Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

How come is Pol Pot communist ?

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.
Loz
Post 05 Jan 2010, 00:32
Quote:
Also he tried to make his country self-sufficient and flat out refused to take any foreign loans


Actually he was obsessed with repaying the loans to the west,and this caused the sharp decline in standard of living(just what happened in Yugoslavia in the 80's)


Enver Hoxha was an orthodox moron whose paranoidal fear of "invasion" by both the NATO and WP incited him to build 600 000 bunkers and such shit.Albania never saw significant development during his reign.(at least compared to neighboring countries)
Post 05 Jan 2010, 00:38
Meh. What was behind it was the paranoid fear of debt, though.
Post 05 Jan 2010, 00:51
What a pair of nut jobs.

Come to think of it, there's been a fair bit about those orphanages in the news recently. I really ought to have found out more about them...
Loz
Post 05 Jan 2010, 00:55
He also banned contraception for every woman before fourth baby.(trying to increase the population)
So women died from illegal ones.Goddamn hideous.
Post 05 Jan 2010, 03:17
LOZZZ1405 wrote:
He also banned contraception for every woman before fourth baby.(trying to increase the population)
So women died from illegal ones.Goddamn hideous.


Reminds me of the abortion thing to be honest.
Post 05 Jan 2010, 06:01
Quote:
At least I can be proud for being a Vietnamese then, because my country fought against a holocaustic Khmer Rouge inhumanly "supported" by the US and the UK.


I agree, you should be proud. And that Communist Vietnam destroyed the 'communist' Khmer Rouge regime is going to be written in history books to confuse people brainwashed by anti-communist propaganda, and maybe get a couple of them to question whether Pol Pot's Cambodia was really communist.
Post 05 Jan 2010, 06:54
Tell you all what, communism is an excellent aim, however commies are accused to be evil depends on how they bring their state to socialism and communism.

Quote:
I agree, you should be proud. And that Communist Vietnam destroyed the 'communist' Khmer Rouge regime is going to be written in history books to confuse people brainwashed by anti-communist propaganda, and maybe get a couple of them to question whether Pol Pot's Cambodia was really communist.


But I can hardly ever accept that the Westerner spoke our attack to Cambodia to be an invasion.
Post 05 Jan 2010, 11:45
Pol Pot was supported because he was anti-Soviet by the Chinese, USA and Thailand. During the Sino-Soviet split Mao would have supported anyone who was anti-Russian. The same could be said of the United States, especially under Kissinger and Nixon. Both China and the US became allies after the Shanghai communique and were quite close up until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Post 05 Jan 2010, 13:00
Quote:
During the Sino-Soviet split Mao would have supported anyone who was anti-Russian.

Indeed. As I never tire of reminding people, Chairman Mao sent General Pinochet a personal telegram of congratulations just after the coup in Chile in 1973. Combating revisionism is all well and good, but I think Mao took it a little too far.
Post 06 Jan 2010, 12:38
If there hadn't been the Sino-Soviet split, the communist world wouldn't have collapsed so soon, don't you think ?
Post 08 Jan 2010, 19:11
T'would imply that Mr. K wouldn't have started messing around. So yeah, maybe.
Post 09 Jan 2010, 05:07
Mr. K? Khrushchev? Another prerequisite is Mao not having a big ego (he wanted to be the leading face of the world communist movement after Stalin died).
Post 09 Jan 2010, 08:04
Mao was the leader of the People's Repulic of China, the most populous country and the second strongest communist power in the world. After Stalin's death, noone has ever hold a great power and reputation in the communist world like Mao had. So, he might wanted to be in better position in the communist movement, at least higher than Khrushchev's. But perhaps, China's power wasn't comparable to the Soviet Union, so Mao tried to make China more the leader, resulting in the split between China and the Soviet Union. I don't know if Khrushchev or Brezhnev fought hardest against China, however if they had tried to remove the distance between the "comrades" to concentrate on the capitalist world, things should have been better.

But if someone gives me a site that writes clearly and neutrally about the Shino - Soviet split, I'd thank him/her a lot.


P/s : I'm in wrong topic...
Post 09 Jan 2010, 09:56
I might be wrong about this, but I've heard that Brezhnev's government softened up its attitude towards China somewhat comapred to Khrushchev. By then, A lot damage had already been done to Soviet/Chinese relations which meant there could be no quick fixes. The USSR couldn't appease China without upsetting allies and partners such as India and eventually Vietnam.
Post 09 Jan 2010, 12:10
China should have become a Soviet republic.
Post 09 Jan 2010, 17:43
In fact, perhaps Vietnam-China relationship became worse because of the Shino-Soviet split. (just perhaps). The Soviet Union had nothing to fear of Vietnam, if I'm correct. They just needed Vietnam and want to be allies with Vietnam. If the Soviet has to choose between us and the Chinese, they will surely maintain good relationship with the populous neighbor. I don't think there is someway the Soviet Union can keep good relationship with BOTH Vietnam and China : look at the history, Vietnam and China has been constantly fighting against each other since the 2nd BC century.

Mabool wrote:
China should have become a Soviet republic.


Where is the Imperialist Chinese pride born since the Qin Dynasty ?
Post 09 Jan 2010, 17:47
I thought Vietnam was a fan of China's. Wasn't Ho Chi Minh a Maoist?
Post 09 Jan 2010, 17:51
A fan of China's ? Oh, forget it. China effected us strongly, yes, because they colonized us for more than 1000 years. My mother taught me not to use anything from China. (Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau are acceptable
)
And Ho Chi Minh isn't a Maoist to the best of my knowledge.
Post 09 Jan 2010, 20:01
Quote:
I don't know if Khrushchev or Brezhnev fought hardest against China, however if they had tried to remove the distance between the "comrades" to concentrate on the capitalist world, things should have been better.


Agreed, although this would require actions from Mao's side as well. What really bothers me about the whole split is that it not only weakened the communist movement globally, but it created a lot of turmoil and suffering in China itself. For example, the disastrous Great Leap Forward, which insisted on communes and small scale industry instead of large enterprises and factories, was begun in part because Mao didn't want to follow the Soviet model of development and depend on Soviet aid and advisors. So to maintain 'independence' from an ally and fellow socialist nation, Mao destroyed the country's economic potential for a quarter of a decade.

Quote:
I don't think there is someway the Soviet Union can keep good relationship with BOTH Vietnam and China : look at the history, Vietnam and China has been constantly fighting against each other since the 2nd BC century.


There was a period when the Vietnamese communists were given aid by the Chinese, and the threat of Chinese entry into the war was one of the reasons the US never invaded northern Vietnam during the Vietnam War. So I think that even though the Chinese and Vietnamese had a difficult history full of conflict, there is no reason to assume that relations had to remain strained forever. Look at the Soviet Union and East Germany for example: Russia and Germany had a history filled with conflict, but for a time the East Germans and the Soviets remained close friends and allies. Of course China's attack on Vietnam in 1979 ruined potential for improving relations over the short term though.


Quote:
If the Soviet has to choose between us and the Chinese, they will surely maintain good relationship with the populous neighbor.


The Soviets did choose Vietnam over China historically. One of the conditions the Chinese put forward to the Soviets in the 1980s for the improvement of relations was for the Soviets to remove their military forces, bases and advisors from Afghanistan, Mongolia, and Vietnam. The Soviets could not adhere to this request because those three countries had governments committed to maintaining very close, friendly relations with the USSR, whereas China's requests would not necessarily lead to the same level of friendship and cooperation, but rather only a 'friendly neutrality'.
Post 10 Jan 2010, 04:56
Your posts are always my favorite

Quote:
Agreed, although this would require actions from Mao's side as well. What really bothers me about the whole split is that it not only weakened the communist movement globally, but it created a lot of turmoil and suffering in China itself. For example, the disastrous Great Leap Forward, which insisted on communes and small scale industry instead of large enterprises and factories, was begun in part because Mao didn't want to follow the Soviet model of development and depend on Soviet aid and advisors. So to maintain 'independence' from an ally and fellow socialist nation, Mao destroyed the country's economic potential for a quarter of a decade.


Sadly and ironically, Mao had failed on all of his effort to develop China, when Deng succeeded, so now capitalism rule China. And as I said, China would never give up their pride and ego to accept a lower position from the Soviet Union.

But we went away from the topic. Let's make another thread in USSR or China box, ok ?
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron
[ Top ]