View the H-Diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Diplo home page.
I am deeply struck by this sentence of Barbar Key's post: >Without the Vietnam war >and the invasion of Cambodia, it is likely that the genocide would >not have occurred. In other words, had there been no resistance to a totalitarian takeover of Vietnam that would have (and did) cost countless lives under communist oppression, a genocide in another nation might have been avoided. And furthermore, had the United States continued to accept the fiction that Cambodia was a neutral nation, and thereby sacrificed more forces to an enemy using it as a supply conduit, it might have at least dampened the recruitment efforts of the mass murderers who eventually took over. This is one of those cases where the statement is true but built on a chain of unspoken but vitally important assumptions. Note that it is not Northern aggression against the South, but rather *resistance to it*, that is the catalyst to genocide. I point this out not as a matter of politics or history, but as a matter of logic. It is akin to saying that if the Allies of World War II had simply just acquiesced in Hitler's demands and handed over most of Europe, the whole Cold War, with its massive human costs -- including the Vietnam War -- could have been avoided. Tom Nichols Naval War College > William Shawcross and others have argued that the >ranks of the Khmer Rouge swelled primarily as a result of the U.S. >intervention in Cambodia from 1969 to 1973. Thus, the American >intervention indirectly helped give rise to a genocidal regime. >Samantha Power, in her study of American responses (or lack thereof) >to genocide, notes that war and genocide are almost always connected. >