[i've read more books than you've burnt, righty]
Hahaha! A Google search for something led me back to this thead and lo and behold! After I wiped the floor with him, lil' angsty waited a FULL MONTH to reply and to have the last word, thus "winning" the argument! Pathetic...but typical of the intellectually dishonest cowards one finds on the Left!
Nevermind that Stannard's numbers are unsubstantiated and grossly inflated...
Nevermind the absurdity of comparing deaths caused by disease as opposed to deaths being caused by purposefully starvation and murder...
Nevermind the 500 year time span...
Never mind the fact that there's no unifying ideological framework that binds any of angsty's regurgitations...
NEVER MIND ALL OF THAT...
You're still nowhere NEAR the 150 MILLION people you Lefties killed in the span of just 1 century, angsty.
Bye bye :)
It is never too late to learn.
i've read more books than you've burnt, righty
try pulling your nose out of glenn beck's posterior long enough to read this
In American Holocaust (1992), David Stannard estimates that some 30 to 60 million Africans died being enslaved. He claims a 50% mortality rate among new slaves while being gathered and stored in Africa, a 10% mortality among the survivors while crossing the ocean, and another 50% mortality rate in the first "seasoning" phase of slave labor. Overall, he estimates a 75-80% mortality rate in transit.
Using an estimate of approximately 30 million people in 1492 (including 15 million in the Aztec Empire and 6 million in the Inca Empire), the lowest estimates give a death toll due from disease of an astonishing 80% by the end of the 16th century (8 million people in 1650). Latin America would only recover its 15th century population early in the 20th century; it numbered 17 million in 1800, 30 million in 1850, 61 million in 1900, 105 million in 1930, 218 million in 1960, 361 million in 1980, and 563 million in 2005. In the last three decades of the 16th century, the population of present-day Mexico dropped to about one million people. The Maya population is today estimated at 6 million, which is about the same as at the end of the 15th century, according to some estimates. In what is now Brazil, the indigenous population declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated 4 million to some 300,000.
Constitutional Democratic Republic of Guatemala: (1962-1996) The Guatamalean governemt, along with the United States government which played a major role of support, committed genocide and terrorism resulting in the systematic torture and murder of 200,000 people, the vast majority of them Mayan Indians.
UN sponsored report: Guatemala, Memory of Silence, by the Historical Clarification Commission in nine volumes (9/11/2001).
The Republic of Indonesia: (1975-1999) 200,000 East-timorese (33% of the population) were massacred in a campaign of genocide spanning several decades. The UN ordered the genocide to stop and all arms shipments to Indonesia to cease. During this time the US supplied $1,118,900,000 in military weapons to Indonesia, while France, Germany, and England combined to sell over $2 billion in military weapons.
(Source: U.S. Arms Transfers to Indonesia 1975-1997: Who's Influencing Whom?). East Timor Background
Israel: (1948-present) 957,000 Palestinians were driven out of Palestine by Jewish militants in 1948, who had by year's end occupied 80.5 percent of the country's land. Today, nearly 2.5 million Palestinians are living in "security zones" under martial law policed by Israel, while another 4 million are scattered throughout the world, unable to return to the lands from which they and their families were forcibly evicted. Since 1967, over 300,000 Palestinians have been imprisoned by Israel. During the Palestinian intifada (uprising) from 1987 to 1992, the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis reached 1,119 and the number hospitalized 120,446; another 483 were expelled and 15,320 detained without charge, while 87,726 acres of land was confiscated and 2,065 Palestinian houses were demolished or sealed.
By the way, thank you Cynthia for bringing up another very important point in the discussion of the atrocities of communism. You're 100% right. The Holocaust, as horrific as it was, gets the vast majority of the press in public school history classes. The much larger atrocities of communism get a sidebar, at best. At some point in the near future, the Holocaust will conveniently be the only horror of the 20th century taught, mainly because it was one of the few NOT committed by communists.
One of the best articles i've ever read on any angle of Communism.
Wow. Excellent article. I've noticed that the liberal media has conveniently begun NOT using the word "communist" when writing articles about the Khmer Rouge. It's sad when we see how easy it is for the media to subtly change or downplay elements of history that could tarnish its political ideologies.
It is unbelievable that anything that some maniac does elsewhere in this world "might just" be the fault of this country. You don't kill 1.5 million of your own people just because you don't want us there.
I wouldn't like to be a student of yours Cynthia. I think your confusing your Ps - Propaganda instead of Pedagogy.
I am very glad to see that some information about the horrors of Communism will see the light of day. I am a high school government teacher and all of the materials we have in our schools regarding mass killings relate only to the Holocaust. I understand the importance of the Holocaust, but I am concerned that the truth about Communism is never taught, except in my classes. Many of my students believe Communism is a good idea in the abstract that has never been correctly done. They don't realize the very truth you have stated: Communism always ends with destruction and death. I try my best to change this in my classes, but some still don't see the danger even after our lessons. They think: "If the United States tried it, we would get it right."
This is what a psychologist might call a 'one-sided view'.
Whilst most of the above is true, the author has apparently deleted some central facts:
The American bombing destroyed the Cambodian countryside, and killed hundreds of thousands of peasants (civilians). This is a crime of no small significance, for which no-one has yet been charged.
The majority of scholars believe that that bombing was the event which caused the rise of Pol Pot.
As for "Communist ideology leads necessarily to mass violence", I imagine the denizens of Iraq in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, and dozens of countries since, would plead to say the same of US-style capitalism.
It is easy to finger the crimes of the Other: it is our own which need to claim our attention, as they are the ones we can do something about.
My niece was a child refugee of this repulsive regime. Having escaped to sea and been picked up by a US warship she spent time at a camp in the Phillipines and then came to America with her mother and brother. Happily, her life trajectory has been amazing as she now holds a doctorate in philosohy and is teaching at a university in New York. The human condition can be both appalling and wonderful.
By Joseph Kellard
While it's good to see that some mass murdering communists are finally being brought to (some) justice, the fact is that communism and its practitioners will continue to fade into history relatively unscathed. The author of this City Journal article makes a few good points, but he falls short on others.
He is right, for example, to point out that the Western media writes as if the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia was just some murderous gang that happened to be in power at the time, and not what they in fact were: a group ideologically driven by communism. (I recently pointed to a New York Times article and five-minute video on these Cambodian tribunals, both of which never used the words "communist" or “communism” to describe the Khmer Rouge.)
I think the author falls short, however, when describing why Communists have never been brought to justice until now. He writes that there are two reasons:
“First, Communism enjoys a kind of ideological immunity because it claims to be on the side of progress. Second, Communists remain in power in Beijing, Pyongyang, Hanoi, and Havana. And in areas where they've lost power--as in the former Soviet Union--the Communists arranged their own immunity by converting themselves into social democrats, businessmen, or nationalist leaders.”
His points are valid but not fundamental. He’s right that communism enjoys ideological immunity, but it’s not primarily because communists claimed to be on the side of progress. It’s because of the morality communist champion -- which is essentially a secularization of Christianity.
While Christians through the ages told men to sacrifice themselves to God and his self-appointed representatives on earth, the Communists told men to drop God and sacrifice for your fellow men, particularly the mother country and the state (their self-appointed representatives). Now, Nazism preached the same ideology, and that’s why the Nazi and Communist totalitarian regimes rose to power at the same time. But Nazism (which stands for National *Socialism,* with Germany as the homeland of socialism/communism) put an explicitly racial bent on their ideology, while the communists mainly championed the proletariat or social classes (although that’s not to say that communists were not tribalists-racists, too, they were).
Nazism is considered the greater evil, or unfortunately to many people the only evil, because it was explicitly racists, whereas, the believe, communism was merely trying to make society more “equal” between “the rich” and the poor. Nothing wrong with that, even if tens of millions had to be slaughtered in the process, right? Communism is noble in theory; it was just that the wrong people got in power and corrupted it.
That’s the standard line that you’ll hear from communism’s apologists. But the reality is communism was evil in practice because it is evil in theory — especially it’s altruistic morality that preaches self-sacrifice as the moral good.
This is what people like the author of this article must come to understand, otherwise communism will always be looked at as a non- or lesser evil in comparison to Nazism. In reality, they are ideological twins and their practice in reality led to the same results: mass murder (although communists slaughtered many, many more innocents).
I'm not whitewashing anything and certainly not defending "communism". The point for me is that, as a social democrat on the European centre left (that's pinko commie to most of the posters herein), I would have taken the swallow dive from the transport plane in Argentina during the Dirty War and in the USSR spent time in the basement at the Lubyanka. Dead is dead. I certainly can't name 50 communist states that didn't oppress their people, but that;s becauswe there hasn't been one real communist state. The point has been made by other posters. Marx essentially came from a tradition of utopian philosophers. His ideas have more in common with some of the early Christian communities than they do with the Khmer Rouge. Marxism-Leninism essentially was Lenin saying that the masses were too stupid to achieve communist revolution unless they were led by an elite, ideally one including him. The Chinese Communist Party chose M-L for similar reasons.
To the various posters who claim that "communist" oppression has been hushed up, have you not read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Anne Applebaum or any of the brilliant histories that have been published since the Soviet archives have been opened?
Good topic and good piece. I have often wondered why communism has not received the same treatment that Nazism received since its demise. Why no documentaries detailing the horrors revealed in Robert Conquest's books? Why no movies depicting the systematic horrors of the various communist regimes? Hopefully this is the start of that process.
"Marxism is real, but it isn’t true," One of the axioms of critical thinking must be the understanding that what is 'real' is not always 'true'. Read Marx's 1850 papers----they comprise legitimate economic critique and not ideology. One might argue that American exceptionalism is not democracy, but imperial colonialism.
This will not be a Nuremburg trial of Communism; instead it will be a trial of the bizarre crypto-Maoist regime of Democratic Kampuchea, the only "Marxist" goverment where the political re-educators knew less about Marxism-Leninism* than the people they were supposed to be converting. It is also the only "Communist" government in Southeast Asia to be demolished by another Communist state, Vietnam. The Khrmer Rouge would have faded away without US support, which they did get to run their terror campaign against the rural Cambodian population, the occupying Vietnamese, and the interm government. Let us not forget that Saloth Sar was tried by his own group; it wasn't a Western style trial, but Pol Pot died before he could be handed over to the Royal Cambodian government. As for no one believing in Marxism why are there still Communist parties of various stripes around the world if "nobody" believes in them?
* Many re-educators called it "Max-Lenin Thought." Democratic Kampuchea was a government of rank amateurs replacing a government of military incompetents. Like the Taliban, the Khmer Rouge were better at fighting for control of a country than actually running one.
[I do wish some of you apologists for the murder of millions for their beliefs would answer some of the questions posed here.]
Good luck with that one, Jonathan. Waiting for a Leftist like angstworld to engage in a little intellectual honesty is an utter waste of time. Better simply to call out their stupidity and expose their shallowness and ignorance for all to see.
[i think your victims, the American Aborigines ("indians") would be interested in your answer to that question, bud.]
And just like I predicted...emotive gooey-ness.
Oh, and by the way, commie...no one comes close - not by light-years - to the number of "your victims"...150+ MILLION, give or take a few dozen million people.
I do wish some of you apologists for the murder of millions for their beliefs would answer some of the questions posed here. For example a good one has been stated:
"I can name 50 countries with capitalist economic systems that don't oppress their citizenry. Can you name one country that espouses a communist economic system that can make the same claim?"
It's not enough to be bien-pensant, one must think with one's soul. I suppose I could say "treat you neighbor as you would like yourself to be treated", i.e. don't murder those who don't agree with your beliefs, but I unfortunately don't have to-hand the French word for that.
Funny, this coming from the center of neo-trotskyitism located in the capital of cultural leprosy, as Francis Parker Yockey referred to it.
In the end, the death of millions are irrelevant compared to the cultural collapse of the west. Who cares about simply existing if it is nothing more than a hedonistic hell hole of debt slavery, fast food, and mass media, and politically correct posturing?
What is the benefit of this article? I think Mr. Sorman knows that the end is coming, that liberalism (Classical or otherwise) is dead, and this is a last ditch effort to attack the spiritual awakening that is happening in Russia and China.
But it won't work. The problem is not them, it is you. Communism may harm the body, but capitalism rots the soul. The west is now a soulless cultural wasteland, sliding into a decadent oblivion of irrelevance. All those purveyors of liberalism, neocon or not, are all to blame. That's the only trial anyone should be worrying about.
I wouldn't call what was done by the Khmer Rouge "true" communism. True communism is more akin to anarchy as it's a voluntary compact amongst the people. As that stands though, like all groups of people, governments form and leaders rise to the top and then the power structure begins. In order to keep their government which they refer to as communism, it goes from being a voluntary act to one of coercion. The governments of Russia and the Khmer Rouge are the exact opposite of true communism. A more appropriate would be socialism (which is the only government that requires absolute force) or Stalin-ism.
some fool writes:
"What right do you have to someone else's legally-attained wealth?"
i think your victims, the American Aborigines ("indians") would be interested in your answer to that question, bud.
A brilliant indictment. Copies should be dropped over Venezuela tomorrow morning. Cheers and congratulations, Steve Kanfer
"But until now, we have had no trial for Communism"
Not quite so. The Viktor Kravchenko trial in Paris in 1949, dealt broadly with Soviet communism and its atrocities. Although it was called the trial of the century, memories are short; with marxists, deliberately so.
Yes, the brutality of communism is still going on in mass scale--most clearly in North Korea. Unfortunately, almost everyone tries not to see it or is too occupied by other concerns to face it.
Thank you again for your courage and effort to remind us and wake us up to the reality of the worst crimes to humanity in our entire history!
Yup. Documented. And that's the AVERAGE estimate.
[That's about the number of people killed by capitalist pigs over the past 100 years.]
Care to back that up with more than typically ignorant, historically clueless Lefty outrage?
[of course, since they didn't have any money, they're not even "people", right "rvastar"?]
Mass-murder of the poor would be your realm of expertise, Lefty...as the article points out. You might also want to Google "Holodomor" and "the Great Leap Forward" to learn a little more about the Left's concern for the poor. Then again, why take my word for it?
"Psychologically, this talk of feeding the starving is nothing but an expression of the saccharine-sweet sentimentality so characteristic of our intelligentsia." - Vladimir Lenin
Truth hurt, Lefty? Turn off John Stewart and read a few books: next time, you won't be so out of your depth.
that's about the number of people killed by capitalist pigs over the past 100 years
of course, since they didn't have any money, they're not even "people", right "rvastar"?
[If one is going to take the current Cuban regime to court, one had better make damn sure that one also puts its totally corrupt narco-mafia capitalist predecessors in the dock too. Their criminal irresponsibility is also to blame. ]
Didn't the commies already take care of them...with bullets to the back of the head? Too bad they didn't stop there, eh? Same goes for the other 150+ million your fellow Leftists murdered over the past 100 years.
[And while we are at it, how about a few post-mortem prosecutions of world superpower empire-builders for mass-murder of indigenous people in their former and present-day colonies.]
What a wonderful argument for the type of decentralized, limited govt that our Founders put into place and that the Tea Party groups are advocating for a return to. After all, it's kinda hard for a govt to get into the imperialism racket if the most powerful figure in the day-to-day life of the average citizen is their governor, eh?
[But in Guy's case, I suspect that a personal vendetta against all political upstarts is what this article is really all about.]
"Upstarts"? As the saying goes, "There's nothing new under the sun." As much as you Leftists try to whitewash your history, there's nothing new in your ideas. You just put different icings on the same old cake. More govt, more control - and when your ideas inevitably fail, you turn to demonization rather reflection. Every time. Same old, same old.
[We live in Palinesque times when it is politically correct to feel sorry for the already stinking rich.]
It's not a matter of feeling sorry for anyone...it's a matter of what's right and legal.
I've asked this question of you Lefists a thousand times and have never gotten a response that wasn't based in vague notions of "fairness" or emotive gooey-ness. Perhaps you'll be the exception. Here it goes:
What right do you have to someone else's legally-attained wealth?
Just so long as you don't fall into the trap of thinking that the precursor governments of these tyrranies were somehow completely faultless. If one is going to take the current Cuban regime to court, one had better make damn sure that one also puts its totally corrupt narco-mafia capitalist predecessors in the dock too. Their criminal irresponsibility is also to blame. And while we are at it, how about a few post-mortem prosecutions of world superpower empire-builders for mass-murder of indigenous people in their former and present-day colonies.
But in Guy's case, I suspect that a personal vendetta against all political upstarts is what this article is really all about. We live in Palinesque times when it is politically correct to feel sorry for the already stinking rich.) He must be aware how unwanted these trials are by most power-addicted Cambodians. Personally, I would be more than happy if Hun Sen was also indicted. God knows he deserves it on the strength of his corrupt governance alone - let alone the crimes he committed whilst tied to the KR. But to be somewhat more practical, both my sentiments and Guy's are just plain pissing in the wind.
One trial at a time please!
apparently the UNITED SNAKES believed enough in Pol Pot to support his bloody regime as a "lesser evil" against the PRVN
AMERICAN IMPERIALISM'S NUREMBERG
The U.S. government's secret partnership with the Khmer Rouge grew out of the U.S. defeat in the Vietnam War. After the fall of Saigon in 1975, the U.S.-worried by the shift in the Southeast Asian balance of power-turned once again to geopolitical confrontation. It quickly formalized an anti-Vietnamese, anti-Soviet strategic alliance with China-an alliance whose disastrous effects have been most evident in Cambodia. For the U.S., playing the "China card" has meant sustaining the Khmer Rouge as a geopolitical counterweight capable of destabilizing the Hun Sen government in Cambodia and its Vietnamese allies.
When Vietnam intervened in Cambodia and drove the Pol Potists from power in January 1972, Washington took immediate steps to preserve the Khmer Rouge as a guerrilla movement. International relief agencies were pressured by the U.S. to provide humanitarian assistance to the Khmer Rouge guerrillas who fled into Thailand. For more than a decade, the Khmer Rouge have used the refugee camps they occupy as military bases to wage a contra-war in Cambodia. According to Linda Mason and Roger Brown, who studied the relief operations in Thailand for Cambodian refugees:
...relief organizations supplied the Khmer Rouge resistance movement with food and medicines.... In the Fall of 1979 the Khmer Rouge were the most desperate of all the refugees who came to the Thai-Kampuchean border. Throughout l900, however, their health rapidly improved, and relief organizations began questioning the legitimacy of feeding them. The Khmer Rouge. . . having regained strength...had begun actively fighting the Vietnamese. The relief organizations considered supporting the Khmer Rouge inconsistent with their humanitarian goals.... Yet Thailand, the country that hosted the relief operation, and the U.S. government, which funded the bulk of the relief operations, insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed.
During his reign as National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski played an important role in determining how the U.S. would support the Pol Pot guerrillas. Elizabeth Becker, an expert on Cambodia, recently wrote, "Brzezinski himself claims that he concocted the idea of persuading Thailand to cooperate fully with China in efforts to rebuild the Khmer Rouge.... Brzezinski said, " I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the DK [Democratic Kampuchea]. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could not support him but China could."
The U.S. not only permitted the Khmer Rouge to use the refugee camps in Thailand as a base for its war against the new government in Phnom Penh but it also helped Prince Norodom Sihanouk and former Prime Minister Son Sann to organize their own guerrilla armies from the refugee population in the camps. These camps are an integral factor in the ability of the Khmer Rouge, the Sihanoukist National Army (ANS) and Son Sann's Khmer People's National Liberation Front (KPNLF) to wage war against the Hun Sen government.
In 1979, Washington began "a small program" of support for Sihanouk's and Son Sann's guerrillas by providing "travel expenses" for the "insurgent leaders" and funds "for the up keep of resistance camps near the Thai-Cambodian border." In addition, since 1982, the U.S. has provided the ANS and KPNLF with covert and overt "humanitarian" and "non lethal" military aid. By 1989, the secret non lethal aid had grown to between $20 million and $24 million annually and the overt humanitarian aid had reached $5 million. The Bush administration requested $7 million more in humanitarian aid for 1990.
On the Side of Pol Pot: U.S. Supports Khmer Rouge
by Jack Colhoun
Covert Action Quarterly magazine, Summer 1990
Obama's friend, Bill Ayers once said in a meeting attended by an undercover FBI agent, that after their bombing and terror campaign resulted in the takeover of our country, that they would just have to get rid of anybody that disagreed with their new political system. That was when he was young and impressionable. I'm sure he regrets expressing those opinions and believes that there should be a more "democratic" process. I'm sure he has grown up since then. I'm just sure of it.
Mentioned in the comments to this article is the opinion that this mass murder of Khmer's was a "genocide". Okay. But how can that be if it was Khmer's killing Khmer's? As well, the Empire of Japan killed millions of their fellow Asians just as European Germans killed more European Caucasians than any other ethnic group. Same for Mao's Red Guards and his "Great Leap Forward" purges. To me this tends to indicate that the mass murders of the 20th. Century were not truly motivated by race or ethnicity and are therefore not genocide, but is some other human psycho-dynamic. What that may be, I don't know. But I don't think it's truly "genocide" when you're killing your own race or ethnic group.
Don't misunderstand, I know that the Holocaust happened and that it truly was a "genocide" in the pure definition of the term. However, these other mass murders have other dynamics and mankind needs to discover their true cause or we will continue to senselessly slaughter ourselves. Until that knowledge is discovered and disseminated Worldwide, I'll maintain my 2nd. Amendment rights.
[Marxism-Leninism was the ideological veneer, in much the same was capitalism was for Somosa, Stroessner et al. Its the crime that matters.]
That's a nice atttempt at trying to white-wash Communism's horrid history with a false analogy to capitalist societies but it's not going to fly. Without wasting too much time, one simply needs a quick comparison. I can name 50 countries with capitalist economic systems that don't oppress their citizenry. Can you name one country that espouses a communist economic system that can make the same claim?
Thank you for this article and for increasing public awareness of the consequences of communist regimes for everyone life!
Recently I came across site dedicated to democides, and was astonished how many people in fact were killed in 20th century by their own governments.
The statistical methods used to measure genocide as demonstrated on this site can be applied to the genocide trial in Cambodia, too.
Pol Pot was a genocidal criminal, just like many other dictators, left and right, supported by the West and East. Marxism-Leninism was the ideological veneer, in much the same was capitalism was for Somosa, Stroessner et al. Its the crime that matters.
More people have died from genocide and democide than all the wars combined. There is a web site that keeps track of the numbers of persons murdered by various govenments. The numbers tell us we have more to fear from our own government than foreign ones. It's amazing that from the very beginning the world, even the U.S. turned it's back on the people of Cambodia.
What is relevant for now is that the left, the Moveon, kos, alternet types are the descendents of Lenin, Mao et al; even Obama with his comment to the effect that some people have too much money, therefore okay to confiscate such by hi taxes is part of that; and what happens the more violent ones(egs Bill Ayers types) get control and the eventual outcome would be the same as in past. And the so called moderate liberal press, egs NYTIMES, ignore this and cover it up in the name of some utopian ideal. That is why the coverup of the Stalinist crimes by the Times in 30;s; the Herbert Mathews idealizing Casto.
And now the covering up the implications of moslem idealogy with the excuse it is just another religion.
You also very recently in the behavior of the DOJ to violence and corruption when it is done by Blacks. You also see in the remark of Pelosi that it is not necessary to read the HEalth care bill; you will find out later. IT is the attitude that we know best and hence shut up. No different that what was experienced in Lenin, Stalin. Mao, etc. We are the smart ones, we know best and anything goes because of that.
" But who or what was behind what the tribunal has called the genocide of Khmers by other Khmers?
Communism, yes, most likely.
But why was the evil not restrained? Why did it blossom forth in all its horror?
Answer: Ignorance: the perpetrators had not heard the teachings of Jesus, Socrates, and other saints. It is to these men that we owe our awareness of the value of human life. And it's this teaching (not the UN) that restrains the evil that exists in the heart of man.
It was cleverly kept from the non-French speaking world that Rouge means Red, as in Red China, Red Russia Red Brigade, etc. The Khmer revolutionaries were thus not identifed as being communist by the world press. Must have been there were no French-speaking journalists around at the time. Leninists have been especially adroit at pulling the wool over the eyes of the public. His genius did not die with him.
This is an interesting perspective on the work of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. One should bear in mind, however, that this tribunal is not prosecuting an ideology, per se, but rather the consequences of an ideology. For example, it is not illegal to dream of creating a new social order; it is illegal, on the other hand, to drive millions of people from their homes and force them into slave labor on agricultural cooperatives. This is what the prosecution alleges in the forthcoming trial.