learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by random on March 10, 2026 20:59

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.

I enjoyed reading my peer’s post, and I feel like we had a lot of similar opinions on the Khmer Rouge’s interpretation of communism. We both feel that communism doesn’t inherently mean all societies that follow it will and should like the Khmer Rouge’s society, but instead that the Khmer Rouge took this and transformed it into a brutal form. I found the part where they mentioned that people were considered enemies if they wore glasses very interesting because I didn’t fully notice or take this part in, and I find it so crazy how glasses are enough to make it seem like someone is a traitor. I agree with my peer on the part where they mentioned that the Khmer Rouge’s interpretation of communism was in such an extreme and brutal way, and I mentioned this in my post. I also feel like the Khmer Rouge didn’t need to go as extreme as they did as they caused mass starvation and displacement. I don’t think that there is anything about my peer’s post that I would change as I agree with all of the things they mentioned in their post, and I also feel that there weren’t any unfinished or unclear points that they mentioned.Post your response here.

Originally posted by funny bunny on March 10, 2026 18:25

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.

You make some very interesting points throughout your response, and I feel we share some of the same viewpoints. On that note, a very interesting statement that you made was about how the Khmer Rouge treated civilians like they were prisoners. I had not thought about it that way before. Now that you say it, it makes a lot of sense. I completely agree with this take, they are almost in a jail, a societal jail under the KR. Another part of this is that you bring up the superiority of soldiers in society. I feel this is because of the weapons the soldiers carry; they are able to have superiority just because they have a weapon. In the second paragraph, I also agree with your take on how if more countries got involved, it could have become worse for everyone, especially the Cambodian people. I also agree that many people ignored some obvious signs, simply because they say they didn’t want Americans dying in another Southeast Asian country. Personally, I think that going into Cambodia would have been the worst-case scenario, as the Khmer Rouge would have been able to turn everyone against the US and use that to their advantage in consolidating power and gaining support of the people. In general, I think your response is very well written and very clear.