Any knowledgable /his/torians that can share some interesting

>>542967
Didn't he kill people just because they wore glasses? Or was that Mao?

Pol calling the Pot black

>>542989
He killed people for displaying emotions...

>>542967

He based his regime and genocidal behaviour on a hatred of degeneracy and went around killing intellectuals etc.

Should sound familiar.

>>542967
Well his regime was the only one which admitted their genozide. So atleast he has this for him

>>543083
Why did he think that was a good idea? Was he obsessed with middle ages serfdom or something retarded

>>543108
>Why did he think that was a good idea?

I don't and didn't imply that.

The Khmer Rouge went round killing minorities (after smearing and dehumanising them, because they wanted a one race society), people that had sex outside marriage, intellectuals, "degenerates", thinkers etc.

It should be obvious to the /pol/tards what I am saying.

>Was he obsessed with middle ages serfdom or something retarded

Yes he thought that getting back to an agrarian "blood and soil" society and primitive syndicalism would work.

>>542967
>Since the fucker went full rural how did he keep up with the act of ascending himself to godhood ala Kim Jong-IL without newspapers and television?

You're making a pretty big assumption. Pol Pot is fairly unique in that he had no personality cult. He was just Brother number one and orders came down from some faceless organization.

Motherfucker took Kafka and turned it into an instruction manual. It took American analysts a year to identify "Pol Pot" (A name that means precisely nothing) as Saloth Sar. A failed communist Academie student and former rubber plantation worker. The guy was a nobody and then the next time that we see him, he's running the country.

Citation: Chandler, David P. Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1992.

>>543148
>>543108
>>543083
Pretty much this. Remember that while Vietnam was aligned with the USSR, Democratic Kampuchea was aligned with the PRC and he went full Mao. He wanted to reset EVERYONE to peasant status and start over. It's the reason why they reset the calendar on their society and dubbed it "Year Zero"

>>543176
Wasn't Pol Pot meant to be shortened from Politique Potentiale?
Something he picked up while studying abroad in Paris?
Also, you are suggesting that he was just another pawn?
How did such a pawn get influence in Cambodia (doubt any major power had influence over some backwood country)? Surely, you can't just throw money at something until you are dictator?

>>543407
>Wasn't Pol Pot meant to be shortened from Politique Potentiale?

Possibly. It could also have been a reference to the Pol minority in Cambodia. It was just a weird quirk of the Cambodian revolutionaries; they all adopted alliterative pseudonyms.

As for any suggestions that he was a "pawn"? Nothing of the sort. He was simply different from his contemporaries in a couple of notable ways. He was less accomplished and more low-key.

File: skulls_khmer_rouge.jpg (45KB, 423x288px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 423x288px

>>543439
He was a human trash,but...
He seems such an interesting individual to me, almost charming I would say in his lunacy.

>>543176
That he didnt have a personality cult makes it even more unfathomable the shit he managed to pull

how were people convinced to carry out such drastic orders and directives

>>543465
>almost charming I would say in his lunacy.
this seems to be a consistent quality across mad men. I've heard Hitler and Stalin both being described as having a 'certain charm' or 'flash in their eyes'

File: 1318245724002.jpg (6KB, 251x241px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 251x241px

>apply to a good university
>failed to entry exam
>apply normal technical school
>failed 3 times in a row for 3 years
>had no gf
>join politics
>become successful
pretty much the /r9k/ tier like Hitler

>>543465
It seems that pol pot is the new hitler

>>543653
Don't you think that 20th century was full of these "charming men"?
Like,I don't remember more than 2 or 3 persons per century that were important and yet also had that lunacy factor towards them.
I wonder if 21st century is time for not a single lunatic, since power is not possible to get anymore just through vigorous speeches.
The people are pretty well informed today.

>>543653
Its a worthless meme phrase used by people who like to generalize

>>543684
Pol Pot did literally nothing wrong

Why did the West side with Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge during the Vietnamese invasion? Surely they knew about the level of oppression in Cambodia at the time, so was it just butthurt over losing in Vietnam?

>>543825
It fits into the deniel of the spread of communism. Pol pot wasnt really communist but vietnam was.

A better question is why fund the baathists in the 80s

>>543825
As the other anon said.
We failed in Vietnam?
Cambodia our next stop! This time we learned our lesson though, we will never again directly wage a war with our own men.

>>543825
>Surely they knew about the level of oppression
Do you really think that was even an afterthought in Cold War US policy?

>>543825
Officially it was against ASEAN's Peace & Neutrality principle to have one country invade others. But Cambodia & Vietnam wasn't part of them, actually all non-communist Southeast Asian preffer little commie who can't harm them rather than have Vietnam dominating Indochina.

US just go along with it's ally in the region.