learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

1. What fundamental problems existed in the Khmer Rouge's ideology and plan and that caused the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia? Does this demonstrate something inherently wrong with communism or does it demonstrate the ineffective and callous interpretation and execution of the ideology by the Khmer Rouge leaders?

2. With armed struggle and war a reality of life for people all over the world both past and present, how does one draw the line as to which means are ethical and unethical for bringing about change? How much suffering is tolerable to bring about a “better society”? What should happen when it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge?

3. What could have been done, on the part of the international community, to ameliorate the harm done to the people of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge between 1975-79? When, if ever, should national sovereignty be overridden to stop the immense suffering of people? How could this have happened in Cambodia and by whom?

Word Count Requirement: 500-750 words

Sources to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a description, quote or paraphrasing, from at least one of the sources in your response and please respond in some way to at least one of the question sets. You can also refer to the film, First They Killed My Father after we watch it as a class on Monday.

Excerpt 1 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002)

(Cambodia: The Unknowable Unknown and Wishful Thinking)

Excerpt 2 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002)

(Cambodia: From Behind a Blindfold and Official US Intelligence, Unofficial Skepticism)

Excerpt 3 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002)

(Cambodia: This Is Not 1942 and and Options Ignored; Futility, Perversity, Jeopardy)

“The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea” by Sok Udom Deth (2009)

Rubric to Review: LTQ Rubric

The reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia represents one of the worst attempts at Communism during the entire Cold War. The complete disregard for human life, the family unit, and individual thought go beyond even dystopian fiction. Yet, Communism as an ideology has its own fundamental flaws, some of which directly resulted in the events that occurred in Cambodia.

Philosophically communism sounds like a utopian idea that cures all the ills of society by establishing equality. The issues lie in the means that are necessary to achieve such a goal. In order to create a society built around a single unified goal and collective action, there can be no tolerance for anyone who opposes or undermines the new ideas. Even without government corruption or mal-intent, the system itself does not allow for dissent since it breaks down entirely once people stop believing in the mission. In Cambodia, the KR responded by killing and torturing all those who might possibly oppose the regime. They trained children and separated them from their families to create a completely new society since otherwise there would always be those who wanted to live in the old system. Communism does indeed require a start from year 0, so the KR sought to establish this with all its available resources. Communism and capitalism alike can become dangerous once people forget there are alternatives to the status quo, but communism’s mere existence requires it.

Bringing about change unfortunately often leads to violence. Once existing institutions take a defensive position and shut out opposition completely, the only response left is overthrowing the government. While just war theory sets likelihood of victory as a criterion for taking up arms, this is often impossible for those seeking internal change. Certainly violence should be a last resort but in the context of a popular and justified revolution it can be tolerated so long as jus in bello principles are followed. Unfortunately this is highly unlikely given the military context of the modern age, but I would still consider it morally gray if it genuinely starts through a popular movement. When establishing a new order, there is never stability as certain voices will demand a return to life before and others will push for even more extreme action (take French and Russian revolutions, for example). In general, the best thing that can happen in such a society is for people to believe in the new government and make sure democratic principles are upheld without actually undoing the revolution. The alternative options often lead to extremism and then authoritarianism as people seek some sense of order. Essentially, even if economic circumstances and quality of life are not improving, the theoretical and ideological efforts of democracy and personal liberty should be prioritized.

The international community failed miserably in Cambodia despite having access to so much information. I do not personally believe that the general populace of the US can be held responsible given the lack of press coverage, the trauma of Vietnam, and the lack of attention from politicians. Still, many countries should have done more to provide humanitarian aid and assist refugees much sooner. Military intervention for humanitarian causes is a very murky subject but genocide is certainly a case where it is necessary. I think in the case of the US violating Cambodian sovereignty, intervening militarily would not have been beneficial and would have deepened regional tensions even further. We also would have been fighting a war against a bunch of child soldiers and caused even more death than there already was. Vietnam did well to intervene since it did have just cause and took on less risk than any western bloc nation, making it the appropriate country to respond to the crisis in Cambodia. I do think, however, that western countries should have acknowledged the atrocities in the region earlier and informed their people, who likely still wouldn’t adopt a hawkish stance on war anyway considering US losses in Vietnam.

This is a heavily loaded prompt, so in order to respond to all aspects of it, I will break down my response into three parts in accordance with the guiding questions:

a) It is really hard to grasp what exactly the Khmer Rouge’s ‘plan’ was, as there didn’t appear to be one, but I would describe their ideology as totalitarian, aiming to literally strip the Cambodian way of life down to the baseboards and rebuild as a self-reliant and ‘equal’ society. Based on the recounts of events that I have reviewed, I would conclude that the issue wasn’t with the communist ideal itself, but with the Khmer Rouge’s approach to it. While attempting to enact communism, the Khmer Rouge went on a killing spree, eliminating nearly ¼ of the Cambodian population and leaving tens of thousands of children orphaned without anywhere to turn. Moreover, there was no clear political plan for how the country would function following this revolution, contributing to the immense destruction caused by the Khmer Rouge. I also believe that it is worth mentioning that, although I do not believe that the communist ideal in itself is flawed, when applied to the human race, I believe that it will never be able to truly achieve utopia, as the elimination of personal desire seems impossible, and even if it were achieved, would it really feel like a utopia.

b) In itself, attempting to answer the question of “how much violence is suitable if it achieves a better society?” feels wrong, but if I were to establish a standard for how we identify when suffering has surpassed the ‘tolerable limit’ in achieving a better society, I would look at a) the incremental progress and b) those being targeted. In regards to incremental progress, this standard would establish that suffering would need to be used in incremental periods, with proof that society is improving for the general population in between these periods; the idea behind this is that a government/organization cannot simply eliminate half of their citizens and say “trust us, if you let us continue you will see the benefits”. Furthermore, examining those being targeted aligns with incremental violence as it allows us to see if there is really a motivation for the killing or if it is preexisting bias; for example, there is no world in which eliminating a religious/ethnic group would actively foster a more functioning society, but if it were protesters against the government, there could be a legitimate reason for the violence.

How we should react when it is clear a society is changing for the worse, not the better, is difficult, as there are so many international laws, and we have no way of knowing that the country that interferes will not continue contributing to a society’s decline. With this in mind, I would recommend that we leave the determination of when to interfere to neutral international organizations such as the Red Cross, and when they make the determination that it is necessary to interfere, countries with the means should engage while attempting to minimize fatalities and destruction, while promising not to overstay their welcome.

c) As an American, I recognize that there may be unrealized biases in this response, however it is my opinion after doing further reading that one way in which the international community could have ameliorated the harm done to Cambodian people under the Khmer Rouge would be for other countries such as Great Britain or other european power houses to stand by the people of Cambodia. The United States continuously interferes with affairs that they shouldn’t be involved in; however, they have also done a great deal of good, whereas other countries with similar assets have not had the same impact. I believe that, as a world, we can do more to address all instances of genocide or immense suffering if more countries/groups step up and help resolve the issues. Whenever we discuss interfering with a country's internal affairs, the question of sovereignty inevitably comes up. To this, I would say that when it is clear that a) society is changing for the worse, b) innocent groups/people are at risk, and/or c) there is the potential of prolonged unnecessary violence, it is not just appropriate, but a requirement that the international community step up and step in.

LTQ Post 8: The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and of the International Community

The tragedy in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge from 1975-1979 shows how dangerous an extreme ideology can become when it is applied without limits or concern for human life. The Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, wanted to completely remake Cambodian society. They tried to create a classless, agrarian communist state called democratic Kampuchea. However their plan led to the deaths of around 1.7 million people from starvation, forced labor, disease and execution. While the regime claimed to be “building a better society" its actions caused massive destruction instead.

One of the main problems in the Khmers Rouge's ideology was how extreme and unrealistic it was. They believed Cambodia needed to return to “year zero” meaning that they would erase modern society and start over. Cities were emptied, schools and hospitals were shut down, religion was banned and money was eliminated. In “The Rise and Fall of democratic Kampuchea” Sok Udom Deth explains that the regime tried to purify society by removing anyone connected to the old system. This included educated people, professionals, monks and even people who simply looked intellectual. The government assumed that forcing everyone into farm labor would create equality and prosperity but instead it caused starvation and suffering. Their plan ignored basic human needs and the complexity of running a country.

This situation does not necessarily prove that communism itself always leads to genocide. Instead it shows how dangerous it is when leaders interpret an ideology in a violent way. The Khmer Rouge did not allow disagreement, free speech, or political opposition. There were no checks on their power. Any criticism was seen as betrayal. The problem was not just the theory of communism, but the way it was enforced without flexibility. When leaders believe their goal justified any action, human lives become less important than ideology.

Another important issue is the role of the international community. In "Problem from Hell” Samantha Power describes how the United States and other countries had information about what was happening in Cambodia but often responded with doubt or political calculation. Some officials questioned the reports while others focused more on cold war politics than on stopping the suffering. This shows a failure of moral responsibility. Although Cambodia was a sovereign nation the scale of suffering raises the question of when the world should intervene. If a government is killing its own people, protecting sovereignty should not be more important than protecting human life.

The film "First They Killed my Father” also helped show the human impact of the Khmer Rouge's policies in a more personal way. Instead of just statistics the film follows a child's experiences and shows how families were separated, children were forced into labor camps and people were constantly living in fear. It makes it clear that the suffering was not just political or economic but that it destroyed trust, identity, and basic human relationships. Seeing the event through a child's perspective emphasizes how extreme ideology affected ordinary people who had no power or control of what was happening. This connects to the larger idea that when leaders prioritize ideally over humanity it is everyday citizens who pay the price.

Overall the destruction caused by the khmer rouge demonstrates the dangers of extreme ideology combined with absolute power. It shows that no political theory should be followed blindly especially when it causes massive suffering. It also reminds us that the governments harm their own people. Cambodia's history is a warning about what can happen when ideology is valued more than human life.

To stop time and to start it all again. This is what the Khmer Rouge wanted to do, with their motives being to create an Agrarian Communist Utopia of which all old world ideologies and buildings were remade with communist intent. The Kr thought that enemies were all around them, leading them to execute mass violence, especially those with education.

Communism, although good on paper, so far has never come to fruition. In order to make a classless society everyone would require the same education in order to advance, of which people will become restless when grocery store workers make the same amount as doctors. Thus, a true classless society could never work because people diversify into different fields, spending different amounts of time and resources bettering themselves. Communism also forbids religion which is a common binding faith that allows people to believe in something greater than themselves. Without that, some might become depressed in the fact that they’re stuck in this life, which is the sad reality of it all. The Khmer Rouge simply avoided this fact through using fear tactics and propaganda to make especially impressionable kids believe otherwise.

The Khmer Rouge’s attempts at revolution caused unforgettable damages on the Cambodian people, by causing famine, terror, and mass death. People draw this line of which the Khmer Rouge went too far at a point where the post revolution world was a betterment for society. The problem with this is that one can’t look into the future. So instead, scholars look at whether the revolutionists killed civilians, was the suffering temporary, and did actually improve society. In Expert 1 from chapter 6, they talk about how the Khmer Rouge are more similar to those of totalitarianism like Nazi Germany, as they attempt to reconstruct individual members of their society. Similar to Nazi Germany, they both place special emphasis on reconstructing children as Germany had camps for young boys segregated from society, allowing them to mold them into the perfect Nazi. Likewise, the Khmer Rouge placed emphasis on young children giving them access to weapons and teaching that the only enemies were the Vietnamese.

The international community could have played a huge role in stopping the Khmer Rouge prior or during their reign. Instead, the entire world turned their back on Cambodia after the United States and France were both the reasons for why this displacement took place. The United States' need to involve itself in international affairs all of a sudden came to a stop all due to them losing out to Vietnam, even though during that time they committed secret bombing runs in Cambodia. Still, the United States people’s narrative at that time was to not involve itself in foreign affairs, which was the running consensus for many countries at that time. But, I disagree with letting a group commit a genocide on another, as the United State’s had full intelligence of what was happening, yet did nothing about it. The United States’s position was odd at this time as they believed the domino effect would occur if Vietnam fell, which is why they focused so intently on it. But, if they did divert resources to Cambodia, they would have been well equipped to take down the Khmer Rouge.

The main issue with the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was their belief that “to keep you is no gain; to kill you is no loss.” Their complete disregard for any human life was not just a moral problem but also was a key factor that led to their failure. This is not something inherently wrong with communism; instead it is focused on the specific scenario of the Khmer Rouge leader. The complete callousness of the Khmer Rouge was unheard of and not a successful way to build a society that will love the communist nation they live under. The main issue that communist faceovers all face is that they never end up appealing to the people of the nation, because they are so corrupted that the bottom of the population suffers so greatly that they do not see the point of the communist nation that has been created. Nobody wanted to support the communist takeover of the Khmer Rouge because they were all living in a constant state of suffering. When the leaders of the revolution put themselves in such a great position above the people of the nation there is bound to be distress in the country. While one could argue that this is not communism’s fault I believe that it will always be the pitfall of communism that makes it an unsuccessful way to govern a country. Instead, socialism is the much more successful and less extreme version of communism that has proven to work in society while communism often leads to the suffering of its subjects.

I do think that as a revolution happens and a new revolution comes into power there will be some suffering and death involved. As a new leadership takes over they must exact some sort of power on the old government that they are placing a government over. The leaders of the old government may need to suffer as some sort of example from the new government to the old, but after that the whole society should not be forced to suffer just because a new government has shifted into power. The Khmer Rouge clearly didn’t believe in this as they reset the entire population through a wave of constant suffering. I think that the Khmer Rouge should have been able to recognize for themselves that their society strategy would not work well for long, because no one wanted to be living under their government for very long.

There are definitely instances where it is the international community’s responsibility to stop the immense suffering by people, however I believe that for the first few years of the Khmer Rouge’s rule in Cambodia America was correct in not acting. At the beginning there was virtually no information on the violence that was happening in Cambodia so the only reason America would have militarized was to fight the government takeover by a communist regime which had proven to not work in Vietnam. As Samantha Power explained in “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide” David Greenway described the original situation as “the proverb of the blind men trying to describe an elephant” since no one outside of Cambodia really knew what was happening, but over time there were too many refugees who “told the same stories in too much detail to doubt” (120) that Greenway and the U.S. were forced to believe it. If the U.S. had not started this problem for Cambodia I would be more inclined to argue that there was no reason for America to step forward especially so soon after their loss in Vietnam, but since the U.S. was responsible for a lot of what happened in Cambodia and the government being overrun by the Khmer Rouge in this situation they did have some responsibility to act. They did provide support after the Khmer Rouge was run out of Cambodia, but they should have acted sooner to right their wrongs.

The Khmer Rouge

Following the retreat of American soldiers from Vietnam, and Southeast Asia all together, in 1973, communism rose in Cambodia. Having had experience in Western education, many young leaders had thoughts of bringing communism to Southeast Asia, including Pol Pot. Pol Pot built a communist regime known as the Khmer Rouge, which ultimately took control of Cambodia, and in its presence, closed off the nation to the rest of the world for several years. With the threat of U.S. bombings still lingering, the Khmer Rouge soldiers were easily able to clear out Phnom Penh and the other cities, and move people closer to the countryside, where people were then forced to give up any ties to their individuality. The emphasis on the people as equal and the same led to brutal punishments and violence towards anyone who was even slightly different. With eyes everywhere, many people were met with harsh ends everyday due to murder, starvation, conditions of living, disease, and more.

The Khmer Rouge sought for change in Cambodia, and went to all means in order to achieve it, crossing the lines of ethics and what is universally considered moral. In A Problem From Hell, a novel by Samantha Power, Power recaps the conditions that Cambodians were faced with under the Khmer Rouge in the chapter “This is Not 1942”: no travel, no education, no family, no love/intimacy, no religion, no independence, no money, and no access to the outside world. With heavy restrictions placed on even basic aspects of life and a strict way of living, the Khmer Rouge raises the question of to what extent change is okay, and to how to go about that change in an ethical way. Although morals are highly subjective, there are still boundaries which cannot, and should not, be crossed in any situation— murder of civilians, forced starvation, and many other things that the Khmer Rouge did during their reign.

One of the major goals of the Khmer Rouge was to create a better society, completely free of capitalism. However, the means to get there sacrificed many lives and overtook them completely. In my opinion, the suffering of people should not be necessary in order to make a positive change; despite the discomfort and difficulties that come with any rebuilding of society, actual torture and suffering of an entire population is inexcusable. The relentless punishing of the Khmer Rouge towards anyone who showed even slight disloyalty is immoral, unneeded, and unjustified. For example, this regime is most commonly known for executing people with one of the reasons being needing glasses, as it was considered a sign of education, upper class, and intelligence to the Khmer Rouge. When the desperate making of change is clearly initiating the beginning of a decline for society, instead of growth and improvement, I think that there should be some form of interference by an outside force, whether it’s international or national, especially on part of the United Nations. There should be at least an effort made to prevent the further decline of said nation, in order to save the nation, but also the people living there.

There were many problems that existed in the ideology of the Khmer Rouge. The Khumr Rogue targeted the muslim cham and buddhists since the Khumr Rogue ideology did not support people being in a religion since it was one way people could resist Khumr Rogue control over Cambodia. Not only that, the Khumr Rogue also targeted ethnic Vietnamese and Chinese people living in Cambodia since the Khumr Rogue argued that Vietnam were historical enemies and Chinese people represented urban capitalists which were against the beliefs of the communist Khumr Rogue. Because muslims, Buddhists, Vietnamese and Chinese people were targeted, hundreds of thousands of them were forced to either leave Cambodia or move to rural farming villages with extremely difficult living conditions.

Another problem that the Khumr Rogue ideology had was promoting farming and forcing people to live in rural collective villages. The Khumr Rogue promoted this idea since they wanted a self dependent, class free communist utopia centered around agriculture, specifically rice production. In theory it could look like a good idea but in reality, it wasn’t. Millions of Cambodians lost their wealth and homes and were forced to farm rice in collective farming villages. Because people only focused on farming rice with hundreds of thousands of people that were in the collective villages coming from big cities like Phnom Penh that didn’t know how to farm coupled alongside with people farming long hours without breaks everyday, this ultimately lead to mass starvation and malnutrition that ran rampant throughout Cambodia, leading to over a million lives being lost between 1975 to 1979.

Something that is wrong with communism is that after a communist revolutionary group takes control of a country, the high ranking party officials usually tend to collect all of the country’s power into their own hands instead of equally distributing power to its citizens, which goes against what communism is supposed to be. This is very evident in Cambodia when the Khumr Rogue took over Phnom Penh in 1975 when its high ranking party officials took over all of the country’s power and abused its power onto their own citizens.

I believe that at its simplest definition, war is fought between one group that wants a change to be made, and another group that doesn’t want that change to be made. But for such a change, positive or negative, to happen and to stick in a society, the former group has to make it at the very least possible for one to live under the change. The Khmer Rouge absolutely failed in this aspect. Anybody in the way of this vision was killed: anybody who was not Cambodian or too educated in the ways of the west had to go, Buddhist monks who would perpetuate religion, as well as anybody who posed a threat to the Khmer Rouge in some way, which basically extended to everybody. All feared for their lives, and those who survived suffered in camps or in combat where individuality was irrelevant. Families were separated and hundreds of thousands died. There was no group who could feel empowered by the uprising, and there was not, at the bare minimum, guidelines or definitions which Cambodians could latch onto and feel like they were better understanding the world they were coming into. Even if the Khmer Rouge thought they could achieve supreme power over everybody and make it impossible to revolt, none of the people who were forced into this drastic and shocking change wanted to live that way, and it was unstable from the beginning. A society with a foundation of intolerance, fear, and suffering is weak because there is always a threat of revolt by those who are oppressed, and there is always bound to be, even when people are broken down. When a situation gets extreme, and when it is obvious a country is not able to handle it by itself through extensive documentation, countries that are in a position to help should take every reasonable action possible to help those who are in danger and stop deaths. However, historically, this is not the case. As covered in chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell, the United States only bombed Cambodia, and never made any real humanitarian effort to save lives until hundreds of thousands of people had already been killed. Lawmakers remained ignorant of the true events that were occurring, even as they were being documented by journalists experiencing it for themselves. This lied in the fact that they also struggled to see Cambodia as its own country with its own national identity, grouping all of Communism together into one mass. At the same time, a country needs its own autonomy, the United States was already making things worse. Would the better route have been to stop getting involved completely? I think that a better kind of middle ground needed to be established, one where troops, peace efforts, and stepping back when needed were all weighed. Or, at the very least, more thought needed put into what the US could do and was doing, and for lawmakers to realize just how influential the country could be.

The United States’ involvement within southeastern Asian politics is undeniable as it is, and many ask if the rise in Khmer Rouge’s power can be attributed to the U.S. bombing Cambodia. What we had even placing ourselves in foreign conflict under the assumption that communism would destroy everything was a move that was an option to say the least. As a main contributing factor to what is one of the worst genocides, the lack of accountability and action taken by the United States created a barrier between assistance and the other nations.

In the reading sections provided, we read about how journalists are at the borders of Cambodia and are seeing refugees coming out with clothes that haven’t been washed, some even admitting that these people indeed smell. It is all to say that their stories, that they are forced to work, are given little to no food, are all scripted by the ones fleeing. All countries, not just the United States were slow in taking action against what was happening in Cambodia and they failed to see the scale of what was truly going on. It took hundreds of accounts of people nearly dying and seeing refuge before we recognized that maybe these people are not fabricating stories. Investigations started early in these regions, journalists were scared of crying wolf because of the information they had earlier on. If there was enough brought into the light early enough, there is a high chance that there would be some or any mobilization of action against the Khmer.

I think that national sovereignty should be overridden when there is a genocide occuring, there are crimes happening against the masses or the greater good, or a government that imposes regulations that harm the general public. Obviously, if it was that easy, every country would circle around freedom for all and whatnot, but there are unspoken rules that apply to how we tackle cultural differences. Interventions itself can cause the conflict to get worse without the proper strategies and can violate international law. There is a very fine line between doing good and creating worse and overriding a country’s sovereignty dances too closely on it.

The Khmer Rouge’s party came to power because of instability after the Vietnam War. This allowed their political party to grow from a few thousand to a few hundred thousand. It would not have been without the leadership of Pol Pot and the immense propaganda throughout Cambodia. As the KR came into their power, they really isolated themselves, imposed, as the reading stated, strict rules in regards to the countries that still held their embassies, forcing these people to travel with permits and a person they knew was KR affiliated. The lack of communication to the outside world of what was happening in Cambodia could definitely have been a factor, but we also know that eventually, these propaganda messages are translated to communities outside of their borders.

It is hard to point one single finger at what happened in Cambodia, it is hard to say when and if we should’ve intervened, if we should’ve been in the region regardless. In the present day, when a country is actively harming its people, the international community feels an obligation for its governments to take action.

When discussing genocide, a phrase that comes up often is “never again”- the idea that something as abhorrent and barbaric as the Holocaust will never occur again. And yet, as time goes on this phrase feels mocking- in less than a hundred years a new genocide seems to appear every year, from Cambodia to Rwanda to Sudan and beyond. The actions of the Khmer Rouge are a key example of this- not only that humans are still capable of great evil, but that people are still willing to turn a blind eye.

An interesting aspect of the Khmer Rouge is how it parallels systems it claims to disengage from. The authoritarian regimes of the 1930s and 40s were far right wing, traditionalist, God fearing. The Khmer Rouge claimed to be against all of these aspects- as was anti-religion, forward-thinking, far left. And yet it instated many of the same rulings as fascist states. Power mentions the book burnings, brainwashing of youth, and purge of “internal threats” that feel eerily similar to Nazi Germany. In this regard the Khmer Rouge seems to support the horseshoe theory- the controversial theory that the more extreme you go in politics, the more similar you become to the opposing side. While at its core the Khmer Rouge seems to contradict the key principle of communist ideals- that being a completely egalitarian state- it does highlight a key issue in the process of bringing about such a state. Power is a very tricky scale, and it doesn’t take much for that scale to tip over; it must be handled with care and consideration. A key part of bringing about a communist state is the idea of a revolution. It is difficult to keep these scales balanced when power is taken so abruptly, and is likely why we often see communist states become authoritarian.

Another reason the Khmer Rouge caused so much damage was the state’s handling of justice. It cannot be denied that Lon Nol’s government was oppressive; that being said, the way they handled the people loyal to Lon Nol was brutal and cruel. The idea of letting them change their minds and be reintegrated into society isn’t even a thought in their mind. They become blindsided by their obsession with this idea of justice, until everyone had suddenly become an enemy of the state. This is not to say that pacifism is always the answer; sometimes bold actions are needed to bring about change, and sometimes harsh justice is needed. However, this sort of idealist thinking that the Khmer Rouge adopted can only spiral out of control.

Khmer had the idea to make Cambodia a communist state and in doing this he took everything for everyone and shipped them off on a long arch to work from night to morning. Khmer did not consider the size of the state and didn't make sure that portions for food and living were enough to hold all of Cambodia. It was learned “that they had been given rice that would have filled about half of [a] palm sized implement,” which is barely even any food after waking up at 4am just to work. The size of the population was not considered and because of this flaw so many people died. The idea that everyone should be equal is fine as long as being equal meets the basic standard of living which was not the case. I think that communism still exists, like in native places that are generally smaller and it does work, but not on a mass scale if there are not enough resources so many people would die which is exactly what happened in Cambodia. This genocide demonstrated that if communism is conducted without much care or effort or thought, people will die and people wont be able to have a sustainable life style. It mostly shows Khmer's flaws because he also banned medicine which would have helped so many people stay alive because of the conditions that they were living under. Though it would be hard to fully convert a full nation to a different way of living without at least some people not being okay with the fact, that does not mean that change in a nation has to happen only after the masses have suffered. Once it gets to the point where thousands of people are dying due to change of government or policy, I think that should be a sign to rethink, slow down, and make some adjustments in the plan of change. The government should not ignore civilian response because they think that their idea will be beautiful in 30 years. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if they had just said that their plan would end up working after 30 years? Over a million people died in just the four years that they tried to make communism work. If their government hadn't stopped and kept on with the same living style, Cambodia would be as big as a city in just a few more years, so I think that to change a society suffering should be minimal, because if people are dying in masses clearly there is a flaw in change and should be adapted. When it is clear that a civilization is struggling under new government changes, all actively changing the civilization should be stopped and revised. This is so important because change means being able to adapt when things aren't working the way you thought they would. I don't think the Khmer wanted good change, I think he just wanted the power that came with the change of the people. This is why I think he didn't care about the suffering of his own people, because the change was never truly for the benefit of society, more of a chance for him to be a dominant leader and force mass people to live in horrible circumstances while saying he is doing it for the greater good.