# The Khymer Rouge ...what were they thinking? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 25, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249 "2014-05-25T23:33:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/41 "2014-05-27T12:21:57Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yay, simplistic dualism! > > You know who drove the Khmer Rouge out of power? An invasion by the USSR-backed Vietnamese. > > And where was the great right-wing power, the USA, during all this? Well, we sort of cooperated with the remnants of the Khmer Rouge and considered them a legitimate government in exile, as part of our cooperation with Red China. > > Politics isn’t really only about “left” and “right.” > > ETA: And for the record, if we define “left” as resembling Marx, then the Khmer Rouge were about as non-left as could be. Marx believed in urban workers gaining power, Pol Pot and Ieng Sary removed people’s power to make them agrarian peasants. There was a political cartoon of the time - “Domino Theory Revisited”. It showed the Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian leaders pushing their giant dominos on top of each other and leaving Thailand standing on the side watching bemused and untouched. Remember that Vietnam also went to war with China… The western war hawks had always claimed that communism had to be stopped in Vietnam lest it proceed to Cambodia, Thailand, then Indonesia, etc. Not quite. > [@R.P.McMurphy](#): > > I’ll also add that the Khmer Rough were a perfect example of what happens when a radical, dogma inspired group takes over. First they kill their enemies. Then they kill people they suspect might be their enemies for whatever reason. Innocents die and the paranoia really takes hold. So then, they start to kill each other. This is the classic “reign of terror” phase of the revolution - any revolution. The larger consensus group that may have thrown out the original regime becomes increasingly more strident with its ideology. The more shrill the screams of ideology become, the easier it is for the various factions to pick off their rivals by claiming they were insufficiently faithful to the ideals of the revolution. Generally, toward the end, the revolution tends to consume its own; as the more moderate leaders are picked off, the tone of leadership gets more and more irrational. (One of the most surprising aspects of history is - why did the American Revolution manage to escape this phase?) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/42 "2014-05-27T13:50:34Z")
> [@Chihuahua](#): > > Nobody said it had to make sense. The people we’re dealing with weren’t exactly rational actors. Yes, but they were _successful_ actors, too. You or I couldn’t just turn around one day and decide to take over a country and slaughter all the redheads or Dave Matthews fans (much as I would like to accomplish the latter.) ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/43 "2014-05-27T14:23:57Z")
> [@](#): > > (One of the most surprising aspects of history is - why did the American Revolution manage to escape this phase?) Probably because it wasn’t the same sort of revolution - it was a war of independence, and a war fought for economic not ideological reasons. When you have a foreign enemy it is easy to compartmentalise the issue, and easy to set a goal for the war. It is when the enemy is within from the start that you have real problems. You don’t need a revolution to have this phenomenon occur. Look at the manner in which Stalin’s top ranks of the party tore themselves apart, or indeed how the history of the Christian church has involved similar episodes. It reminds me more of an auto-immune disorder. Fear and an essentially impossible to nail down and shifting definition of “other” seem to be the two pre-conditions. It is probably then triggered when someone decides to opportunistically advance their personal position by “denouncing” a compatriot. With enough fear pre-existing it will escalate quickly enough. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/44 "2014-05-27T14:53:52Z")
> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#): > > Probably because it wasn’t the same sort of revolution - it was a war of independence, and a war fought for economic not ideological reasons. Indeed. The American Revolution was less about establishing a new way of rule but of replacing who was at the top. Wealthy landowners, already doing very well, were willing to throw the dice if it meant they could do better. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al weren’t advocating the complete overthrow of a political system…they just wanted to be in charge of it. Well, maybe Tom Paine. But that guy was a bomb thrower if any of the founding fathers were. ---
**Author:** ![OurLordPeace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e8c25b/32.png) [@OurLordPeace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OurLordPeace)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/45 "2014-05-27T15:15:33Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Indeed. The American Revolution was less about establishing a new way of rule but of replacing who was at the top. Wealthy landowners, already doing very well, were willing to throw the dice if it meant they could do better. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al weren’t advocating the complete overthrow of a political system…they just wanted to be in charge of it. > > Well, maybe Tom Paine. But that guy was a bomb thrower if any of the founding fathers were. And yet, there was pretty significant civilian-on-civilian communal violence (rarely taught in the US) and ideological cleansing, which is why a portion of Canada’s population today is composed of the descendants of Royalists who fled. ---
**Author:** ![OurLordPeace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e8c25b/32.png) [@OurLordPeace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OurLordPeace)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/46 "2014-05-27T15:16:44Z")
Also, do people (mostly Americans) not realize that the political spectrum also has an up-down axis, with authoritarianism on the upside and libertarianism on the downside? ---
**Author:** ![OurLordPeace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e8c25b/32.png) [@OurLordPeace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OurLordPeace)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/47 "2014-05-27T15:17:49Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yay, simplistic dualism! > > You know who drove the Khmer Rouge out of power? An invasion by the USSR-backed Vietnamese. > > And where was the great right-wing power, the USA, during all this? Well, we sort of cooperated with the remnants of the Khmer Rouge and considered them a legitimate government in exile, as part of our cooperation with Red China. > > Politics isn’t really only about “left” and “right.” > > ETA: And for the record, if we define “left” as resembling Marx, then the Khmer Rouge were about as non-left as could be. Marx believed in urban workers gaining power, Pol Pot and Ieng Sary removed people’s power to make them agrarian peasants. We? Our? Or do you mean the government/ruling class? ---
**Author:** ![runningdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@runningdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runningdude)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/48 "2014-05-27T15:52:48Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > And taken to extremes, they’re indistinguishable. > > (excuse the cliché) “And the party on the left, is now the party on the right…” (Who sang that song again?) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/49 "2014-05-27T15:53:48Z")
The Who (_Won’t Get Fooled Again_). ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/50 "2014-05-27T15:58:03Z")
> [@runningdude](#): > > (Who sang that song again?) Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/51 "2014-05-27T16:23:07Z")
> [@Chihuahua](#): > > Actually, it doesn’t matter if you are talking about Nazi Germany, Red China, North Korea, or Scientology… dictators HATE competition, so any other source of community and motivation (be it family, school, church, or whatever) must either be subverted or destroyed. This is why Communists have always tended to be atheists. Organized religion represents an alternate source of authority. The dictator doesn’t want any competing sources of authority. Thus, religion is the enemy. China, even today, actively controls religious teachings in their country, and eyes anything outside of Buddhism with suspicion. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/52 "2014-05-27T16:42:11Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > As a conservative-libertarian, I would _like_ to agree with you. But this is _not_ a left-wing/right-wing thing. Radicals on both ends of the political spectrum want the same thing: power and control over people. I agree with this. I think the difference between the two extremes is who supports them. What we consider to be “leftist” politics is concerned largely with the poor and underclass. Thus an extreme leftist is going to get most of his/her support from the poor and opposition will likely be from those already in power. In the struggle for power the leftist leader will make an enemy of anybody who isn’t poor. The classic example is Mao and his Cultural Revolution. If the struggle takes a long time (ie. the leftist leader doesn’t get the power) then the the leader goes to more extremes. In my opinion people with glasses get called out because it’s an easy distinction: people with glasses must be smart and can afford glasses, therefore they aren’t poor and must be an enemy. Extreme right-wing leaders get their base from a different source, often the small elite or military. They don’t normally make an enemy of the poor but instead divide on racial/ethnic grounds. Hitler is the prototypical example. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2014, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/53 "2014-05-28T04:47:14Z")
> [@OurLordPeace](#): > > We? Our? Or do you mean the government/ruling class? Well, really I just meant the State Department. Using those kinds of false identities is a bad habit, right? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2014, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/54 "2014-05-28T06:57:13Z")
Relevant Wiki article: [Democratic Kampuchea - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_period_%281975%E2%80%931979%29) The Khmer Rouge was aping the Chinese, “Great Leap Forward”, except the leaders thought they could jump _immediately_ to a mature communist society without the intermediate steps. The Khmers also had some brutal intra-party infighting, so there was nobody strong, sane or moral enough to ramp down the murder until the Vietnamese invaded. Also, like many communists they conceived of economic development as a process of throwing off capitalist shackles. To that add xenophobic nationalism: The Khmer believed they were achieving independence from foreign powers for the first time in 2000 years. Now the peasants could finally industrialize, using small scale backyard furnaces. Pol pot was university educated and apparently a drop out. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2014, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/55 "2014-05-28T14:07:39Z")
My uneducated guess as to the way the American Revolution escaped a reign of terror - the revolution did have some elements of radicalism. You had Paine at the extreme, you had a total rejection of the established order of rule, you have the various mob rule issues in some places. What was probably missing was the necessary centralization, the federated nature of the central control - Washington was constantly struggling to get enough resources to maintain his command, the congress had a difficult time getting any of the states to agree, and so on. Yes, a lot of what Pol Pot did seems to have mirrored what Mao tried to do in the 50’s and 60’s. Mao saw the state he created slipping back into the “old ways” where the educated and the elite lorded it over the peasants. Anyone who remembers the chaos of those times, recall the stories of the zealous peasants denouncing teacher, the student turning in a blank exam paper and declaring that knowing Mao’s quotes was more important than knowing science or engineering, masses of university students and professors sent to the countryside to slop pigs so as to gain a better appreciation for the importance of the humble peasant, etc. Many treasures of the past were destroyed with the declaration that they were not important, only the party doctrine was important. It’s easy to see this was the ath Pol Pot was following. And like Mao before him, Pol Pot and his rivals manipulated the situation to ensure that anyone who posed a threat to their strength in the party rule was also brought down. Fratricide inside the party is a common feature of any reign of terror. Remember Robespierre, after sending so many to the guillotine, eventually saw it first-hand. ---
**Author:** ![FightMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/71e660/32.png) [@FightMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FightMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/56 "2014-05-28T15:03:21Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > This is why Communists have always tended to be atheists. Organized religion represents an alternate source of authority. The dictator doesn’t want any competing sources of authority. Thus, religion is the enemy. China, even today, actively controls religious teachings in their country, and eyes anything outside of Buddhism with suspicion. As a state that typically (AFAIK) was Confucian for most of it’s history, why would it be viewed with suspicion? eta: What I’m saying is, why is Buddhism exempt from it’s suspicious eyes, whilst Confucianism is not? ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/57 "2014-05-28T16:21:44Z")
I didn’t think of Confucianism. It’s the “western” religions (Christianity & Islam) that China tends to look askew on. There’s an official state-run church, and then the “unofficial” church that operates more-or-less underground. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/58 "2014-05-28T16:29:55Z")
To add another data point, look at how the Chinese government has meddled in the affairs of Tibetan Buddhism (yes, they’re nominally Chinese, but for all practical purposes it’s more like the relationship between the Soviet Union & the Baltic states). The Chinese government has essentially hijacked the position of Panchen Lama, whisking the recognized candidate off to God-knows-where and substituting their own choice. The reason for this is that, when the Dalai Lama dies, it will be the Panchen Lama who decides who is the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. The plainly obvious purpose of these hijinks is to make sure the next Dalai Lama will be an obediant puppet of the Chinese government. ---
**Author:** ![Dana\_Scully](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@Dana\_Scully](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dana_Scully)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/59 "2014-05-28T17:26:41Z")
> [@Polar\_Iceman](#): > > Why do you assume that they had any kind of “vision”? > > The one thing that characterize the political left is that they all have a lust for power over other people, and enjoy nothing better than to dictate to others how they should live their lives. > > So the tragedy of Cambodia is the logical outcome of the political left getting absolute power. Tell that to the German people under Hitler. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249/60 "2014-05-28T20:27:52Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > China, even today, actively controls religious teachings in their country, and eyes anything outside of Buddhism with suspicion. China’s suspicions about religions might have more to do with memories of the [Taiping Rebellion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-khymer-rouge-what-were-they-thinking/689249.md?page=4)