Taken from the brochure which, being economical with the truth, publicised the face of that dead letter “united front” against the Khmer Republic, and which the highly secretive Angkar (Communist Party of Kampuchea) hid behind. With mildly amusing acronyms used from the French language, the FUNK (Front Uni National du Kampuchea), and its accompanying GRUNK (Gouvernement Royal d’Union Nationale du Kampuchea) government, which to prove was not a government in exile, achieved a propaganda coup when Prince Norodom Sihanouk, his wife Monique, an entourage which of course a prince needed, and a Chinese film crew in tow, made the bumpy journey down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, in order to tour the liberated areas of Cambodia in February and March 1973. Areas of the country from which seemingly fearless Khmer Rouge rebels battled with the army of B-52 sustained rightists based in Phnom Penh. The liberated areas, or zones, were places in which the shrinking Republic’s effective administrative control had been withdrawn, and increasingly coercive and radical changes were occurring under the Khmer Communists, who enjoyed most influence within the front, the Sihanoukists pretty much elbowed out of the way. But the man, or an image of the man himself, was very important for these mutant Leninists in motivating the peasants to fight. Click to enlarge.
Wearing black peasant garb, checked krama and with their Chinese military caps resting on the table, from the left closest to the map we have Ieng Sary and then Hou Yuon. On the other side of the table, from the top we have Pol Pot (keeping in the distance), Hu Nim and Khieu Samphan. Lastly, at the end of the table sits Sihanouk.
{ 24 } Comments
Who’s the guy on 0.50-0.54 in glasses beside Khieu Samphan, hugging with Sihanouk?
The same guy figured on the Congress of CPK foto.
Second question. Did Pol Pot smoke?
Hou Yuon I think.
Which congress? It can’t have been the 17th (or the 26th, depending on historiography), he was dead by then.
I think Pol was a non-smoker.
I see that on your own blog you have a short post about Sergei Gennadiyevich Nechaev. Have you read the English-language biography of him, written by American historian Philip Pomper?
Third congress, near Chinit river in Rattanakiri and the person to whom I think he reminds sits in the second row, on the right of Khieu Pannary, Pol Pot’s wife.
I haven’t read that book on Nechaev, it’s not in my library. I quote from the book called Unmentionable Nechaev. And I recently read a book on Nechaev of Russian scholar Lur’e. It’s available online at http://on-island.net/History/Nechaev/SNechaev.htm The Creator of Destruction, or something like that says its title. Nechaev is very, very interesting figure, I’d like to see some of his writings but as far as I know none was published even though Lenin stressed his importance. Nechaev was a great character. Dostoyevsky wrote a novel taking the plot from the murder of Ivanov, a fellow student. He was a purist, 100% dedicated to revolution. He published People’s Reprisal and Commune, a few issues of each. Not many at all, but nothing as far as I know released. It’s probably possible to scan it from the libraries where it held, but I don’t know anyone who would do it. I don’t live in Russia, and I would guess that only surviving copies held in Russia. It’s the same thing as with Tung Padevat. Last time I was in Cambodia I was able to scan just a few fronts of each zine, actually of a copy of zine. Nobody really interested in making it available, and my copies just a few pages, I wanted to see whether I’d be able to read it. Nechaev spoke of all-mighty Committee, Angkar, what Marx called a barrack’s communism. In fact, a barrack’s communism holds in itself much more strength than Soviet so called socialism. I discussed not so long ago about Soviet “good” health system, everyone was sick all the time and everybody visited doctors and doctors came to see patients. So what changed when I left that I no longer sick? Was it a system that was making people sick all the time in order to provide employment for doctors (a certain elite group by the way) same as in the West nowadays? Angkar with it prohibition on alcogol, and technically forced vegetarianism, native medicine was a new alternative. Of course it existed just a few years to be judged. Nevertheless. This is why I interested in Pol Pot’s habits. Of course he wasn’t a health guru but still he was in opposition to official medicine. Same could be Nechaev, he said “books will curl your brains” (????? ?????? ????????) and he said it before Mao! Apparently he also liked those catchy phrases and proverbs like those of Khmer Rouge.
I also own this book The Unmentionable Nechaev: A Key to Bolshevism, by Michael Prawdin. I only mentioned the other book, written by Pomper, because it supersedes the former regarding an English-language biography of the man.
Yes, yes, I know about the Narodnaya Rasprava. I agree about the politics, but he chopped and changed, was confused. Generally though he was part of the left-wing of the French revolutionary tradition but with aims inspired by mid-nineteenth century utopian socialism. He was accused of converting what he understood as the latter into a barracks-style communism, as already mentioned by yourself, with political control taken from the former, with a view to conspiracy and the utilisation of unscrupulous methods to achieve what needed to be done. His politics are outdated, belong to an era long gone, the only thing that remains relevant about him or ‘Nechaevism’ in general is the idea of finding utility in conspiracy, terror and other methods that will still cause knicker-twisting moral dilemmas when it comes to achieving change which is supposed to bring a more equitable future for all. The ends justify the means. There are other interesting people to read about with regard to that kind of stuff though, for the theory side of things. The later activity, albeit small and not very influential, of Pyotr Zaichnevksy of Young Russia infamy, and of course Pyotr Tkachev. Russian Jacobinism that is… It is worth acquainting yourself with Tkhachevist politics to get some understanding of Lenin’s Bolshevism.
Below is an excerpt from the book on Nechaev that we both own, An observant summary of him pieced together by the Third Department after the careful perusal of a collection of his writing, which was destroyed afterwards, him being deemed harmless once imprisoned and his past activity cleaned up. The official report:
‘Nechaev cannot be called an average personality. The deficiency of his original education is continually evident, but it is covered over by an astonishing pertinacity and will-power manifesting themselves in the mass of knowledge that he acquired afterwards. This knowledge and the effort that was necessary to acquire it, have developed in him all the advantages of the self-taught man in the highest degree : energy, habitual self-reliance, complete command of the subjects with which he deals. At the same time they have also developed in him all the disadvantageous traits of the self-taught : contempt for everything that he does not know, complete lack of critical evaluation of his knowledge, envy and relentless hatred of all who have received by their good fortune the education which cost him such an effort, recklessness. He is unable to distinguish sophistry from logic and deliberately ignores any facts which do not accord with his views. He is full of suspicion, contempt and enmity against all who, by their means, their social position, or their education enjoy a higher standing. Even if they pursue the same aims, they gain nothing in his eyes. He distrusts their sincerity and finds their activities silly and dilettantist. They are for him an obstacle that must be overcome as quickly as possible. Only men of equal upbringing and of the same views as his are for him real servants of the people and deserve trust and sympathy. All others who stand out of the masses are regarded as enemies of the people, and peaceful, fruitful and manifold development can only ensue after their liquidation. Although he several times rejected violent overthrow, because that would be only a reaction without creating anything positive, he considers violence necessary, because the upper classes must be liquidated at any price. Hatred is for him one of the most important driving forces of social development. Often persons in the position of the author deserve to be respected by their adversaries, but this author does not produce such a feeling of esteem. None of his notes were written with a view to publication, and nevertheless he describes himself as surrounded by privations which he has in fact not suffered. There is no trace of sincerity in the reasons given for this or that action, and one finds no sign of recognition of the right of others to self-defence. On purpose he develops in himself instincts which drive him into blind enmity against the present state order without questioning the justification of these instincts. He finds satisfaction in cherishing his hatred for all higher placed persons. With egotistic pleasure he describes himself as a revolutionary not by conviction but by temperament. He must exercise a seductive influence upon less educated people, particularly upon such who started at the same level but did not reach his standard: but also upon better educated people who are critically disposed towards their own opinion.’
It is good to find someone else interested in 19th century Russian revolutionism. However, although there may be some similarities with elitism, secrecy and finding utility in terror and conspiracy, the development of Khmer Communism and its excesses doesn’t necessarily follow back in a linear fashion to certain currents of an old Russian revolutionary tradition. Indirect perhaps, through exposure to variations of Bolshevism evident in Communist Parties (the French, ICP) other than their own. With differing historical, cultural influences.
I would be interested in seeing anything you have of official DK publications.
Also, I recall another book, and I’m wondering whether or not you have read it. It’s a fictionalised account of the People’s Will, or Narodnaya Volya, written by Yury Trifonov in the 1970s. The novel is called The Impatient Ones, or simply, Impatience. This organisation of course being one part of the second Land and Liberty group which split over matters of political direction. The other group became the Black Repartition or Chernye Peredel, and among its activists was the future Marxist Georgy Plekhanov. Of course the future Lenin would marry the Marxist current in the Russian social democrat movement with this other revolutionary tradition to help give history a push. It could be argued (interested to know your opinion) that this tradition would later, due to the isolation of the socialist revolution, unfortunately converge with a centuries-old despotic Muscovite political culture, transmitted by the rule of the Romanov dynasty until their liquidation by the modernisers. There has been much argument over the view that Russia is insurmountably trapped within herself, imprisoned by her history, this dialectic between dark European forest and Asian steppe.
Also, if you decide to post Cyrillic text on this blog then it won’t be recognised (?????). I need to install the correct script.
Basically I have just 3 front pages: front, contents and first paragraph of these archive items
D21379 to D21387 with the exception of D21381 and D21380. It’s here
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4YBU8Z41
http://www.dccam.org/Database/Lod/Lod.php?screen=0&Request=front+kampuchea&RowNumber=100&B1=Go&screen=0
From this page you can search and from this http://www.dccam.org/Archives/Documents/Documents.htm you can see PDF catalogue of whatever they have. They also have microfilms at http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/libs/dana_lib/cambodia_collection/cambodia_collection.shtml which is Rutgers University but I’m not sure whether they will be ready copy hundreds of pages if I request it by email. I won’t travel to them too. I’d rather
wait when I will go next time to Cambodia and order them to copy all KR magazines plus some other documents. Those guys also charge money for copying and this is why first I copied just a few pages, just to see if I would be able to read it a few years ago. Luckily they didn’t take anything from me. This time I will be ready to pay a few hundred bucks for all what I want, unless of course somebody will scan it and make it available, which I doubt. Maybe you? If you, by a good chance live close by that Univerity. They have even cadre notebook on dentist training! Who would doubt that DK wasn’t going to use old dentists! Good.
I have also two books of Khieu Samphan in Khmer, I can scan them for you too, if you can read. I had an English version of the first one but it’s in Cambodia. I probably don’t have anything else as I usually get books from the library. Now I also scan whatever pages I marked with some notes so later I can access them.
I knew about Nechaev long time, I think since I read The Possessed (Besy) of Dostoevsky, I wasn’t impressed by the novel but since I learned about Pol Pot, a few years after I had realized that two men had many thing common. Philip Short thinks that Pol Pot was influenced by Kropotkin’s The Great French Revolution and quotes many passages in the Anatomy of Nightmare. I don’t think Pol Pot even knew who Nechaev was but there’s in my opinion a lot of similarity. Anti-intellectualism and secrecy, and self reliance. I spent some time reading Marxist classics this and that and especially Trotskyist likes to quote the “classics” and making warfare over this or that quote. This activity was unknown to KR, Nuon Chea said something that 10 intellectuals will spend time on what needs to be done, while poor farmer will be confused. I don’t read a lot at all about XIX century Russia, I was only interested in Nechaev as he was so different. There’s a first biography of Gambarov Disputing Nechaev ( V sporah o Nechaeve). I think it might be worth to read, but I don’t have it in my library. I would also like to read magazines edited and written by Nechaev, but as I mentioned they’re still unpublished. Here’s great account of Nechaev and other members of Narodnaya Volya.
http://narovol.narod.ru/Person/nechaevshub.htm
I will check about Tkachev too, he seems to be quite a marginal as well worth to study. There’s also interesting account of Rahmetov from the Chernyshevsky’s novel What Has To Be Done. And even though he’s a fiction he’s not easy dismissible. The author mentions that “He came to visit that man, a father of modern philosophy and gave him some amount of money to whatever needs he wants to use it”. This is a clear reference to Bahmetev who gave money to Gerzen which later would become a Bahmetev’s fund on which Nechaev will raise his claims. What Has To Be Done was written before Nechaev even moved to Moscow, so Rahmetov from the novel could greatly inspire him. Lenin also greatly valued What Has To Be Done. This is why I read it in the first place, I read it in Cambodia, by the way, and in Cambodia I became inspired by Nechaev too. It is interesting to find what inspired KR too. They could be really small, prosaic things which are really close but nobody mentions them. Like What Has To Be Done mentioned in memories of Valentinov and I guess nowhere else, same as Bonch-Bruevich mentions Lenin’s likings to Nechaev. I would love to read in interview with KR about small things too, which will give a way to understanding, not just clear lies and inventions to whatever obvious no-brainer questions.
Thanks for the scans of Tung Padevat. And thanks for letting me know about the collection at Rutgers University, although I live in England. I’m also aware of the good work the Documentation Centre does, researching KR history in Cambodia. Unfortunately I do not know the Khmer language, so I’m reliant on translations. Regarding works by Khieu Samphan, do you have his doctoral thesis, on partial autarkic development, basing modern industry on agriculture? Also, have you ever read the Black Paper? I have an excellent article about it in my small collection of works on Khmer Communism, written by Serge Thion, named The Ingratitude of the Crocodiles.
Yes, I have read Chernyshevsky’s Chto Delat? Lenin also used this title for his 1902 outline of revolutionary organisation. On Chernyshevsky’s novel, admittedly I needed help in understanding a lot of the Aesopian references, as it uses ideas from, among other things, utilitarianism and French utopian socialism. I didn’t enjoy the novel though, and Rahkmetov, the bogatyr of the intelligentsia, doesn’t appear much in it . This revolutionary asceticism of his I can see as being inspiring, but not many, including Nechaev, could live up to this model of behaviour. Nechaev contradicted his own catechisms, when as a “dangerous” man on the run, he still maintained tender contact with his younger sister, Anna. He even showed heartfelt sorrow upon discovering that she was made pregnant, knowing that given her low social position, and with him being unable to be by her side and offer support, that her circumstances would be difficult to cope with.
Nechaev was indeed dangerous but also pathetic and comical, with a streak of vanity that went through a lot of his activity, with the high estimation given to himself when compared to the realities others saw him in and as being. He was sensitive and never really got over the humiliations of his poor meshanin childhood. He was brim full of hatred, for privileged people, and that carried him to the Peter and Paul Fortress more than anything. Revenge was on his mind, more personal than anything else. A resentful, autodidactic dilettante intellectual that more sophisticated dvorianin never really took that seriously, except for his genuine fanaticism. He knew who and when to try and dominate, those he thought of as being weaker than himself, usually younger and more impressionable people moving in the radical student circles, of which he was a hanger on. The current of conspiracy and violent death in Russian revolutionism, with finding utility in unscrupulous and cruel means was not created by him though or even mastered. He might have embodied certain aspects of the above but he was not the originator of it all, which (perhaps the wrong word to use) legend seems to suggest. He was a liar and a cheat, inflated the sense of his own importance and his own abilities, but even that was for the mayhem and destruction he wanted to bring about. But if there is any testament to his genuine force of will as a revolutionary, indomitable against that which he hated, then it is his time as a prisoner in a dungeon of the Alekseevsky Ravelin. He gave no quarter, to the very end. In fact, at the time, the Russian revolutionary movement had gone full circle after the Lavrovist-inspired trend among educated youth, gone back towards conspiracy, which aside from it being due to the crushing failure of the above, was something earlier abhorred by radicals in part because of Nechaev’s actions and reputation. I could be wrong, but I think that it was a member of the organisation (Narodnaya Volya) which would later carry out what he had wanted to do, kill a Tsar, while also held prisoner at the Fortress, ruined Nechaev’s painstakingly prepared plan of escape. Seems to have grassed him up for better treatment. Nechaev also knew and had worked with Tkachev, while the latter was a student, and also later they had some further contact when both were in western Europe
It is good that you mention Bonch-Bruyevich, because now moving on to Pyotr Tkachev, while Lenin was in Swiss exile he made use of Bonch-Bruyevich’s radical library, for studying Russian revolutionary literature. It was here that he discovered the works of Tkachev. Here is an excerpt from an admittedly outdated and brief 1968 political biography of Tkachev, called The First Bolshevik, by American professor Albert L. Weeks, taken from BB’s memoirs:
‘Vladimir Ilyich knew how to connect the present with the past, borrowing from the past whatever was militant and expedient for the contemporary proletarian class struggle … From the very beginning, Vladimir Ilyich gave serious attention to our library and began to work in it during the evenings … We gave him a special key with which he could enter the library and work there whenever he pleased. In the area where the Archive was located, we set up a large work-table and placed on this table for him to use all the books which he had himself requested from our stacks … He was especially interested in the whole of the old revolutionary literature [of Russia] … Whenever we received works of a given outstanding writer such as, for example, Tkachev and his Nabat publication, we wanted to share any of these finds with him so much that we often dropped by the library in the evening to point out these rarities to him.’
Also, from BB’s memoirs:
‘Vladimir Ilyich read through and examined most carefully all of this old revolutionary literature paying particular attention [osobye vnimaniye] to Tkachev, remarking that this writer was closer to our own viewpoint than any of the others. We wanted very much to collect everything that Tkachev had ever written in the legal press. So we instructed [G. A.] Kuklin to examine all the various journals of the 1870s in order to find everything that Tkachev had written. And Kuklin did. We collected these articles and handed them over to Vladimir Ilyich. Not only did V. I. himself read these works of Tkachev, he also recommended that all of us familiarise ourselves with the valuable writings of this original thinker. More than once, he asked newly-arrived comrades if they wished to study the illegal literature. “Begin,” V. I. would advise, “by reading and familiarising yourself with Tkachev’s Nabat … This is basic and will give you tremendous knowledge.” (italics are mine — A. L. W.)
It is still debatable on just how much Lenin was apparently, and profoundly, affected by his writings when he discovered them in exile, in the publication called The Alarm or Nabat. Tkachev wasn’t as keen on placing too much importance on terrorism as some of his contemporaries were. More so for harnessing the energies of popular rebellion for the ends of a disciplined minority carrying through a political revolution. Despite his sneering elitism, Tkachev was also one of the most honest people among the intelligentsia when it came to evaluating the relations between themsleves and the peasants and their social conditions. Others just projected their own romantic fantasies upon them, particularly the Lavrovists, who he dismissed as fools. Although, he worked on Lavrov’s journal when he managed to escape Russia and make it to London. He lived in France too where he eventually died, made friends with Blanquists, from who he drew inspiration.
Some of the key concepts of Tkachev’s proto-Bolshevist argument for political then social revolution:
1. Formation of a band or party of declasse intellectual-conspirators who would teach socialism to the masses;
2. Seizure of power by this small group (in the midst of mass unrest) in military fashion in the urban “power centres” of Russia;
3. Extreme centralism within the elitist political party;
4. Establishment of a powerful, post-revolutionary “socialist dictatorship” headed by the same declasse intellectuals who had “made” the revolution;
5. Carrying out of “permanent revolution,” remaking society into a new socialist order;
6. Postponement or lack of definition of the withering away of the state;
7. Intolerance of political opposition after the revolution; scorn for “liberal bourgeois democracy”; establishment of a punitive Commission for Public Safety (the Kommisiya Obschestvennaya Bezopasnosty, or K. O. B.) to protect the dictatorship;
8. Distinction between agitation and propaganda and the use-any-means-to-reach-the-ends tactic in designing agitation;
9. Quasi-Marxist economic theory;
10. Russia as a special case, an especially suitable “weak link” in the bourgeois chain where revolution could be made and socialism undertaken.
For further general reading on Pyotr Nikitch Tkachev, then you can get hold of The First Bolshevik by Albert L. Weeks, quoted above. But also, another biography written in the 1970s, which has superseded the above, is Petr Tkachev: Critic as Jacobin by Deborah Hardy. There is apparently much on Tkachev written in the Russian language, so maybe you can do some searching.
Lastly there is an interesting article available online, on the Russian idea of a revolutionary state, which includes information about Tkachev. You can access it here.
I will be able to scan the doctoral thesis of Khieu Samphan translated by Laura Summers, I have it in my local library, I will be away for a while though. There’s also a copy of Le Livre Noire published by DK, English translation available on DCC Searching for the Truth magazine, though they always inaccurate and cannot transliterate Chinese and Russian names, for example, there other concerns with their translations. I don’t have an English copy of Khieu Samphan book, it’s in Cambodia but there’s some places that translated pretty poor, I’d say. Serge Thion got some other articles on Cambodia, The Diabolical Sweetness of Pol Pot but I haven’t read the Ingratitude of crocodiles, I will always appreciate if you can scan it and post, maybe in a week time or so. I have to be short though, I will write back more once I get back.
Ah, soon I will be in Kyrgyzstan, visiting my young family, so I too will have difficulty in making such arrangements. The Serge Thion article I have, was published in the journal Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, from 1980, volume 12, No. 4. This journal also has an excellent article (the main article of that particular issue) on the development of Japanese biological warfare during the Second World War, and their abuses against the Chinese. It also covers the immunity from possible war crimes charges given to the program’s participants by the Americans post-war, in exchange for valuable information on their research and experimentation, for the development of the US military’s own biological weapons arsenal.
Also, on topic regarding Kampuchea, of interest to you perhaps is an English-translation I have of Pol Pot’s speech at the 17th Party Congress, made in September 1977, where he officially revealed the existence of the CPK and outlined poorly and in stilted language the history and aims of the Khmer Communists. The translation is not very good, but it’s an interesting piece nevertheless. I will repost it to this blog some time in the near future, and you will be able to download it from here in PDF format.
Pineapple. Do you get the feeling Rhoda Buchanan is trying too hard?
Yes, and forgive the pun, but continuing to flog old, not to mention inaccurate, information sourced from an arrogant and silly-haired twat still angered by the manner in which a certain slime ball and hypocrite had his illicit sexual deviancy exposed way back when, is getting tired to say the least. Heal and move on for crying out loud. Or what about dyslexia, mental illness, surviving repeated sexual abuse, including rape? Although the latter hasn’t been used as much as the others. Maybe it has something to do with the degree at which a person feels qualified enough to speak on a particular subject. Or plainly, to just be sick in the head.
Also, reproducing a piece of “art” by that overgrown sixth former and middle class faker Banksy (sorry, I meant to put anti-establishment “art-terrorist”) doesn’t give me much confidence in someone’s attempt to successfully illustrate a point. In matters of class hatred (that twerp Max Gogarty anyone?), and forgive me for sounding cynical, but shouldn’t it be pointed out that being able, financially rather than in matters of intelligence, to do a Masters in journalism perhaps requires just a smidgen of nepotism? What is mummy and daddy doing, to help their little precious in her chosen career. What privilege is she hiding behind? I’m sure she works very hard. Much harder than a low-paid service sector worker with a family to support. A side of life about which she knows nothing.
“And here’s a picture of a stupid ginger….”
Christ, I despise Banksy.
She’s been on about food and cookery recently. I suppose it makes a change. I mean, how many times can you mention Koy Thuon? I like the mention of Gogarty. And there are some things you just do not insult people about. There is a sharp qualitative difference between an adult with a fully-developed consciousness making a choice to be a pervy sex pest; and a child being forced by an adult against his/her will to do things his/her still-developing mind has little understanding of.
“Christ, I despise Banksy.”
Same here. His ‘work’ is cliched, vague, liberal rubbish. I think some people call it subversive. I work in a supermarket by the way, so being the mere drone that I am, do not ‘get’ the genius inherent in some embarrassing teenage ‘political’ statement involving a Tesco carrier bag. I think it’s … um … summat to do wiv consumerinism … or wotevah.
Oh shit! I’ve just seen a napalmed Phan Thi Kim Phuc holding hands with Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald! However, I prefer those quarter pounders with cheese they sell at Burger King, if I need to soak up some beer.
Banksy isn’t so much art in an age of mechanical reproduction as just mechanical reproduction. The political ‘statements’ his work makes – and let’s face it, outside the ‘content’, it’s just a bunch of pisspoor stencils – are either startlingly juvenile or clearly aimed at those who have no understanding of, or interest in politics beyond a vague notion that it’s somehow ‘bad’ (i.e. much of the liberal middle class).
A few apolitical Banksy-liking acquaintances have tried to justify their preferences on the grounds that his work is ‘witty’, but then again we’re hardly talking Tale of a Tub. As for ‘subversive’, the other adjective that’s – as you say -commonly bandied about, Banksy clearly hasn’t tried living in a real police state. He really deserves to be beaten insensible with a large folio edition of Goya’s Disasters of War.
Good to get that off my chest, anyway.
No worries. You said it better than I could.
Our Khmer Experience, 2-3 millions khmer gone!
That is democracy problem? in our Khmer land.Samdech Sihanouk from Hanoi?
Our leader from Hanoi? Our samdech ouv in Khmer rouge uniform?and
leader of the khmer rouge? and help Vietcong? Brother and sister with Youns?
From: Samdech Jaywarman VII Oeurn Sarath from Americ!
Founder of Sangkhum Khmer Niyum Party
United People of Cambodia
http://www.SKNParty.com
Aside from the chauvinist/racist term for Vietnamese, what do you mean by a problem of democracy? What ‘democracy’ are we talking about here? It is quite clear, the political expediency that came into play during the war, for both the Khmer Communists and the Prince. Are you a republican?
He doesn’t look very intelligent that guy, posing at the front of Mercedes, with the party which copies everything from US policies. It’s hard to expect an intelligent reply, prepare though, Pineapple, for a flow of Khmer emigres who will splash their hate on your website like they do on KI media.
Looks like a one-man band. A wannabe. No way can a small-time middle class businessman based in the United States muscle in on the established political gangster elite in Phnom Penh, with their hundreds of millions of dollars worth of vested interests. Some of the Khmer bloggers out there also have some strange theories on the recent past, especially when it comes to bending reality so as to fit it into their hatred of the Vietnamese. It’s from one extreme to the other. Non-Communists otherwise exalting Pol Pot as the best Khmer nationalist in living memory, with a firm stance on defending the country from Vietnamese influence, to believing the Khmer Rouge were part of a sinister Vietnamese plan to exterminate the Khmers for the purposes of territorial expansion. That last bit should be safely marked as being conspiraloon nonsense.
A sort of. There are quite a few one man parties in Cambodia. Take for an example ex-party of Khieu Sengkim, brother of Khieu Samphan, or Pen Sovann’s party. They all want their piece of pie, but as you noticed it’s already taken by rich okhnyas. They won’t share with anybody and they’re pretty cruel too, big money won’t leave any human feelings. Part of this reason I don’t believe in any Communist organization in Cambodia, there will be same kind of answer as killing of Tou Samouth, you can play any phony party, but as soon you touch real ground you’re in danger. All these fake parties, named with same words “Freedom”,”Democracy”,”Development” etc. etc. they’re “paper tigers”.
I think this video you have here, if it IS from the Cambodian Communist Party 3rd Party Congress, took place in 1971. But would that make sense? This looks like Sihanouk visiting the liberated areas in early 1973. I’m confused. Was this gathering in this video a Party congress? Or is this video of two different events?
As far as I am aware it is of course Sihanouk seen in the footage, and he didn’t make his journey into the ‘liberated zone’ with his wife Monique until February and March 1973. I think you’re confused, seen as this blog post is about the 1973 visit. There is another video here, and if you watch it after about 18:57 minutes, you see footage which I believe is of the Chinit River area controlled by the Communists. There is no footage of the 1971 Congress meeting you talk about, but it does show the makeshift Congress hall which was used by them, albeit empty. Note the portraits of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
Post a Comment