basically to kill the boy's father so that they could protect their family. This is just absolutely horrible. Also, the title “This is Not 1942, "directly calling out the issue and comparing it to one of the most horrible events in history is important in itself. However, despite the murders the US and other great powers allowed the Nazi power to build the army that did what it did. Comparing this to the Khmer Rouge, the US did nothing until after or it was too late and the damage was done. I just hope that the US can learn from their mistakes of not stepping in to make a better world for all. If the whole world shared core morals, then the US could step in and other countries would back the US and be able to balance out the way the economic hardships play out. However it seems every time economics seem to be more important than morals. Comparing it to something as simple as artists charging extreme prices for concerts when they do not need more money. Overall I dislike communism and this example is extremely horrifying.

An interesting idea that perfectbug states about communism is that it “prevents social mobility and is an attack on human rights”. The idea that everyone is guaranteed the same resources definitely does seem appealing, but total equality means no private property and individuals aren’t rewarded in proportion to the amount of work they do. In practice, communist regimes have resulted in totalitarianism where party officials enjoy all the luxuries products while individual liberties are repressed, forced labor is common practice, and widespread famine is caused by the state’s attempt to collectivize agriculture. I agree with perfectbug’s opinion that communism is flawed at its core, especially in the aspect that it kills individuality. There is also the compelling point that the US, even after “learning” from their lack of action during the Holocaust, continued to repeat the same mistake during the Khmer Rouge’s massacre. They state that economics seems to be the main factor in the US’ lack of action, but I believe it’s more complicated than that. In the case of Cambodia, it wasn’t that morals outweighed economics but rather other world events made intervention impossible. Set in the backdrop of the Cold War, many people in the US were protesting anti-war policies due to the US’ intervention in Vietnam. The Red Scare had pushed the US into becoming involved in Southeast Asia, which resulted in many soldier deaths and a brutal war in Vietnam. There was also a lack of information about the genocide happening in Cambodia, with warnings about bloodshed being labeled as rumors. Since the country closed off its borders, reporters were unable to obtain any stories about the events happening in Cambodia. With civilians at home pressing against intervention and unaware of the genocide happening, it makes sense why the US didn’t invest resources into punishing the Khmer Rouge during their rule.

The Khmer Rouge is another example of what communism leads to. Admittedly, they were wronged by the Americans, as they never should have been bombed in the first place. However, they took it to the extreme by wanting to separate themselves from anything remotely related to the West and capitalism. This included simple mechanical objects, such as watches. This also included the people connected to typically western jobs and behaviors, the city people. The Khmer Rouge saw the city people and their children as a cancer to the working class and that they were robbing them of what was rightfully theirs. In turn, they also valued those who worked in the fields, calling them “new people” and giving them better treatment than the city folk. It is not wrong for someone to value certain professions above the others, but when a government starts to treat people differently in terms of how much their lives are worth, that is the big problem. I do believe that it highlights something inherently wrong with communism, but it also displays the ferocity and extremism of the Khmer Rouge. Communism does not work because humans are not perfect and eventually someone will come to power who shouldn’t be (c.f. to Animal Farm). It sounds great, everyone having equal value, but it never pans out that way. What eventually happens is that the larger whole of the country is placed above the individual, which leads to seizure of private property and the means of production. In its most extreme forms, we get the Khmer Rouge.

Bringing about change is necessary for all countries everywhere all the time, if they ever want to progress and grow as a nation. An ethical line does need to be drawn, in order to not only preserve human life but to make sure they are not living in squalor. This seems like common sense, but a nation should never resort to the genocide of anyone, much less its own people. If the “change” that the Khmer Rouge wanted to bring meant the killing of millions of men, women, and children, then it never should have even been considered. Saying this, there is a certain amount of struggle that a country can go through in order to make better times. In every country, there are good times and bad, and while not all the time, the bad times can lead to the growth of a nation. This can be seen through the Great Depression, and while it obviously wasn’t planned that the stock market would crash and millions would be homeless and without food, it the the Depression that led to the creation of millions of new government jobs and social services, so in the end, some would view that as being worth it because we still use those services to this day. It should have been clear that Cambodia was not changing for the better when the Khmer rouge started executing its own people in cold blood for suspecting them to be “traitors to Angkar”.

Originally posted by ilovecoffee on March 10, 2026 13:12

There were a number of different flaws within the ideologies and plans of the Khmer Rouge, which ultimately led to the destruction of the lives of over a million people. Some central issues, however, are the return to life without technology and the hypocrisy that then stemmed from this within the KR leadership.

When the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia, they immediately began their plan to eradicate all modern ways of living. They ordered all of the people out of the cities, telling them that the US was going to bomb them, then forced the refugees into work camps. They had everyone wear the same clothes, confiscated personal items, had people build their own homes, and had them work excruciating hours in the fields. People faced starvation and exhaustion in these camps, and they created atmospheres of immense tension and suspicion. The KR also banned all forms of modern medicine, and with this many people faced needless death. Aside from working in fields, people were now barred from education, and children were utilized as soldiers.

This plan, to essentially force all Cambodians into intense poverty, was the driving force in all KR actions, and was also what was fundamentally wrong with the regime. The plan uprooted the lives of the entire population, and caused immense loss in the process. What worsened the situation is the hypocrisy that then emerged within KR leadership. As people lived laborious lives struggling to simply survive, those in positions of power lived luxuriously off of the items they had stolen. For example, while their citizens passed from simple diseases, the leadership was allowed the modern medicine that could have prevented these losses. This hypocrisy only worsened the situation, and proved that not only did they lack true belief in the ideology they were so eagerly pushing, but also that they would excuse and stand behind needless deaths.

However, I don’t think that specifically the actions of the Khmer Rouge demonstrate something inherently wrong with communism. While communism has proven to be inefficient and harmful in numerous other situations, such as those in Russia and China which occurred at the same time, the situation in Cambodia mainly communicates the issues with the Khmer Rouge leadership rather than communism as a whole. Cambodian communism already strayed from the traditional institutions when it rejected modern technologies and forced people into the roles of peasants, but its focus on death is what really set it apart from the others. Most other communist regimes caused immense death, but the events in Cambodia, shows how death played an essential role in KR leadership, more so than other communist powers ever used. The Khmer Rouge lacked any care for their people, and their slogans were a huge indicator of this. For example, from “A Problem From Hell: This is Not 1942,” we see this in the KR slogan “to keep you is no gain; to kill you is no loss.” This proved that specifically the Khmer Rouge ideologies were why this situation caused as much loss as it did, and doesn’t actually speak for the other communist regimes or that form of government as a whole.

Overall, the central issues as to why the Khmer Rouge caused as much loss and destruction as it did was its emphasis on the return to peasant life, as well as hypocrisy within the leadership. However, this situation presents the issues within the Khmer Rouge rather than communism as a whole.

I agree with my peer that the ideologies of the Khmer Rouge were completely problematic. On the other hand, my peer brought up something that I disagree with: they stated that they “don’t think that specifically the actions of the Khmer Rouge demonstrate something inherently wrong with communism.” The way I see communism is as a cage that traps humans from the rights they should have. There is no freedom in communism, there is no work ethic, and I firmly believe that it strips purpose away. When living in a communist led country, you will work with no purpose, just like everyone else. One thing I do agree with, though, is that my peer believed that the bigger problem was the Khmer Rouge leadership rather than the concept of commmunism, which is reflected in the many many deaths. I agree because communism is built on equality, not the death of a “lesser” group at all. But I would “like” to see how the communist would have worked in Cambodia under a morally better leadership. As I still believe that rebellions would have happened and it would not have worked out anyway, although millions would still be alive, so I am not at all arguing that it did not matter.