learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by BuzzBrdy on March 09, 2026 21:51

"The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 was one of the worst genocides in history."
"One problem with the Khmer Rouge’s idea about communism is that they wanted to change society to communist seemingly instantly."
"the international community did not have correct information of what was happening and te scale of the atrocities."
"The genocide does not necessarily prove that communism is violent but it showcases ow it can become dangerious when interpreted in an extreme way."
"They believe that their method would create an agrarian society but pushed this through mass executions and starvation. They showed little to no regard for human life and believed that suffering was acceptable in order to achieve their goals This prevented them from seeing that their actions were actually destroying the country." "There was lots of hesitation from other countries to intervene which allowed for a slow response from major powers".

I thought that you had some very good points. The idea that the Khmer Rouge tried to change society too quickly, rather than trying to implement their plans gradually, was a good insight. I also liked the idea that the Khmer Rouge was a poor example of communism because of the way it was implemented and not necessarily because communism is inherently dysfunctional. Finally, I thought your point of using ideology to justify suffering - like the KR saying "communism will make Cambodia better, and this is just how communism works" - was also an insightful interpretation of the situation.

However, I think a lot of your response was repeating facts we learned in class rather than new ideas, and I think some of your points didn't quite get the idea of the articles we read. You said that the KR were trying to create a genuine, utopian, agrarian society and they just failed to do so because they were using the wrong methods. I disagree with this; I think they knew what they were doing and didn't actually care about the suffering of the people they were knowingly starving and torturing. Additionally, I definitely agree that the international community should have acted faster, but I disagree that their inaction was due to having incorrect information. I think they used the "lack of reliable information" as an excuse not to act because they didn't want to in the first place.

Finally, you called the Cambodian genocide "one of the worst genocides in history" and I just want to note that we should not be comparing genocides. All genocides are atrocious, and just because more or fewer people died in one than another doesn't make one better.

Originally posted by DiaryoftheSillyKid on March 10, 2026 07:11

The tragedy of the Cambodian genocide shows how a political ideology with extreme leadership and international inaction can lead to huge consequences. Under the rule of the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, Cambodia attempted to make a radically new society based on an extreme interpretation of communism. Instead of creating equality and property, the policies of the Khmer Rouge led to suffering and the deaths of millions of people. The Cambodian case shows not necessarily that communism is flawed, but that the Khmer Rouge's rigid and violent interpretation of the ideology, with unrealistic goals, led to insane amounts of instability. One of the fundamental problems in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was their belief that society could be restored by getting rid of institutions and social structures. They tried to make what they called the “Yero Zero,” where cities were emptied, and people were forced to work in rural agricultural collectives. Intellectuals and anyone associated with the former government or foreign influence were treated because the regime believed they threatened the purity of the new society. This extreme social engineering ignored basic human needs. According to Samantha Power in A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, many international observers struggled to understand what was happening in Cambodia because reliable information was very hard to find, and the Khmer Rouge isolated the country. This isolation led the regime to construct its policies with little outside influence at the beginning of its rule. However, the destruction in Cambodia was not just the result of communist ideas alone. Communism, as a political ideology, has been expressed differently in many countries, some being more extreme than others. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge leadership used the ideology extremely and uncompromisingly. They believed that any suffering in the present was just to help achieve their vision of a perfect agricultural society. This way of thinking removed moral limits from their actions and made human life seem terrible. The problem was not just the ideology itself, but the way it was interpreted and enforced by leaders willing to sacrifice millions of people to achieve what they wanted. Another important issue raised by Cambodia is the role of the international community. During the years of the Khmer Rouge rule, many governments had some information suggesting that serious abuses were taking place, yet meaningful action was limited. Political concerns during the Cold War, uncertainty about the accuracy of reports, and the difficulty of intervening in another country all contributed to the slow response. Samantha Power describes how some policymakers dismissed early warnings or hoped the situation would become better on its own. As a result, the suffering of Cambodian civilians kept going until Vietnam invaded Cambodia and removed the Khmer Rouge from power. This creates an important question: when should the international community stop respecting national sovereignty to stop extreme human suffering? Usually, countries are expected to respect each other's independence, but when a government is clearly harming its own people on a massive scale, strict respect for sovereignty can allow atrocities to continue. In Cambodia, earlier international pressure or stronger diplomatic action might have lowered the scale of the disaster. At the same time, intervention is complicated because it can also lead to conflict or consequences. The challenge is finding a balance between respecting national independence and protecting basic human rights.

Ultimately, the events in Cambodia show how dangerous it can be when leaders pursue ideological purity without regard for human life. The Khmer Rouge believed they were building a better society, but their extreme policies destroyed the country’s economy and population. The tragedy also shows the responsibility of the global community to pay attention to the warning signs and act when governments commit severe abuses against their own people. By studying cases like Cambodia, societies can understand how ideological extremism and international action can combine to create humanitarian disasters, and hopefully work to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

I agree with what you’re saying about the extremes of communism being exposed by Khmer Rouge, but I’m not fully in agreement that Khmer Rouge is only an example of bad communism. I don’t think communism works at all, but I understand your point about Khmer Rouge’s violent interpretation. I think that there are different levels to communism, and Khmer Rouge should not be the example, but instead should stand for the most extreme version of communism. I like what you have to say about outsiders looking in on Cambodia. I think that the regime did a good job at hiding their intentions and isolating their people, but I think there is also a point to be made that other countries didn’t want to investigate Cambodia out of fear that they’d find something wrong. The laziness of outside countries, especially America and their shame about the Vietnam War, kept others from looking into Khmer Rouge and their plans for a new Cambodia. I like that you mention this as well, rounding out the problems that other countries brought to a rough climate not only in Southeast Asia, but the whole world. I would like to hear more about what impact the Cold War had. I think that the Red Scare and communism should’ve gave America more of a reason to disrupt Khmer Rouge’s rule, but only if they had won in Vietnam, or had never gotten involved.

Originally posted by Seven_Gill on March 10, 2026 23:54

There were countless issues that contributed to the Cambodian genocide, and many would point to either American involvement in Vietnam during the war against communism, however an objective truth about this tragic event is that Communism is nearly impossible to implement smoothly within a society. During the Vietnam war, the small country of Cambodia was destabilized after their flow of resources was blocked by the United States through bombing. This undoubtedly played a role in Cambodia’s increased vulnerabilty and susceptibility to Communist ideals. The growing resentment from the immense low class people(s) towards the West became evident through the rise of the Khmer Rouge socialist regime (which was composed of primarily low class agrarian citizens). The Khmer Rouge had an ambitious plan known as “Year Zero” which was a total overhaul of the Cambodian government fit with the redistribution of wealth and power and vital resources. This could only be done through a forced evacuation and filtering of citizens that ultimately resulted in the persecution of several different classes, races, and social groups. One of the first to experience this oppression were the monks, which were looked down upon as “leeches of Angkar” and were subsequently either put to work or executed. Furthermore, anybody who was formerly uperclass was also ridiculed and persecuted in a manner that went against the Communist belief of equality and comradeship. The most questionable development made by the Khmer Rouge was their rejection of Western medicine and redistribution of food, which ultimately led to the majority of deaths during the genocide. Even then, whilst sickness and starvation made up the majority of deaths, the Cambodian genocide is known especially for it’s brutality and utter paranoia. The most egregious example of this is the S-21 prison, a former high school repurposed into a prison used for torture and interrogation. This was a facility that was born out of paranoia, and its goal was to gather information on any possible enemies to Angkar and their communist regime. Conditions were deplorable, and there was virtually no chance of survival once you were incarcerated, as what likely awaited you was brutal torture until they heard a confession (fake or real) and subsequent execution. Their methods of torture rivaled the brutality of German and Japanese medical experimentation during World War II, consisting of immolation, boling water boarding, electrical shocks, tearing off of body parts (finger nails, nipples, testicles, etc), and even sexual assault. Troublingly, the majority of these guards were young kids or teens, which was a common theme in the Khmer Rouge as their use of child labor was very widespread and common. Whilst most guards found a sick pleasure in their brutal treatment of the prisoners, this did not mean the guards were not subject to harsh rules aswell. While sexual assault was used on female prisoners, if this was discovered, the perpetrator would be executed. Similarly, if a guard accidentally beats or tortures a prisoner to death before getting information, they would be tortured or beaten to death in return. This also applied to any high ranking officer of the Khmer Rouge, as they were also subject to these harsh rules when looking over the newly reformed communist citizens. All this to say that while it’s easy to come to the conclusion that this was only due to the Khmer Rouge’s poor implementation of communism, I personally believe that this is a product of communism through and through. For one, the “fair redistribution of wealth, power, and resources” will always lead to some people being better off than others. There, even being a communist leader (like Pol Pot) automatically goes against the ideals of Communism as he’s far better off than the average citizen in a communist society. Furthermore, amongst all the major communist societies (including Cambodia), what they all have in common is the fact that they went through a gastly period of starvation. This is no coincidence, rather it is due to the naive notion that people will work to make food for free and be willin to share with people who didn’t work for it on a massive scale. For instance, Russia went through horrific starvation during the cold war (1-2 million dead), China went through the Great Chinese Famine between 1959 and 1962 (20-55 million dead), and the starvation as a result of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (700,000-1 million dead). Based on this information, say what you want about how Communism could “theoretically work”, it doesn’t seem as if they are even capable of getting past the famines that come with food redistribution.

The most compelling idea in this response is your point about how communism is nearly impossible to implement smoothly within a society. I agree with this idea because events in the past have proven and shown that extreme ideologies can become harmful when leaders enforce it in extreme and violent ways. In my response, I also mentioned how the destruction and downfall of Cambodia was not solely because of the communist ideology, but rather the violent and dehumanizing tactics of the Khmer Rouge. I liked how you compared the Khmer Rouge’s methods of torture to those in countries such as Germany and Japan. I think these comparisons offered a broader perspective and provided more examples of recurring patterns throughout history. The point about how Cambodia became increasingly unstable and vulnerable, making it more susceptible to communist ideas was also very interesting. I also agree with the fact that the rejection of Western ideas, influences, medicine, and offers of international aid is what ultimately led to the millions of deaths of Cambodians. I really liked how you mentioned several examples of a similar theme of starvation in other communist regimes. Overall, your post raises important questions about the responsibility of other foreign nations to intervene in genocides.

Originally posted by flower123 on March 09, 2026 08:32

The Khmer Rouge's ideology around everyone being equal, is incredibly unrealistic given today's society. All populations at this point in time are developed with unique education, technology, personal items, and individualism. Stripping people of basic rights, physicalities, safety, and more is incredibly unethical and there is no justification. Their community failed because it forced people to live an entirely dystopian life. When it comes to international intervention, I have complex opinions. I understand why it would not make sense from a political stand point for the US to not get involved, however the horror is in the lack of humanitarian value. Being complicit and aware of the atrocities that are happening is frankly disgusting. However, is it fair for the US to constantly be expending their resources and soldiers' lives for a nation that would cause complex problems for us and with no benefit to their own nation. It is most definitely selfish, but are governments not called to act in the best interest of their own people. How responsible are governments for other nations? I think in Cambodia the line was most definitely crossed, but even still how would they approach preventative or remedial action? I think expectations of governments to intervene are quite unrealistic. Issues are extremely more complicated then it seems and as people would hope. I think the most complicated layer of this issue is the fact that the ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere before intervention is necessary. If they act too early before it's direly needed, resources could have been wasted but if they let the conflict go on to the point where intervention is beyond necessary, a lot of damage has already been done and it will be harder for a government to make legitimate progress. Therefore, it starts to become less and less “worth it” to step in if they know they won't be able to accomplish a lot and so many lives have already been lost it can be considered too late. Another point that is important to recognize is why would only the US be the point person needing to help. There are other global powers that could have stepped in but people only expect the US too. Beyond that, nations would not even need to be a global power to have an impact on a society in that state. Cambodia at this time was undergoing intense destruction. If any nations deployed basic amenities, it could have been a pivotal point and let citizens escape. There are strategies and actions that surrounding governments could have gone through with, but the US ended up being to blame for not making progress. In regards to who would be to blame for the genocide itself and holding individuals accountable, I think it makes sense for all higher-ups and masters of manipulation to be held accountable. They are the orchestrators of the whole affair and deserve to pay for their disturbing actions. All in all, I think there is no clear answer in regards to morals and ethics and defining one in a situation that is this extreme and took the lives of so many, is insensitive.

This person has an incredibly compelling argument in that it focuses on how with the nature of individualistic society, it is impossible to make a society that would fully go under communism. With that nature being so prevalent, it is true that any attempts to fully equalize people would end in large problems and much harm being done to everyone. Though, I feel that this person’s other argument makes a bit less sense, as to where the reasoning is behind anti-interference. I personally believed that it was in the best interests that a society should be able to figure itself out, without the interference of others. However, I do understand that it is necessary to save people suffering under immense cruelty. While it is true that the US and other countries can interfere, this person makes the question as to why it is always on the US to do so, and I agree. There is some sort of moral pull among the people of the US, forcing the government to act more often than others. Since it is a major power, there is a sense of obligation to help others in less fortunate situations, even if that isn’t the most correct answer. I agree with the idea that this is an overly complex issue to think of, though it is important to work to find an answer, even if it is unclear.

I think that the biggest problem for the Khmer Rouge was their extreme far leftism rather than adoption of both right and left concepts. In addition to the oppressive system that did not value human life, this spelled disaster for the Khmer Rouge. Their immediate adoption of marxist ideology taken to the extreme was a harsh shift for the population and led to the deaths of so many people not adapted to an agrarian life, in need of western medicine, people starving, or people that the Khmer Rouge outright killed. In my opinion, this demonstrates an inherent flaw with far left communism on a national scale. A much better solution would be a socialist or more center-left ideology that still prioritizes the common person, while also having enough basic rights like private property. Marx’s end goal of communism–a society not bound by class or inequality–is impossible because it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature. Human nature is to strive and leap forward ahead of the pack, which inherently means that the pack is left behind. In my opinion, I think that Marx’s vision is an idealized dream that wants human nature to be something that it is not. While I think that inequality on the whole is awful and the wealth differences between Americans today is disgusting, the solution is not to strip everyone of what makes them human. At the end of the day, difference, inequality, and individualism is what makes us human. It distinguishes us from one another and gives each person infinitely unique value. Imagine a world for a moment, wherein you dress, look like, eat, drink, say, think, dream about, wish for, desire, the exact same thing as the person next to you, and the person beside them, and so on and so forth. A world where no one owns anything, a world where there is nothing distinguishing you from anyone else. Ideologically, that environment sounds horrible. With no thoughts, dreams, or aspirations to separate yourself from the crowd, what even are you? At that point, are you even human, or just an animal? For marxist extremists like the Khmer Rouge, this is how society should be. At the same time, it is true that workers around the world since the beginning of time have been exploited. Whether it was the slaves in Egypt building the pyramids, or the factory workers in England working ten hours each day, the poor have been constantly exploited. Similarly, the workers under the Khmer Rouge were also exploited by their leaders. This highlights another issue with the Khmer Rouge, which is that they brutally exploited their population and executed the marxist ideology poorly. This is evidenced by the vegetables grown by the camps being sent away in First They Killed My Father, which demonstrates how the Khmer Rouge never actually cared about the Marxist paradise, but rather sought to replace Lan Nol’s regime with their own. Ultimately, the failure of the Khmer Rouge that led to the deaths of so many innocents, was caused by a combination of inherent flaws of communism, and the Khmer Rouge’s oppressive regime that killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people.

Originally posted by Jeff on March 11, 2026 09:31

The Khmer Rouge regime under Pol Pot was one of the most destructive governments of the 20th century, killing around 1.7 million people between 1975 and 1979. Looking at what happened in Cambodia, I think the core problems were less about communism as an ideology and more about how the KR twisted it into something extreme.

The KR wanted to create a utopia that starts at “Year Zero,” where Cambodia would completely restart from a new beginning. They emptied cities, abolished money, banned religion, and forced nearly everyone into rural labor camps. Sok Udom Deth describes how the regime's leadership, mostly educated elites who studied abroad, became deeply suspicious of anyone with Western influence or formal education. This is one of the most interesting contradictions of the regime: the leaders themselves were educated, yet they targeted teachers, doctors, and intellectuals. The ideology was not just bad in theory; it was being applied in a way that destroyed the few people that Cambodia needed to survive and rebuild.

I don't think this proves communism is inherently wrong. But I do believe it shows that any ideology, when taken to an extreme and enforced through violence, becomes dangerous. The KR did not fail because they were communist; they failed because the leadership was paranoid, violent and completely disconnected from the reality of what the Cambodian people needed or wanted.

Another question that I find interesting is the one about what the international community could have done. Reading the excerpts from Samantha Power’s book, what stands out is how much the U.S. government knew or could have known about the Regime. She describes how reports were coming in about mass killings and starvation, but officials either dismissed them or chose not to act. Part of this had to do with Cold War politics. The U.S. had just pulled out of Vietnam and had no appetite for another conflict in SE Asia. There was also a strange situation where the U.S. actually supported the KR diplomatically after Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979, simply because Vietnam allied with the Soviets. This meant that stopping genocide was less important than Cold War strategy, which is crazy to me.

The question of whether national sovereignty should be overridden is hard. On one hand, countries should not be able to just invade each other. On the other hand, the idea that a government can slaughter its own people, and the world just watches, just doesn't seem right. Cambodia shows the cost of inaction. By the time Vietnam invaded and the Regime collapsed, nearly ¼ of the population was dead.

What happened to Cambodia was a failure in many ways. It was a failure of ideology applied without humanity, a failure of leadership driven by paranoia, and a failure of the international community to prioritize human lives over politics.

The most compelling idea in your post is your argument that the Khmer Rouge’s brutality stemmed less from communism itself and more from the extreme version of it that Pol Pot and his circle created. I think this is an important distinction, and I agree with your point that ideology becomes dangerous when it is enforced without humanity or restraint. Your observation about the contradiction between the KR leadership’s own education and their violent targeting of educated Cambodians makes sense. It highlights how paranoia fueled many of their decisions. Your point about US inaction connects well with issues people have raised about the failures of the international community during genocides. My view is similar to yours because I also see the Cambodian genocide as multiple failures in ideological extremism, authoritarian leadership, and global indifference. One suggestion for strengthening your post would be to expand on how “Year Zero” contributed to the regime’s violence.

Many problems existed within the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia that led to the suffering and deaths of millions of people. Some of these problems were that the Khmer Rouge wanted to completely change Cambodian culture and society by starting at year zero and controlling the people. I think this does demonstrate something inherently wrong with communism because everywhere it has been implemented, the outcome hasn’t been good. Usually, it fails because of the leader's lack of planning and severe shortages, as seen in Cambodia. Pol Pot and the other high-ranking KR officials weren’t able to create a functioning society. The KR leaders were only looking to help themselves, and this is another reason why they failed. They took communist ideas to the extreme, and as a result, 2 million people were murdered. They took advantage of the people and used fear to get them to listen. It is hard to determine what is ethical for bringing about change in a place. Many places all over the world have been fighting for change, and nothing has changed. I believe that some suffering will have to happen to bring about change in a country/place because most of the time, violence is what people use to bring about a new and better society. There are many examples of this in the present and in history. When it is clear that a struggle for change is making a country worse, I think it is hard to know what should happen. The international community could’ve done a lot more to prevent the genocide in Cambodia from happening, as there were many signs. It all started with the US bombing of Cambodia to stop supplies from reaching North Vietnam. The KR used this to gain control. The KR takeover was very well documented by many different reporters, who relayed their findings to the US government. The United States couldn’t politically manage more military action in Southeast Asia so they put its national interests over human rights, which is the argument made in A Problem from Hell. The international community repeatedly said “never again”, but didn’t really do anything to prevent the deaths of 2 million people. It is hard to know when a country should override national sovereignty, but in this case it was clearly necessary. I think a country's national sovereignty can be overridden if there is an imminent threat to its people's safety, which was the case in Cambodia. Another global power besides the US could have stepped in, or even international committees. I believe that the global powers were worried about the effects of stepping in and wanted to focus on their country’s goals. The international community did do a lot to help the people of Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by setting up refugee camps, and allowing for immigrants to come into their countries, but the damage was already done, and they should’ve stepped in sooner.

Originally posted by believerchalkboardcomputer on March 11, 2026 11:07

Many parts of the Khmer Rouge’s plan to rebuild Cambodia was fundamentally flawed from the start. The plan to move people from the cities to the countryside as seen in First They Killed My Father was chaotic and unorganized. The plan to reorganize society back to year 0 with anti-intellectualism would eventually leave no one to run the country or create innovations because of the targeting of educated/intellectuals. Also, leaders in the Khmer Rouge were paranoid of internal enemies. As said by Sok Udom Deth in “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea”, the leaders were afraid of a revolt and “DK leaders suspected that the Eastern Zone cadres were siding with the Vietnamese. They were accused of having kbal yuon kluon khmer (Khmer bodies with Vietnamese heads). Pol Pot ordered a series of executions of the Eastern Zone cadres, many of whom were also brought to S-21”. The degree of paranoia would eventually lead to the party destroying itself. Like any other economic system, communism works better in theory than in practice because it needs specific human behavior that is not possible in most cases. Communist ideology in theory aims to create a classless, stateless society with equal ownership. In practice, this is impossible on the scale of a country, and in places like China and the Soviet Union the government controlled resources which inherently created inequality because of the presence of a government with immense power. The kind of communism used by the Khmer Rouge used some parts of this communist ideology, but was twisted and taken to the extreme. Originally, communism as thought of by Karl Marx would have been a part of an industrial society, not an agricultural one.

Despite the many early warning signs, the international community failed to respond. In A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide its stated that many of the refugees coming to the reporters had similiar stories and were supported by the observations of service officers and other officials. Actions that could have been taken by the international community are diplomatic pressure and condemnation. By calling out the Khmer Rouge’s crimes, it could have made the regime look less legitimate, led to less support, and created more defections. However, the lack of acknowledgement led to the regime being emboldened to act as it looked like nobody would stop them. Also, supporting the journalists, officials, and refugees sharing the stories coming out of Cambodia could have lessened the uncertainty of events in the area, making undeniable evidence of the crimes being committed and creating more pressure on the Khmer Rouge. The UN should have also supported Vietnam’s action against Cambodia, as the UN Genocide Convention specifically calls for countries to intervene to prevent or stop a genocide. Instead Vietnam was condemned and called to withdraw, which led to less resistance against the Khmer Rouge.

While international sovereignty is important, it should be overridden in cases of genocide or other large crimes that goes beyond a country’s power to stop it. I also believe it should be the last resort if diplomatic, economic, or political pressure does not work.

I think it's an important and unique perspective on state/country sovereignty, which is often a forgotten aspect of the Cambodian genocide and was a driving factor for a lot of the events that took place in the time period. I also definitely agree with the fact that Communism on a country wide scale cannot exist without it contradicting itself. A governmental body is one of the most viable strategies (which still isn't perfect) and this is corroborated by the Soviet Union and China, who still had government bodies during their Communist rules despite the fact that it goes against Communist ideals. I also agree with the fact that there will always be people that benefit from Communism more than others. For instance, the persecution of the higher class to the point of execution and torture actively goes against Communism due to the fact that they are not being treated as equals. The Khmer Rouge's way of thinking was that those who were middle class or higher were secretly capitalist, and that is a crime deserving of execution as it would be actively going against Angkar. Overall, I agree with this person's take on Communist Cambodia and I'm also glad that they brought up how unsuccessful most forms of Communism are in history (like China and Russia's attempt).

Originally posted by flower123 on March 09, 2026 08:32

The Khmer Rouge's ideology around everyone being equal, is incredibly unrealistic given today's society. All populations at this point in time are developed with unique education, technology, personal items, and individualism. Stripping people of basic rights, physicalities, safety, and more is incredibly unethical and there is no justification. Their community failed because it forced people to live an entirely dystopian life. When it comes to international intervention, I have complex opinions. I understand why it would not make sense from a political stand point for the US to not get involved, however the horror is in the lack of humanitarian value. Being complicit and aware of the atrocities that are happening is frankly disgusting. However, is it fair for the US to constantly be expending their resources and soldiers' lives for a nation that would cause complex problems for us and with no benefit to their own nation. It is most definitely selfish, but are governments not called to act in the best interest of their own people. How responsible are governments for other nations? I think in Cambodia the line was most definitely crossed, but even still how would they approach preventative or remedial action? I think expectations of governments to intervene are quite unrealistic. Issues are extremely more complicated then it seems and as people would hope. I think the most complicated layer of this issue is the fact that the ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere before intervention is necessary. If they act too early before it's direly needed, resources could have been wasted but if they let the conflict go on to the point where intervention is beyond necessary, a lot of damage has already been done and it will be harder for a government to make legitimate progress. Therefore, it starts to become less and less “worth it” to step in if they know they won't be able to accomplish a lot and so many lives have already been lost it can be considered too late. Another point that is important to recognize is why would only the US be the point person needing to help. There are other global powers that could have stepped in but people only expect the US too. Beyond that, nations would not even need to be a global power to have an impact on a society in that state. Cambodia at this time was undergoing intense destruction. If any nations deployed basic amenities, it could have been a pivotal point and let citizens escape. There are strategies and actions that surrounding governments could have gone through with, but the US ended up being to blame for not making progress. In regards to who would be to blame for the genocide itself and holding individuals accountable, I think it makes sense for all higher-ups and masters of manipulation to be held accountable. They are the orchestrators of the whole affair and deserve to pay for their disturbing actions. All in all, I think there is no clear answer in regards to morals and ethics and defining one in a situation that is this extreme and took the lives of so many, is insensitive.

I think one of the most compelling parts of your post is the first part, where you talk about how everyone lives a unique life and stripping people of this and taking away their basic rights was the main reason they failed. I agree with this statement. I think people didn’t like the fact they had to start a year zero, and everyone was the same, and they had no way to express themselves or learn. After reading lots of people's posts, most people said something similar that the KR took communism to the extreme and weren’t successful in making everyone restart at year zero. I really like your argument about weighing the pros and cons of intervention and how does a country know when to step in, because if you step in too late or too early, it could be bad. I also talked about how another country besides the US could’ve stepped in. I think a lot of countries model off the US and were afraid to step in and act on their own. Overall, I really like your post and you brought up some great points that I didn’t consider before reading your post.

Originally posted by lordofthenumbers on March 09, 2026 22:20

In the Khmer Rouge’s ideology, there weren’t any specific flaws that could be pointed out that led to the destruction of the Cambodian people. It is more in line to say that the flaws lay in their ways of carrying out their plans based on those ideas. The Khmer Rouge failed to think about how they would carry out communism. Though this also goes to show that in the first place, communism would, in any case, fail in actual practice. It shows that when attempting to share food “equally”, there would always be corruption of any sort, developing the question of what truly equal sharing of food could even be, how it should be handled, and every other piece of logistics necessary to run a society. The text mentioned that people were only allowed small portions of rice, and that anyone who dared to complain would be murdered. This is a symbol of a society that will be clearly unable to last, a symbol of the poor interpretation of communism by the leaders of the Khmer Rouge. Additionally, their specific targeting of the “intellectuals” was something misconstrued from the goals of absolute equality, where education and knowledge is necessary for all aspects of society. It demonstrates that intellectuals would destroy this incredibly confusing and restrictive society in some manner.

To answer the question of how much suffering must be tolerated for a better society, it first must be seen that a “better society” is defined. Then, to that point, it seems that a better society is one in which people are suffering less and prospering more. If, in the process of “suffering less” people suffer more, it is true that there will have been no point to it at all. For example, in the last text, it was shown that a child’s family was divided completely by the Khmer Rouge, and they would have been unable to reach that “better society”. To obtain a better society with cruelty and death creates a world that has to deal with great amounts of pain from loss, ultimately leading to further suffering. In realizing that this sort of change has more adverse effects, it should ideally be shut down by the government itself. Of course, it is not as if outside viewers had attempted to reverse this kind of genocidal rule either. This does also lead into the question as to who should intervene, and how they should do so.

In the specific case of the Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia, the US had already made the issue prevalent in its bombing. So, does the US have responsibility for the consequences of those bombings? It seems that yes, they do. The immense suffering of people was caused by the US, and so it should therefore intervene. For the situation with the US, it seems that it is necessary for direct reparations for any losses caused by bombings should be repaid, in order to help. But in situations different to this, the question becomes “who has the right” to decide what society should intervene against, instead of being able to figure it out for themselves. A nation has the right to develop on its own, without external influence, though that is growing increasingly difficult in the increasingly interconnected world.

I like the idea in this post about the distinction between the Khmer Rouge's theoretical ideology and their insane logistical failures. You say that the “flaws” were not inherent to the ideas themselves but in the education, more importantly, the inability to manage the logistics of a society, like food distribution. I agree, while the poor interpretation of communism led to immediate starvation, I think that the ideology itself was flawed because it viewed human life as replaceable in a collective. This connects to my response about “Year Zero,” in that the total deflation of history is seen as an impossible goal. My own views go with your point about “intellectuals.” While the educated class is a paradox, you cannot build a better society while destroying the people needed to run it. However, I differ slightly on the point of US responsibility. While you say the US had a duty to intervene because of their bombing before, someone could say that further intervention might have made the situation worse. I believe this is a very strong response with a lot of good points and analysis for others to think about, but I think adding a specific example of what that intervention looked like would add some more clarity. I also think the transition between the failure of the Khmer Rouge and the ethics of the US was well done and connected the internal collapse with the external accountability of the United States.

Originally posted by BuzzBrdy on March 09, 2026 21:51

The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 was one of the worst genocides in history. It attempted to bring a Communist society to the nation by taking away class divisions and destroying institutions like schools and religion. It in turn caused the mass suffering and death of around two million people. It raises the question about if the problems in the attempt to bring communism to Cambodia was because of the ideology itself or because of the way that they tried to enforce it. One problem with the Khmer Rouge’s idea about communism is that they wanted to change society to communist seemingly instantly. The plan of action forced millions out of cities and into farms in the rural areas in order to farm and live together. Anyone that was seen as going against the Khmer Rouge’s ideology such as intellectuals were seen as enemies and targeted. This ideology ignored moral values and treated people as tools of the Khmer Rouge. As describe in A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide by Samantha Power, the international community did not have correct information of what was happening and te scale of the atrocities. This allowed the Khmer Rouge to continue the policy for years without intervention from other nations. The genocide does not necessarily prove that communism is violent but it showcases ow it can become dangerious when interpreted in an extreme way. They believe that their method would create an agrarian society but pushed this through mass executions and starvation. They showed little to no regard for human life and believed that suffering was acceptable in order to achieve their goals This prevented them from seeing that their actions were actually destroying the country. The period also raised questions about change and struggle. Many movements have tried to use violence throughout history in order to go up against oppression. The situation in Cambodia shows the issue of allowing ideology to justify mass suffering. It began to harm the people it said it would help which showed how unethical the method was to begin with. The drive for a utopian society led to intense starvation and killings which showed how the struggle was making society worse instead of better. Many countries also had limited knowledge about what the Khmer Rouge was doing but there were still signs that issues were occurring there. There was lots of hesitation from other countries to intervene which allowed for a slow response from major powers. If there was more pressure internationally and humanitarian intervention there may ahve been a reduced version of the genocide. When governments commit crimes against humanity in their own nations there should be a responsibility for foreign powers to step in and put a stop to it. The Khmer Rouge serves as a picture of how ideology combined with power and disregard for morality can lead to immense consequences. The genocide in Cambodia shows us how poltiical shstems should be judged based on how ethical and moral they are instead of the goals that theys serve.

Post your response here.

I found this response very interesting and I liked how much of an emphasis you put on the KR's attempt to force communism on Cambodia too quickly and too extremely. These are also things I mentioned in my post and how they contributed greatly to the suffering. I agree with you point that communism isn't violent but it can be when interpretated in an extreme way. The example you used about forcing millions of people out of cities and into farming areas shows how unrealistic and dangerous their plam was. I liked how you mentioned how intellectuals and people who disagreed with the regime were treated as enemies because that is very important. The only thing I can say to you to improve is adding more explanation about international role. But besides that this was well written and very interesting

Originally posted by lemonloaf on March 10, 2026 09:07

The fundamental problems within the Khmer Rouge was that they would stop at nothing to ensure that under their regime, everyone followed their ideology even if that meant killing men that did follow their ideology to ensure there weren't any outliers. In the Excerpt from "A Problem from Hell” One researcher stated “The KR even propagated the adage, ‘It is better to arrest ten people by mistake than to let one guilty person go free.’ It was far more forgivable to kill ten innocent men than to leave one guilty man alive, even if he was ‘guilty’ simply of being less than overjoyed by the terms of service to Angkar.” This raises a bunch of issues such as the mere assumption that if someone did not support the Khmer Rouge they would be executed with no clear evidence to support it. I do think that there are things that are fundamentally wrong with Communism but I don't think that the inhumane actions of the leaders under the Khmer Rouge were direct causes of communism. I think that this is an extreme case where they would stop at nothing to achieve communism under what was once a country with a variety of ideologies. Corruption can be formed under any regime not just a communist one so I dont think its right to say that this is only subjected to actions under a communist regime. I think that change in any form has to be ethical in some regard in order for it to be effective. If one voices that they want to change something because it is unjust or morally wrong, they should go about it in an ethical manner to further prove their point. Being unethical change calls for steps back in progress for a just society as you are being a culprit in the one thing you set out to change. It is just simply ineffective to act with no ethics. People argue that suffering is inevitable for a just society and it is more of a “Wrong place, Wrong time” type of thing but that doesn't mean that it is just. There are many things that happen in the world that are inevitable but that doesn't mean we should learn to accept them. We should be working towards not expecting that inevitable because if we don't, we encourage people to turn their heads to the injustices that happened in Cambodia and other places, just because they were “In the wrong place, at the wrong time.” In the case of the Cambodian Genocide, it was just a matter what how much education you had or lacked since everyone was a target. The film did a good job of demonstrating this as the main character's father was targeted even though her family was well educated but wasn't limited to people like them as people of all demographics were targeted. This was a clear example of ideologies overriding any humane factors which is not just a characteristic of communism but rather a characteristic of blind hatred and cruel motivations.

I agree with this person, the idea that Khmer not stopping at anything to make a “perfect” world is a big part of the reason why it didn't work out. The quote talking about how they would rather take 10 innocent people than let one guilty person walk free is interesting because it shows how the people of Cambodia's lives were nothing but numbers and objects to complete Khmer’s “perfect world”. It proves that the interests of the people were not even put into consideration at the slightest and every move he made was solely for his amusement and poor future planning. “This raises a bunch of issues such as the mere assumption that if someone did not support the Khmer Rouge they would be executed with no clear evidence to support it,” was said in this response and it shows how shallow and unplanned this communist state was. This allowed their soldiers to move with malice because one interaction with someone could lead them to assume all kinds of things, as well as thinking that they know they are an individual person which is something that is so universal to all, even most of the soldiers. This is just another way to show how Khmer's plan was unthoughtful, and too quickly manufactured to ever have truly been effective.

Originally posted by bunnyenthusiast123 on March 10, 2026 10:58

The fundamental problem in Khmer Rouge’s ideology and plan is that they executed everything purely in violence and were not remotely communist. They had the concept of everything belonging to a community however that community was only their own upper class that they made. The point of communism is that everything is of the people for the benefit of the people and I don’t think there is a way to realistically do that. It is not an inherent flaw in communism but ideologically there can not be any government, anyone upper class, etc. yet that doesn’t work realistically as a system. The fundamental problems within Khmer Rouge’s ideology lie in the interpretation of communism which is fully wrong and their execution of their goals which were horribly violent. I do not think change must come with violence and I do not think violence has ever brought change only the aftermath of it. No amount of suffering is tolerable in a “better society” but with everyone’s different ideas of a better society there truly is no answer. Fundamentally a better society would involve equality and rights for everyone but to some their better society is the opposite of that so there is not a good way to execute a better society. In a case where the struggle for change is making things worse there is a responsibility to stop that, to replan and reformat how change should come about, and how that change would better society. In the case of the Khmer Rouge there should have been more concern, more intervention, and more justice served. Instead we wrote off survivor stories, didn’t take any warning signs seriously, and took far too long to intervene when we did accept the truth. National sovereignty should always be overridden when people are being executed, when people are being displaced, when people are being starved, when there is oppression of any kind. I don’t know who would intervene in Cambodia specifically but I definitely think America should have done more in the beginning, taken refugees seriously, garnered public support, call what was happening to the Cambodian people what it was which was genocide. The Cambodian Genocide only occcured due to the lack of support and belief around the situation and the Khmer Rouge only collapsed due to their flawed leadership and system.

I agree with you that the implementation of the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was more flawed than the ideology itself, and that in terms of being communist, they did a rather poor job. As you mentioned, communism is meant to be complete and total equality in terms of class, which, while that may be a naive concept, is certainly a very different concept than what the Khmer Rouge implemented. I’m not sure that I agree with your point about violence never leading to a better society. The United States violently broke away from the British empire in order to, at least ostensibly, seek liberty and heightened democracy; was this not creating a better society? Similarly, many nations in South America broke away from their colonial overlords (I.E. Spain and Portugal) in violent revolutions, and created more equitable, democratic societies. I agree that, at least in theory, violence is abhorrent, but I do think there are plenty of examples of violence being used to change systems and society for the better. I agree with your last point that the US, or somebody, should have intervened, but I also fully understand why they didn’t with the horrors of the Vietnam war being so fresh, and with the fact that it was the US who destabilized the region in the first place. Who’s to say that their “solution” to the Khmer Rouge wouldn’t have brought more pain, suffering, and regional destabilization just as their “solution” to North Vietnam did?

I think the international community could have been more done to help the Cambodian people during the Khmer Rouge by prioritizing human rights and protecting the lives of over a million innocent people instead of refusing to acknowledge what was going on because of purposeful ignorance and political interests. While the U.S. in particular wasn’t in the best shape to help (reluctance after the Vietnam War and internal instability), we were still bystanders to a genocide especially considering the amount of information the government knew about the tradegy and how they withheld it. Other powerful countries could have stepped up as well. While national sovereignty is important, it should be overridden when members of a country are being specifically targeted for facets of their identity. It is also important to note that what occurred under the Khmer Rouge was not supported by the people living there, so the moral legitimacy of the national sovereignty in this case is arguably baseless. If a government isn't treating or protecting their people well, they should lose the ability to be left alone by the rest of the world.

Originally posted by coolturtle on March 09, 2026 18:28

I think there was a clear fundamental problem in the coercion of communism under the Khmer Rouge. In the film, “They First Killed My Father,” Loung was subjugated to multiple sorts of hard labor even at the young age of 8 years old. Throughout the film, the depiction of the drastic nature of the Khmer Rouge was repeatedly shown in the form of “restarting” society from year zero. The problem with this implementation is the scale by which the KR attempted to do this. The capacity of a full nation being regressed in terms of technological advancement and moral values. It is simply unrealistic to expect a nation to progress from a point of no basic food, no structure, or adequate implementation of a political system. I believe communism isn’t the correct way to run a nation but I think the KR is just an extremity among the examples of communism we have seen in history. Another point I’d like to touch on is mentioned in Excerpt 3 Chapter 6 of A Problem From Hell which describes the iconic quote of the KR that “to keep you is no gain, to kill you is no loss.” I think this quote perfectly summarizes the problem with the Khmer Rouge. The most practical sense of ideology when running a nation is the priority of the citizen. If you disregard a nation’s people, you create corruption, a lack of identity, and the rise of an uprise. This idea of merciless killing and a lack of sentimental value from your people is not sustainable for a nation. The Khmer Rouge had no true structure behind their sense of communism which showed when Thailand began to attack their borders in 1979. Communism relies on the idea of equality among all social classes. However, this idea of resetting society under the impression that progression unless under Cambodia is useless, creates a backwards sense of thinking among people. I think it was also unreasonable to rid Cambodians of European clothing and use. I believe in a way the Khmer Rouge relied on psychological techniques in order to shift the mindsets of their own people. Throughout the film we see many kids embrace the Khmer Rouge ideology and identity. This is presumably because it is all they have ever known since they were born. Instilling this mindset among younger children, like Loung did, allows for systematic change at a faster rate. When talking about armed struggle and the war, the lines to whether bringing about change is ethical or not comes down to intention and motivation. The extermination of a group or race for their sole being of their race is not ethical whatsoever. The idea of bringing change must be clear and thoughtful. The Khmer Rouge exterminated the line when they began killing innocent civilians for the sake of “year zero.” The line can also be considered as subjective. I think different nations hold different ethical values. The extremity of one’s religion or values can extend the line to a certain point. I think the sole purpose of the UN was to draw these lines in a way that addressed crimes against humanity and general crimes against the innocent. Ultimately, I believe this ethical line must be drawn between the intentions of a nation and their actions that go based off those intentions. The KR had a fundamental problem of disregarding the value of their own people, leading to genocide and the line of ethicality to be broken.

This is a strong response to the prompt. I fully agree with what you said and truly believe that the problem in Cambodia was solely caused by the ineptitude and callous nature of the Khmer Rouge. Disregarding the ideology of Communism as a whole, the idea that civilians will not rebel under a regime that does not value their lives is nonsensical. In my opinion, the role of the government is to serve and protect the people, which the Khmer Rouge did not do in the slightest. The most compelling idea is the sharp criticism of the Khmer Rouge’s policy of shifting from year zero. The truth is–much like how “coolturtles” outlined–that policy is ridiculous and fails at the national scale. Another very compelling idea is the idea of scale. Could restarting from year zero work in a small-scale community? In my opinion, the answer is yes. For example, the Amish generally live with no modern appliances and live a calm agrarian life. Inherently, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with these people living in this manner, but on a forced national scale, I agree with “coolturtles” that turning back the clock is simply impossible.