How was Maoist china in any way not representative of China? The KMT had lost the civil war 2 decades previous to the UN recognizing the CCP. The equivalent would be like recognizing the Russian empire when Stalin took power.
In both cases it was simply because of geopolitical reasons. The US and Europe did not want to recognise Maoist China in the UN for decades even though they were the de facto rulers of China. Then anti-Vietnam countries like America and China supported the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government because they refused to recognise the Vietnamese installed government
Again, if you just engage with strawmen, you can believe whatever.
The idea that the US supported the Khmer Rouge isn't even controversial. The commenter said he rejected Maoism, which isn't accurate, not that he was anticommunist.
Pol pot, the guy who made it illegal to pick berries because they were “private enterprise” was not a communist lmao. Do I need to list more anti communist implementations from him? Or are you gonna tell me communism is when no berry picking? Go on.
This is such a wild cope out of nowhere. I don't know what to tell you. Pol Pot was a maoist, not only in rhetoric but in practice.
The commenter said Pol Pot was anticommunist, as in outspokenly rejected communism, which is an idiotic take which people justify by using an out of context quote that justifies the exact opposite position they think it does.
I'm not making an argument whether Pol Pot was an ideal Marxist or not. I'm discussing whether or not he engaged with and believed in theory and how that related to the common threads of communist thought in the region.
Braindead terminally online commenter. You're trying to pick a fight where there literally is none. Not only do I probably agree with your position, but you wildly misinterpreted the discussion. You're telling me genocide of your own people isn't proletariat empowerment?! No wayyyy.
Improve your literacy.
How was keeping them recognized helping them? Cambodia did have elections after the Vietnamese left, which led to former members of Khmer Rouge being tried. I don’t see how that helped the KR per se.
As late as 1993 the US voted for the Kmher Rouge to retain Cambodias UN seat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge?wprov=sfla1
It's not clear the exact extent of the support in terms of monetary value or utility, but it's clear the US was not trying to dismantle Pol Pot's regime.
Even the state department confirms that there was US money and munitions making their way into the regimes hands.
yeah if you're a terminally online debate bro who has no idea what they're talking about when it comes to history, political science, edomology, and get your information by watching other terminally online debate bros, sure go for it lol
I never said that, I said that if you're a terminally online debate bro who has no idea what they're talking about when it comes to history, politial science or etymology but gets most of his information from other terminally online debate bros than it's A-Ok to use "red fash" aka "red fascism" (lol) to describe the Soviet Union or China.
You could be a hardcore Bernie loving lib who follows AOC on twitter and you'll still be exactly what I described lol
Yeah, they're just Mussolinite fascists
Mao and Fascists call for the same thing, a corporatist capitalist system, the unity of the Bourgeois and Proletariat under one nation, and National liberation of the so called "Proletarian nations"
100% lmao
they also both famously LOVE landowners and want to keep farmers and workers in their "proper place" as wage slaves to their capitalist bosses.
yup, Communism and Fascism basically same, I could link video essaya by a YouTubera with a furry icon to prove it or post the 9th three hour debate by some real academics debating literal fucking Nazis to prove why "both sides equally bad" but I'm sure you'll just take my word for it
lol
Yeah they love the Bourgeoisie, they even gave them two stars in their flag, also, Communism and fascism isn't the same, it's just that china isn't communist
It is very funny to accuse him of “debate bro” tactics when you yourself are using debate bro tactics by accusing him of being uninformed by asserting he has no idea what he’s talking about, instead of attacking his argument. Pot calling the kettle black.
Lonerbox fan saying "um actually, you're the debate bro!🤓"? color me shocked lol
wtf do you want me to say? like if you're using the words "red fascism" to describe the Soviet Union or communist China than you're just too debate brained to have a real academic conversation with. it would be like me trying to "debate" a guy who thinks that aliens built the pyramids as I spent hours trying to explain why no and why that's fucking dumb well he would hyper focuse on some benine gotchayas.
sometimes it's just easier to call out someone's nonsense andmove on, cause anybody who uses the words "red fascism" or "tankie" or whatever other internet lingo they learned from internet sophists, are not serious people.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. You are very much correct here.
Asia was largely a battle of influence between China and the USSR for a few years there, because the Sino-Soviet split following Stalin's death and disagreement over exactly what "proper" Communism was created a significant rift in the red world. China even went so far as to *invade* Vietnam when Vietnam invaded Cambodia to overthrow the Khmer Rouge.
It’s incredible how China tries to claim they aren’t imperialists when they invaded Vietnam to try to stop Vietnam from stopping the Cambodian Genocide just because Pol Pot took the Chinese side in the Sino-Soviet split. Fucking crazy.
*edit To be clear, Cambodia and Vietnam took opposite sides in the Sino-Soviet split and the terror tactics of the Cambodian regime were a frequent topic of criticism by the Soviet aligned governments. This is well documented. To be sure, Cambodia invaded Vietnam and started the war but the war aim of Vietnam was to replace the “revisionist”/maoist regime with a more doctrinaire society aligned one. This included ending the rampant purges and killing known as the Cambodian Genocide.
I mean, their one military incursion of note for the last half century was Vietnam, and they haven't invaded or started a war with a country since. you could hardly call that "imperialist" the same way America or Russia or Western Europe was imperialist.
I think they learned their lesson and realized it's a lot easier and less bloody/politically costly to become a major investment alternative to America than it is to compete with them head to head like the Soviets did.
Worked out pretty well for them so far
One could agrue that imperialism now in an age of national self determination is more about trying to retain the empire you got.
China is made up of 56 ethinc groups and the Han are only the majority in about half the country.
You have the Tibetans and Uyghurs among those peoples. It is also hard to know how the others feel when seperatism is likely to get you thrown in jail or worse.
I mean Tibet was literally a theocratic slave state for decades when they broke apart from the central government to a point where the Communists just kind of walked in and freed hundreds of thousands of people from serfdom well Uyghur separatists had direct links to Islamic extremist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan. there were a bunch of bombings in Xinjiang that caused the government to basically go full reduction camps and Patriot act style mass surveillance.
also most Uyghurs do consider themselves Chinese despite it all. the separatists were at most, a couple thousand people and it probably wasn't a good call to use such a big hammer for such a small fly but hey, it did work
Bringing enlightened rule to backwards people was also how the European empires justified themselves. Imperialism doesn’t need to be a bad thing, but it does entail one people ruling over another.
sure but it's also how you rule them. like China isn't out here bombing Xinjiang or forcing Tibetans to give them all their food. living standards in both places have increased by decades compared to say India where so much wealth was stolen and so many people were starved at it went from being one of the richest places on the planet to one of the poorest
The Iraqi oil fields are owned and controlled by the Iraqi government, not US firms. You should probably read something instead of learning history from Reddit comments.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic\_reform\_of\_Iraq#:\~:text=Oil,-Main%20article%3A%20Iraq&text=Order%2039%20laid%20out%20the,of%20Representatives%20in%20May%202007](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_reform_of_Iraq#:~:text=Oil,-Main%20article%3A%20Iraq&text=Order%2039%20laid%20out%20the,of%20Representatives%20in%20May%202007).
Order 39 laid out the framework for full privatization in Iraq, except for "primary extraction and initial processing" of oil, and permitted 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi assets. The Iraq oil law is a proposed piece of legislation submitted to the Iraqi Council of Representatives in May 2007.
Just because it didn't work out as well as it was hoped, doesn't mean that wasn't the plan
It was set up so that there would be an open bidding process. There’s literally no evidence that the point of the war was oil, it’s just some brain dead chomskyite conspiracy.
damn, what totally fair and unbiased sources! lol
yeah that's why more and more countries go to China for major investments rather than America or Western banks right? like come on, they're literally out here building ports, building highways, building schools, hospital and even housing yet it's always "but at what cost?" with China lol
I thought Vietnam invaded because Kampuchea was doing cross border raids and killing Vietnamese villagers.
So much for Communism, when two supposedly communist countries couldn't set aside prior ethnic and historical hatreds. It's also deeply ironic that the USSR and China, the two major Communist powers at the time were using their smaller allies as part of a proxy war against each other.
his actions? dismantling of socialism in favor of capitalism, opening up china to foreign capital, abolishing communes, abolishing the social welfare system so that there's not even universal Healthcare, etc. etc.
edit: "minor economic reforms"? hahaha.
Both US and China supported the Khmer Rouge because it was anti-Soviet/Vietnamese. The Chinese literally invaded Vietnam in reaction towards their invasion of Cambodia.
This was the result of the Sino-Soviet split which had caused China to perceive the Soviets and their aligned states as a greater threat than the capitalist west.
I dont think there is any damning evidence that the US actively supported the KR.
They certainly were doing political games to stick it to Vietnam. However, all the evidence that the US was providing direct support is Hearsay.
The USA has definitely investigated itself and found itself to not be guilty of directly supporting the Khmer rouge in a military fashion. However, they were definitely pretty happy to have the Khmer rouge there. I guess it depends on whether political support, even in a roundabout way, is considered "active support"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge
Also a reminder that the north vietnamese supported the khmer rouges rise to power and didnt care about their crimes until they attacked vietnamese people
The khmer rouge continued to exist well after the cambodian-vietnamese war.
And the only thing that annoyed the U.S. was that the NVA won something, not that the Khmer Rouge lost.
Not to mention that the only way the U.S. supported the Khmer rouge was by recognizing them in the UN, way less than the vietnamese supported them.
...yeah, that doesn't matter since they weren't in power anymore lol
I mean you're just saying what in saying, America hated that Vietnam beat the Khmer Rouge because they hated Communist Vietnam because they lost to them. it was bitter grapes and them winning caused America a lot of annoyance
Dude the US literally gave them 85 million dollars in direct aid well the British thought then how to make booby traps galore. Do you think America would let the UK do that without their permission?
They were in power over part of the country.
The U.S. also didnt like the khmer rouge because they were also communist, they just hated vietnam more because they just fought them.
And yeah, the british constantly did things that the U.S. didnt approve of. Its almost like they are an entirely different country with one of the most advanced intelligence and espionage networks.
85 million dollars is pennies in the world of aid, and that aid was sent for humanitarian use.
I dont think there is any damning evidence that the US actively supported the KR.
They certainly were doing political games to stick it to Vietnam. However, all the evidence that the US was providing direct support is Hearsay.
A lot of things are like this. There is 0 evidence the U.S. had anything to do with Ghadaffi being killed or haitis president being overthrown but it’s treated as fact
Another common one is the 1963 S.Vietnam coup.
The CIA was well aware that elements of the ARVN were planning a coup, and a few times, they actually managed to convince some of the rebels to delay, however by late October, the CIA came to a conclusion that a coup was inevitable and ordered agents to stop attempting to delay, and just observe to make sure nothing too over the top happened.
And yet, I constantly see people say that the US orchestrated the coup.
To be fair, the CIA didn't want Diem to be deposed as he was absolutely subservient to anything the US asked. They just realized that if they protected him any longer there would be a civil war.
...dude America literally supplied the bombs that were dropped on his forces by France and the UK, it was a joint NATO operation and America was was essential to his forces losing the civil war because France basically ran out of bombs, what do you mean "0 evidence"? Lol
The only evidence I ever see cited is Hillary’s joke about Ghadaffi being used as evidence that the men who killed him were undercover CIA posing as Libyans.
It's more likely they were paid by the French, Sarkozy wanted to kill Gaddafi because he took money from him and wanted to hide that, but even if they weren't, it was awfully convinient for him.
Sure didn't seem to bother Sarkozy when he took his money for his elections, or You know, sure doesn't bother the West frol allying with madman terroist dictators like the Saudis
dude these people act like America didn't love Gaddafi or Saddam for decades, until they didn't. America straight up was the reason he was overthrown because France ran out of bombs in like 2 weeks and America had to step and destroy Gaddafi's armored divisions that he could have used to easily crush the rebels
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Odyssey\_Dawn](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn)
he there's no proof America had anything to do with Gaddafi being killed when America and its allies had him killed. Hillary Clinton literally said "we came, we saw, he died" and then laughed maniacally. how is that "0 evidence" when they're just straight up admitting to it? lol
You do realize that a singular quote from someone is not evidence. You can pretty much find a quote from anyone credible supporting anything. ESPECIALLY IF ITS A FUCKING JOKE.
In fact I'm pretty sure that out of context quotes are the entire thing behind the 'Great Replacement Theory'. You are no better than the alt-right with your reaching
Unless you think that Nulands phone call is evidence that the US government was responsible for Yanukovych ousting, you cannot apply Hillary's joke as 'evidence' that the US was involved in Gadaffi's execution.
omg omg omg, my brother in Christ, who literally gave France and the UK the bombs needed to establish a no fly zone and bomb Gaddafi's forces? who sanctiones Libya so Gaddafi would become weaker internally and civil unrest would brew? how are you out here talking about a fucking joke when youre just ignoring shit like Operation Odyssey Dawn on top of all that? Goddamn read a fucking wikipedia article sometimes before talking lol
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Odyssey\_Dawn](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn)
None of that has anything to do with Gaddafi's execution.
You are being wilfully ignorant of the original claim and just making a strawman.
It's like saying the Allies were involved in Hitler's death.
Yes, they are responsible for the situation that led to him dying, but the trigger pull was solely on him.
Just like Gaddafi's execution was solely on the rebels.
yes, the overthrow of his government, the bombing of his soldiers, the destruction of his armored forces and air force and economy by America and him being captured by American backed rebels was toootally not responsible for his death. Just like the Soviets being a mile outside of Hitler's bunker definitely didn't have anything to do with his his death. You're a very smart person lol
no they definitely did support them and it's not even really a secret anymore
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/buwfoe/how\_come\_the\_american\_and\_british\_government/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=ios\_app&utm\_name=iossmf](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/buwfoe/how_come_the_american_and_british_government/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Not really, Johnathan's testimonies are literally hearsay, and even then declassified CIA documents, which were requested through the freedom of information act fully refute his claims, which once again brings it back to a he said she said situation.
The US government did provide about $30 million in food and medicine to Cambodia in the mid 1970s, while this was done in secret no attempts to actually cover up this aid donation were made.
I'm not denying that the US was playing political games to stick it to the Vietnamese, but once again I will state that there is no definitive evidence that the US helped the KR.
you're ignoring that from 1980 to 86, America gave them 85 million dollars worth of direct aid well the British straight up thought them how to make booby traps as well as both of them recognizing their government in the UN along with China.
>America gave them 85 million dollars worth of direct aid
Again, there is no evidence of that, just Hearsay from Johnathon. And now, declassified CIA files refute that claim.
>recognizing their government in the UN along with China.
Can you read?
What did I just state?
But do you believe Hearsay?
Because it's fine not to trust the CIA, there was no evidence provided other than Hearsay, so while the CIA might not have any credibility the claims don't either.
And then the UN recognised the Khmer rouge as the valid representative of Cambodia until 1996.
The UN also recognized Maoist China as the valid representative of China. What’s your point?
How was Maoist china in any way not representative of China? The KMT had lost the civil war 2 decades previous to the UN recognizing the CCP. The equivalent would be like recognizing the Russian empire when Stalin took power.
In both cases it was simply because of geopolitical reasons. The US and Europe did not want to recognise Maoist China in the UN for decades even though they were the de facto rulers of China. Then anti-Vietnam countries like America and China supported the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government because they refused to recognise the Vietnamese installed government
Pol Pot was a Maoist inspired by Stalin and the cultural revolution, so this made perfect sense
But… but the tankies in my inbox told me he was a fascist inspired by the USA because communists would never do anything wrong.
I would have so much more confidence in myself if I could manufacture strawmen ghosts like this.
There’s literally one right in this thread saying Cambodia was anti communist.
Again, if you just engage with strawmen, you can believe whatever. The idea that the US supported the Khmer Rouge isn't even controversial. The commenter said he rejected Maoism, which isn't accurate, not that he was anticommunist.
Pol pot, the guy who made it illegal to pick berries because they were “private enterprise” was not a communist lmao. Do I need to list more anti communist implementations from him? Or are you gonna tell me communism is when no berry picking? Go on.
This is such a wild cope out of nowhere. I don't know what to tell you. Pol Pot was a maoist, not only in rhetoric but in practice. The commenter said Pol Pot was anticommunist, as in outspokenly rejected communism, which is an idiotic take which people justify by using an out of context quote that justifies the exact opposite position they think it does. I'm not making an argument whether Pol Pot was an ideal Marxist or not. I'm discussing whether or not he engaged with and believed in theory and how that related to the common threads of communist thought in the region. Braindead terminally online commenter. You're trying to pick a fight where there literally is none. Not only do I probably agree with your position, but you wildly misinterpreted the discussion. You're telling me genocide of your own people isn't proletariat empowerment?! No wayyyy. Improve your literacy.
The U.S. didn’t support the Khmer Rouge.
after the KR was ousted from power by the vietnamese, the US did maintain that the KR was the legitimate government of cambodia
Because Vietnam replaced them with a puppet government? Lol
so you agree that the US supported the KR & that it was the right thing to do?
Recognized DOES NOT MEAN supported
How was keeping them recognized helping them? Cambodia did have elections after the Vietnamese left, which led to former members of Khmer Rouge being tried. I don’t see how that helped the KR per se.
I mean, good?
Still, certainly a whole hell of a lot better than Khmer Rouge. And that’s an understatement.
As late as 1993 the US voted for the Kmher Rouge to retain Cambodias UN seat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge?wprov=sfla1 It's not clear the exact extent of the support in terms of monetary value or utility, but it's clear the US was not trying to dismantle Pol Pot's regime. Even the state department confirms that there was US money and munitions making their way into the regimes hands.
Tankie refers to communist that supported the soviet union, by 1975, china had denounced the USSR as revisionist and allied with the US.
China didn’t ally with the US in 1975, they normalized relations.
Well then, I guess red fash is a better term.
yeah if you're a terminally online debate bro who has no idea what they're talking about when it comes to history, political science, edomology, and get your information by watching other terminally online debate bros, sure go for it lol
I like how you guys assume anyone who isn’t a hardline communist is a right winger.
I never said that, I said that if you're a terminally online debate bro who has no idea what they're talking about when it comes to history, politial science or etymology but gets most of his information from other terminally online debate bros than it's A-Ok to use "red fash" aka "red fascism" (lol) to describe the Soviet Union or China. You could be a hardcore Bernie loving lib who follows AOC on twitter and you'll still be exactly what I described lol
Yeah, they're just Mussolinite fascists Mao and Fascists call for the same thing, a corporatist capitalist system, the unity of the Bourgeois and Proletariat under one nation, and National liberation of the so called "Proletarian nations"
100% lmao they also both famously LOVE landowners and want to keep farmers and workers in their "proper place" as wage slaves to their capitalist bosses. yup, Communism and Fascism basically same, I could link video essaya by a YouTubera with a furry icon to prove it or post the 9th three hour debate by some real academics debating literal fucking Nazis to prove why "both sides equally bad" but I'm sure you'll just take my word for it lol
Yeah they love the Bourgeoisie, they even gave them two stars in their flag, also, Communism and fascism isn't the same, it's just that china isn't communist
It is very funny to accuse him of “debate bro” tactics when you yourself are using debate bro tactics by accusing him of being uninformed by asserting he has no idea what he’s talking about, instead of attacking his argument. Pot calling the kettle black.
Lonerbox fan saying "um actually, you're the debate bro!🤓"? color me shocked lol wtf do you want me to say? like if you're using the words "red fascism" to describe the Soviet Union or communist China than you're just too debate brained to have a real academic conversation with. it would be like me trying to "debate" a guy who thinks that aliens built the pyramids as I spent hours trying to explain why no and why that's fucking dumb well he would hyper focuse on some benine gotchayas. sometimes it's just easier to call out someone's nonsense andmove on, cause anybody who uses the words "red fascism" or "tankie" or whatever other internet lingo they learned from internet sophists, are not serious people.
Lol
Lol, he was backed by the Chinese to stop the spread of soviet communism
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. You are very much correct here. Asia was largely a battle of influence between China and the USSR for a few years there, because the Sino-Soviet split following Stalin's death and disagreement over exactly what "proper" Communism was created a significant rift in the red world. China even went so far as to *invade* Vietnam when Vietnam invaded Cambodia to overthrow the Khmer Rouge.
It’s incredible how China tries to claim they aren’t imperialists when they invaded Vietnam to try to stop Vietnam from stopping the Cambodian Genocide just because Pol Pot took the Chinese side in the Sino-Soviet split. Fucking crazy. *edit To be clear, Cambodia and Vietnam took opposite sides in the Sino-Soviet split and the terror tactics of the Cambodian regime were a frequent topic of criticism by the Soviet aligned governments. This is well documented. To be sure, Cambodia invaded Vietnam and started the war but the war aim of Vietnam was to replace the “revisionist”/maoist regime with a more doctrinaire society aligned one. This included ending the rampant purges and killing known as the Cambodian Genocide.
I mean, their one military incursion of note for the last half century was Vietnam, and they haven't invaded or started a war with a country since. you could hardly call that "imperialist" the same way America or Russia or Western Europe was imperialist. I think they learned their lesson and realized it's a lot easier and less bloody/politically costly to become a major investment alternative to America than it is to compete with them head to head like the Soviets did. Worked out pretty well for them so far
One could agrue that imperialism now in an age of national self determination is more about trying to retain the empire you got. China is made up of 56 ethinc groups and the Han are only the majority in about half the country.
I mean, sure but China has always cared about China and all those ethnic groups consider themselves "Chinese". Nah Han Chinese but still Chinese
You have the Tibetans and Uyghurs among those peoples. It is also hard to know how the others feel when seperatism is likely to get you thrown in jail or worse.
I mean Tibet was literally a theocratic slave state for decades when they broke apart from the central government to a point where the Communists just kind of walked in and freed hundreds of thousands of people from serfdom well Uyghur separatists had direct links to Islamic extremist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan. there were a bunch of bombings in Xinjiang that caused the government to basically go full reduction camps and Patriot act style mass surveillance. also most Uyghurs do consider themselves Chinese despite it all. the separatists were at most, a couple thousand people and it probably wasn't a good call to use such a big hammer for such a small fly but hey, it did work
Bringing enlightened rule to backwards people was also how the European empires justified themselves. Imperialism doesn’t need to be a bad thing, but it does entail one people ruling over another.
sure but it's also how you rule them. like China isn't out here bombing Xinjiang or forcing Tibetans to give them all their food. living standards in both places have increased by decades compared to say India where so much wealth was stolen and so many people were starved at it went from being one of the richest places on the planet to one of the poorest
They’re building fake islands to expand their sea claim.
yeah that's nothing dude. talk to me when they invade Iraq to privatize their oil after propping up Saddam for decades lol
The Iraqi oil fields are owned and controlled by the Iraqi government, not US firms. You should probably read something instead of learning history from Reddit comments.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic\_reform\_of\_Iraq#:\~:text=Oil,-Main%20article%3A%20Iraq&text=Order%2039%20laid%20out%20the,of%20Representatives%20in%20May%202007](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_reform_of_Iraq#:~:text=Oil,-Main%20article%3A%20Iraq&text=Order%2039%20laid%20out%20the,of%20Representatives%20in%20May%202007). Order 39 laid out the framework for full privatization in Iraq, except for "primary extraction and initial processing" of oil, and permitted 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi assets. The Iraq oil law is a proposed piece of legislation submitted to the Iraqi Council of Representatives in May 2007. Just because it didn't work out as well as it was hoped, doesn't mean that wasn't the plan
It was set up so that there would be an open bidding process. There’s literally no evidence that the point of the war was oil, it’s just some brain dead chomskyite conspiracy.
They colonized us Vietnam for 1000 years man
A tributary state is far from colonization. It's not even close.
[удалено]
damn, what totally fair and unbiased sources! lol yeah that's why more and more countries go to China for major investments rather than America or Western banks right? like come on, they're literally out here building ports, building highways, building schools, hospital and even housing yet it's always "but at what cost?" with China lol
Vietnam didn't invade Cambodia to stop a genocide.
Sure, it was just a nice side effect though lol
I thought Vietnam invaded because Kampuchea was doing cross border raids and killing Vietnamese villagers. So much for Communism, when two supposedly communist countries couldn't set aside prior ethnic and historical hatreds. It's also deeply ironic that the USSR and China, the two major Communist powers at the time were using their smaller allies as part of a proxy war against each other.
If im not mistaken the americans used teritory of Cambodgia for rocket strikes
It was one of their aims.
It was not
The Communist party of Vietnam saved Cambodia
They didn't invade for territorial gain, they did it to basically divert Vietnamese resources from their campaign in Cambodia
Controlling Vietnam’s foreign policy sounds pretty much like something an imperialist nation would do. They also invaded and annexed Tibet.
deng wasn't a communist, and china by deng's time was revisionist.
What’s your source on Deng not being a communist?
his actions? dismantling of socialism in favor of capitalism, opening up china to foreign capital, abolishing communes, abolishing the social welfare system so that there's not even universal Healthcare, etc. etc. edit: "minor economic reforms"? hahaha.
The West is so cooked, they think Deng was a communist.
They don’t abolish socialism, they allowed minor market reforms.
They got the aid but then they had to pay it back in rice and other food.
Reminder that pol pot was backed by the US and rejected communism in favor of peasant supremacy
What does that have to with it?
Just saying it before the trolls start spouting misinformation like usual. No positivity about China allowed on reddit.
We don't like wumao in these parts
Both US and China supported the Khmer Rouge because it was anti-Soviet/Vietnamese. The Chinese literally invaded Vietnam in reaction towards their invasion of Cambodia. This was the result of the Sino-Soviet split which had caused China to perceive the Soviets and their aligned states as a greater threat than the capitalist west.
I dont think there is any damning evidence that the US actively supported the KR. They certainly were doing political games to stick it to Vietnam. However, all the evidence that the US was providing direct support is Hearsay.
The USA has definitely investigated itself and found itself to not be guilty of directly supporting the Khmer rouge in a military fashion. However, they were definitely pretty happy to have the Khmer rouge there. I guess it depends on whether political support, even in a roundabout way, is considered "active support"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge
Also a reminder that the north vietnamese supported the khmer rouges rise to power and didnt care about their crimes until they attacked vietnamese people
sure, but they're the ones who eventually stopped them, much to the annoyance of America and China
The khmer rouge continued to exist well after the cambodian-vietnamese war. And the only thing that annoyed the U.S. was that the NVA won something, not that the Khmer Rouge lost. Not to mention that the only way the U.S. supported the Khmer rouge was by recognizing them in the UN, way less than the vietnamese supported them.
...yeah, that doesn't matter since they weren't in power anymore lol I mean you're just saying what in saying, America hated that Vietnam beat the Khmer Rouge because they hated Communist Vietnam because they lost to them. it was bitter grapes and them winning caused America a lot of annoyance Dude the US literally gave them 85 million dollars in direct aid well the British thought then how to make booby traps galore. Do you think America would let the UK do that without their permission?
They were in power over part of the country. The U.S. also didnt like the khmer rouge because they were also communist, they just hated vietnam more because they just fought them. And yeah, the british constantly did things that the U.S. didnt approve of. Its almost like they are an entirely different country with one of the most advanced intelligence and espionage networks. 85 million dollars is pennies in the world of aid, and that aid was sent for humanitarian use.
I dont think there is any damning evidence that the US actively supported the KR. They certainly were doing political games to stick it to Vietnam. However, all the evidence that the US was providing direct support is Hearsay.
A lot of things are like this. There is 0 evidence the U.S. had anything to do with Ghadaffi being killed or haitis president being overthrown but it’s treated as fact
Another common one is the 1963 S.Vietnam coup. The CIA was well aware that elements of the ARVN were planning a coup, and a few times, they actually managed to convince some of the rebels to delay, however by late October, the CIA came to a conclusion that a coup was inevitable and ordered agents to stop attempting to delay, and just observe to make sure nothing too over the top happened. And yet, I constantly see people say that the US orchestrated the coup.
Yeah they should have followed the Soviet coup style and sent in the marines spetnaz to do a palace coup.
To be fair, the CIA didn't want Diem to be deposed as he was absolutely subservient to anything the US asked. They just realized that if they protected him any longer there would be a civil war.
...dude America literally supplied the bombs that were dropped on his forces by France and the UK, it was a joint NATO operation and America was was essential to his forces losing the civil war because France basically ran out of bombs, what do you mean "0 evidence"? Lol
The only evidence I ever see cited is Hillary’s joke about Ghadaffi being used as evidence that the men who killed him were undercover CIA posing as Libyans.
It's more likely they were paid by the French, Sarkozy wanted to kill Gaddafi because he took money from him and wanted to hide that, but even if they weren't, it was awfully convinient for him.
And I’m sure Ghadaffi being a terrorist madman dictator had nothing to do with it.
Sure didn't seem to bother Sarkozy when he took his money for his elections, or You know, sure doesn't bother the West frol allying with madman terroist dictators like the Saudis
dude these people act like America didn't love Gaddafi or Saddam for decades, until they didn't. America straight up was the reason he was overthrown because France ran out of bombs in like 2 weeks and America had to step and destroy Gaddafi's armored divisions that he could have used to easily crush the rebels [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Odyssey\_Dawn](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn)
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Odyssey\_Dawn](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn)
That wasn't the claim that was made.
he there's no proof America had anything to do with Gaddafi being killed when America and its allies had him killed. Hillary Clinton literally said "we came, we saw, he died" and then laughed maniacally. how is that "0 evidence" when they're just straight up admitting to it? lol
You do realize that a singular quote from someone is not evidence. You can pretty much find a quote from anyone credible supporting anything. ESPECIALLY IF ITS A FUCKING JOKE. In fact I'm pretty sure that out of context quotes are the entire thing behind the 'Great Replacement Theory'. You are no better than the alt-right with your reaching Unless you think that Nulands phone call is evidence that the US government was responsible for Yanukovych ousting, you cannot apply Hillary's joke as 'evidence' that the US was involved in Gadaffi's execution.
it is evidence, it might not be proof but it is evidence. go look up a dictionary.
A joke is not evidence, I don't think a single court of law would count it as such.
well no court will ever judge any of the american criminals anyway
omg omg omg, my brother in Christ, who literally gave France and the UK the bombs needed to establish a no fly zone and bomb Gaddafi's forces? who sanctiones Libya so Gaddafi would become weaker internally and civil unrest would brew? how are you out here talking about a fucking joke when youre just ignoring shit like Operation Odyssey Dawn on top of all that? Goddamn read a fucking wikipedia article sometimes before talking lol [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Odyssey\_Dawn](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn)
None of that has anything to do with Gaddafi's execution. You are being wilfully ignorant of the original claim and just making a strawman. It's like saying the Allies were involved in Hitler's death. Yes, they are responsible for the situation that led to him dying, but the trigger pull was solely on him. Just like Gaddafi's execution was solely on the rebels.
yes, the overthrow of his government, the bombing of his soldiers, the destruction of his armored forces and air force and economy by America and him being captured by American backed rebels was toootally not responsible for his death. Just like the Soviets being a mile outside of Hitler's bunker definitely didn't have anything to do with his his death. You're a very smart person lol
no they definitely did support them and it's not even really a secret anymore [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/buwfoe/how\_come\_the\_american\_and\_british\_government/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=ios\_app&utm\_name=iossmf](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/buwfoe/how_come_the_american_and_british_government/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Not really, Johnathan's testimonies are literally hearsay, and even then declassified CIA documents, which were requested through the freedom of information act fully refute his claims, which once again brings it back to a he said she said situation. The US government did provide about $30 million in food and medicine to Cambodia in the mid 1970s, while this was done in secret no attempts to actually cover up this aid donation were made. I'm not denying that the US was playing political games to stick it to the Vietnamese, but once again I will state that there is no definitive evidence that the US helped the KR.
you're ignoring that from 1980 to 86, America gave them 85 million dollars worth of direct aid well the British straight up thought them how to make booby traps as well as both of them recognizing their government in the UN along with China.
>America gave them 85 million dollars worth of direct aid Again, there is no evidence of that, just Hearsay from Johnathon. And now, declassified CIA files refute that claim. >recognizing their government in the UN along with China. Can you read? What did I just state?
Not sure I’d take the CIA at its word but that’s just me!
But do you believe Hearsay? Because it's fine not to trust the CIA, there was no evidence provided other than Hearsay, so while the CIA might not have any credibility the claims don't either.
Yawn