Talk:Cambodian Civil War

US involvement

Excuse me but how the hell is the US opposed to the Khmer Rouge? Fact is the US supported the Khmer rouge both financialy and by using bombers to atack the vietnamese when they atacked the Khmer Rouge.

This article should be divided:

Khmer Republic 1 Side. // USA/South Vietnam+Khmer Rouge 2nd Side // Socialist Vietnam 3rd Side // —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.111.208 (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent Editing

This article is currently undergoing a heavy re-write and expansion. If you have any "talk", please leave it at the top of the page under this bloc. This will allow me to address current questions etc instead of having to go all the way to the bottom of the page. Just convenient. RM Gillespie 20:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Old Editing

I question the neutrality of the article on two counts. One is that after the coup, Sihanouk was in the custody and at the mercy of the Chinese government. Perhaps, as the article claims, his actions were short-sighted. But perhaps it was cooperation with the Chinese and their Khmer Rouge clients was his best option, both for his country and for his personal physical safety.

Your statement that Sihanouk was in the "custody" and "at the mercy" of the Chinese would need to be supported with facts. Every source I know of shows that he was in no way ever forced by the Chinese to do anything. Quite the opposite, the Chinese put pressure on the Khmer Rouge to mollify Sihanouk.

Secondly, Lon Nol's coup is treated as an entirely indigenous event. I don't have the citations to prove otherwise, but I have read that it was encouraged by the US because the Nixon Administration was dissatisfied with Sihanouk's inability (or unwillingmenss, as the US saw it) to close down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

That is speculation rather than fact.

Taken together, these two omissions lead to an unduly negative view of Sihanouk's role and a a side-stepping of the US's role in creating the conditions that allowed the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Dvd Avins 16:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sihanouk is not a positive figure. The reality of Cambodia in the 1960s was that Sihanouk oversaw a dicatatorship where his opponents on the left were murdered and there was no freedom of the press at all. A wave of arrests ordered by Sihanouk in the early 1960s of leftests put Pol Pot in charge of the Khmer Rouge because most of those senior to him were either dead or under arrest. Another wave of repression in the 1960s sent the people who would form the base of the Khmer Rouge into the countryside. The civil war in Cambodia began three years before Sihanouk was removed from office. Sihanouk's government oversaw atrocities long before he was forced out. If you want to portray him as a positive figure, please present your reasoning in terms of the history of Cambodia in the 1960s.

There is a particular set of POV that wants to present Sihanouk as a beloved great man who ruled over happy neutral Cambodia until the evil americans drove him from power. Then the evil americans bombed the "simple" people of Cambodia and turned them into ruthless Khmer Rouge fighters whose actions were not their fault. That POV will not be allowed in the article.

Surely this needs to be wikified and brought into line with the Second Indochina War and the Cold War? Cripipper 10:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First, you need to be honest and state that you wish to bring it into line with your personal edits to Second Indochina War and the Cold War. While the pages need to be reconcilied, that will not be done on your terms and exclusively from your POV. You also need to present credible sources. That means, for example, people who were present in Cambodia rather than westerners observing Cambodia and making psychological theories about what happened.

It also needs expanded to explain the events of the Civil War from June 1970 to the fall of Phnom Penh. Cripipper 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at doing that. 168.127.0.51 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

POV problems corrected

I've corrected the following problems in the article today:

1) POV attempts to insert the Sihanouk viewpoint of events in 1970 have been made neutral. 2) Saying that the Cambodian army was "outclassed in training and leadership" is an opinion made without support and POV because it implies the other side was somehow "better". 3) Calling the majority of the officers of the Cambodian Army Corrupt and Incompetent is clear POV. 4) "The KCP's debt to the North Vietnamese after March 1970 was one that Pol Pot was loath to acknowledge". Clear POV. 5) "the revolutionary struggle" - The wording takes sides "struggle" is POV. 6) Arclight is used in a completely wrong sense. B-52 strikes being mentioned is enough. 7) The comparison of the bomb tonnage dropped to that dropped in another war is POV. You can mention the amount of bombs dropped but not use other wars to make political points about the bombing. 8) The bombing numbers listed have no sources associated with them. Either find sources or leave them out. Saying the CIA estimated 600k deaths needs a source before it can appear. 9) "drove the Cambodian people into the arms of the Khmer Rouge". Making the claim that bombing created the Khmer Rouge or increased its popularity is unsupported POV. The Khmer Rouge insurgency started under Sihanouk years before any bombing occurred. 10) Shawcross is not a valid source for the claims being made. He was not a direct witness to the events and his unsupported opinions do not deserve in the article. He certainly cannot substaitiate the excuse being offered that the Khmer Rouge were not responsible for their own actions. 11) Saying that the bombing was the most controversial aspect without providing any basis for making that claim is incorrect. 12) "From the Khmer Rouge perspective, however, the severity of the bombings was matched by the treachery of the North Vietnamese." Clear POV. Putting Khmer Rouge political propaganda against Vietnam into the page is unacceptable. The paragraph makes no sense. The Khmer Rouge didn't stop fighting and won. Where is the treachery?

Anybody know anything about Cheng Heng?

Does anybody know what happened to Cheng Heng, former President of the National Assembly and (according to one timeline) nominal Head of State after the 1970 coup? He arrived in Milwaukee as a refugee May 31 1975 with 13 members of his family. I've found online mentions that he was one of those marked for death by the Khmer Rouge, and others that say he left the U.S. in 1992, and died in March of 1996. Anybody know whether he stayed in Milwaukee or Wisconsin, what he did with himself, whether he went back to Cambodia or ?, where he died? He doesn't even have a sketchy token article here right now.--Orange Mike 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

Looking good, but needs a longer lead and thorough copyediting for tone (comments like "It was a sad portent of evil days to come." aren't really appropriate to an encyclopedia article). Kirill Lokshin 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there differentiation between the insurgents and Cambodians? With it being a civil war, would it not be more accurate to specify the goals of each party rather than make general claims such as Khmer and Cambodian?Octogeist (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Section names

1. 4.1 Same War, Different Year
2. 4.2 Whispers in the Night

I think we need to rename these two sections: they do not give the reader looking at the contents box any clue about their content. Cripipper 13:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification requests, part 1

1. In the section The Overthrow of Sihanouk, 1970: The Lon Nol Coup, the following sentence needs clarification: "On the 12th, the prime minister closed the port of Sihanoukville to the North Vietnamese and issued an impossible ultimatum to them." The section does not give month or year. I might guess that this refers to March 12, 1970, but that cannot be gleaned from the paragraph/article.
2. In the section The Overthrow of Sihanouk, 1970:The Vietnamese Massacres , third paragraph — "not even those of the Bhuddist community" (bold mine). Do you mean "Buddhist"?
3. In the section The Widening War, 1970-1971:The Opposing Sides, third paragraph — "During the 1974-1975 period, FANK forces would grow from 100,000 to approximately 250,000 men (probably one-third of whom either did not exist or had deserted)." — the wording is confusing. How can force be of a particular size but consist of non-existent people? Does the sentence really mean that the forces offically numbered 250,000, but the number was probably closer to ?180,000? due to desertion and ......? Alternative wording — "FANK rolls"?

— ERcheck (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ERcheck - you are the man! For the first time in 15 written articles a reader (or commentor) actually responds with some really valuable criticism. God bless you!. I will get right on your suggestions. RM Gillespie 22:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications request, part 2

1. In Agony of the Khmer Republic, 1972-1975:Struggling to Survive section, first paragraph, second sentence is unclear: "Limited offensives were to launched to maintain contact with the rice-growing regions of the northwest and along the Mekong River and Route 5, the Republic's overland connection to the south." Should it read "Limited offensives were launched to maintain..." ... which still is unclear.
2. Next sentence.... "those lines".... unclear which lines. Does this mean the Mekong River and Route 5 as supply lines? As communication lines?
3. Footnote in paragraph 2 "The Editors of the Boston Publishing Company" as author? Is this book from the The Vietnam Experience book series? Is it ISBN 0939526387?
4. Last paragraph in the section: "By the end of the year" .... and "Shortly after Christmas". What year are we in? 1973? 1974 or 1975? As each section may cover multiple years, the reader can lose track of the year/the year may be unclear from the text. In this paragraph, I suggest — "By the end of 19xx, ...." and "Shortly after Christmas 19xx,..." \
5. In the Agony of the Khmer Republic, 1972-1975:Fall of Phnom Penh section, 5th paragraph, last sentence is unclear. "They chose to share the fate of their people (and all of whom were later executed by the Khmer Rouge)." Do you mean that the group — Sirik Matak, Long Boret, Lon Non (Lon Nol's brother), and most members of Lon Nol's cabinet — were all executed? As it reads, it implies that "their people" were executed... Please re-write.

— ERcheck (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. RM Gillespie 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought

From the point of view of Cambodia, if the civil war ended in '75, then what do we call the conflict that continued from 1979 until 1998? I've seen the term used both to describe the pre KR period and the 20 odd years of civil conflict after it. Any thoughts? Paxse 17:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• An interesting (and as yet unresolved) question that is made all the more complex due to the actions of the Vietnamese and Chinese. Was the government established by the Vietnamese in Phnom Penh to be considered legitimate, or (as the U.S. considered it) as a puppet government? Are the Vietnamese counterinsurgency operations within Cambodia between 1979 and 1989 internal or external military operations? Was the Vietnamese-supported Movement for Khmer National Liberation a legitimate insurgency against the Khmer Rouge or a creation of the Vietnamese? How is one to regard the Sihanouk-created Confederation of the Khmer Nation, which opposed both the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese-backed Kampuchean regime (and which later joined forces with the Khmer Rouge)?

A war against external aggression or a civil war? This one can of worms that begs for clarification. The Vietnamese as liberators responding to numerous attacks on their national territory or as villains only out to establish a friendly puppet state? The Khmer Rouge as the murderous bastards that they were or as freedom fighters? RM Gillespie 13:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article?

Should it go through the test? It is already an A..._{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}• 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass no problems there.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass plenty of sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass very well done there, too.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass

5. It is stable:

   Pass

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass ample illustration.

7. Overall:

   Pass An exceptional article, which is a sho-in for GA in my opinion. Well done! -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Viet Cong

I guess I have to put this in every article I write. Viet Cong (Vietnamese Communist) is indeed a derogatory appellation cooked up by USAID for Ngo Dinh Diem in the mid-1950s. The common referent for the Vietnamese population for the anti-government guerrillas (pre-NLF) was Viet Minh, which carried a lot of political weight from the struggle against the French. To defeat this "propaganda", USAID fronted the new title to Diem and pro-government newspapers. Once the NLF was formed in 1960, the term was carried on as a counterweight to the title "National Liberation Front" and the coalition that made it up (regardless of its true makeup or leadership). Indeed, the Americans themselves utilized the term, hoping to quash the propaganda value of the new title. They did the same in reffering to PAVN as the NVA, thereby negating any "confusions" generated by the title "People's Army".RM Gillespie (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Article vandalised for six months without being noticed

:( YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It tells (3rd paragraph): "Thus, it has been argued, that the US intervention in Cambodia contributed to the eventual seizure of power by the Khmer Rouge, that grew from 4,000 in number in 1970 to 70,000 in 1975.[2]".

With all due respect, the discussion on the subject of "who was guilty?" or "who brought Khmer Rouge to power?" does not belong to the Summary, but to a separate section at the bottom of the article, if it belongs to this article at all. Is not it?Biophys (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Attempted Changes

The estimate of 600,000 dead is an unsupported self-described guess from Prince Sihanouk advanced in Khmer Rouge propaganda--according to the source itself. In their 1993 study, modeling "the highest mortality [they] can justify," Judith Banister and Paige Johnson estimated 275,000 deaths during the 1970-1975 period. Marek Sliwinski carried out a demographic study where he arrives at a comparable estimate of 240,000 war deaths out of which there were 40,000 deaths as a result of American bombings. Heuveline, Kiernan, and Etcheson all give roughly identical estimates (the highest is 300,000, from Kiernan). The 600,000 figure may have been invented by Pol Pot himself, and is 2 to 3 times the actual number of war-related deaths. I do not see why these sources would be less reliable than this apocryphal assertion.

I also do not believe that the absurd claim that US bombing caused the genocide needs to be regurgitated as near-undisputed fact in the opening paragraphs of the article--but I had no problem with keeping it there, I just added a one sentence rebuttal noting that the assertion was questionable.

As scholar of Cambodia and Pol Pot’s biographer David Chandler points out, the bombing campaign "had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh. The war was to drag on for two more years." Had the bombing campaign not have occurred, Pol Pot would gained power earlier than he had done. A more accurate answer as to what was responsible for bringing the Khmer Rouge to power was provided by Timothy Carney and published in Karl D. Jackson’s superb book on the Khmer Rouge. He provides five reasons why Pol Pot won the war (support from Sihanouk, massive supplies of military aid from North Vietnam, government corruption, the U.S. cut-off in air support after Watergate, and the determination of the Cambodian Communists). Not one of them is the U.S. bombing. Michael Lind, in his book on the Vietnam War, notes: "In 1970, the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars complained that the U.S. military effort was preventing the Khmer Rouge, with Sihanouk as a figurehead, from coming to power; after 1974-1975, most on the left floated a new story – the U.S. military effort had caused the Khmer Rouge to come to power." Vietnam even admitted that it "played a decisive role" in bringing the Khmer Rouge to power (Washington Post, April 23, 1985).

The claim that the bombing had any such effect is so absurd as to boggle the mind. As Henry Kissinger loves to point out, the Menu bombings went no further than ten miles into Cambodia, where there was hardly any population at all.

At Geneva, Hanoi had attempted to secure a Khmer Viet Minh "zone" in northeastern Cambodia that would have been modeled on the Pathet Lao zone they secured in Laos. This amounted to an attempt to divide Cambodia into Communist and non-Communist halves, like Vietnam. By 1968, the Khmer Krahom had 14-15,000 fighters, while the KVM had 12,000. North Vietnam had invaded and occupied large chunks of Cambodia. Nearly half of the country was faced with North Vietnamese or other Communist occupation. The Viet Cong was active in the country with about 30,000 troops, and worked with the KVM to launch invasions of Cambodia from North Vietnam. The North Vietnamese had 60,000 troops on Cambodian soil. This would be the equivalent in the United States of nearly 4 million armed and organized troops from Mexico and Canada overrunning most of the country. These figures are from 10 months prior to the start of any U.S. bombing. By 1970, North Vietnam had the supply lines, troops, and logistical support necessary to force the collapse of Cambodia. Sihanouk had long done little to disguise his support for the North Vietnamese Communists, but now he grew afraid. "Hanoi," he said, "could easily force the collapse of both Cambodia and what is left of Laos if it was not faced with American opposition." If anyone invaded Cambodia in 1970, it wasn't us. The U.S. incursion, simply put, was the American troops following the North Vietnamese as they broke away from their "sanctuaries" to surround Phnom Penh (as they fought side-by-side with the Cambodian Communists). Documents uncovered from the Soviet archives after 1991 reveal that the North Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1970 was launched at the explicit request of the Khmer Rouge and negotiated by Pol Pot's then second in command, Nuon Chea (Dmitry Mosyakov, “The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists: A History of Their Relations as Told in the Soviet Archives,” in Susan E. Cook, ed., Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda (Yale Genocide Studies Program Monograph Series No. 1, 2004), p54ff).

The U.S. did not resume the bombing until the capital was under siege in 1973. It was only at this point that the bombing extended deeper than ten miles into the country. The US Seventh Air Force argued that the bombing prevented the fall of Phnom Penh in 1973 by killing 16,000 of 25,500 Khmer Rouge fighters besieging the city.

With all this in mind, a one sentence comment that Shawcross' opinions are "disputed" seems quite amply justified. I'm not aware of any serious scholar besides Shawcross (or Kiernan, I suppose) who honestly accepts that thesis--although it has been repeated so frequently that most people just assume it must be true. And even Shawcross seems to have backed down quite a bit from many of the more absolutist claims he made in Sideshow.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You make a highly cogent case for the edit. I'm very happy that you're using article Talk: pages. One little tip, you might avoid taking on a collective subjectivity other than that of a wikipedia editor ("If anyone invaded Cambodia in 1970, it wasn't us."); as this can lead to oppositional behaviour in talk pages. A better expression would characterise the subject "If anyone invaded Cambodia in 1970, it wasn't the US." (Though this might be a bit hyperbolic, given Cambodian Campaign which occurred in Eastern Cambodia April 29 – July 22, 1970). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've added my proposed changes. If anyone objects to them (and I still think a debate could be had about including two sentences in the intro debating the effects of the American intervention in Cambodia--one could devote an entire section to the debate over that controversy, but the opening is often being read by people new to the subject who could use information provided later in this source as well as other sources to draw a conclusion either way), feel free to challenge me here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your counter point in the lede for the moment; but agree more so with your suggestion that "one could devote an entire section to debate over that controversy" and that the lede should introduce new readers to the subject. Suggest a section "Political and Academic controversy over US involvement" with the lede sentence eventually being reduced to "A lively political and academic controversy has emerged in writing on the civil war about the significance of US involvement." or some similarly neutral lede phrase noting the controversy, but not taking a position, with the body section filling out coverage. Great edits. In general I'm in favour of encyclopaedic articles discussing the literary debates on their topics; and where very very significant, the popular debates. If these sections grow too large, then its time for a sub-article, "Historiography of ___" "Popular beliefs about ___". Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about how the intro should read and about where that data ought to be located in the article. I certainly hope that such a section is created, and if it is, I would be happy to help improve it. I assume, though, that I've made my own views on the subject rather clear--ideally, a mix of editors divided in their views on the debate should contribute to the discussion. In any case, though, I only wish that all the articles about the Khmer Rouge were as neutral as this one is--Wikipedia's Cambodia article includes curious statements like "the US secretly played a major role" in recruiting for the Khmer Rouge, and claims that the US armed them against the Vietnamese invasion (which is supported by some sources, but also disputed by many, including Cambodia specialist Nate Thayer, who writes that "there is no credible evidence that the U.S. gave any material aid whatsoever to the Khmer Rouge"--and it may be worth noting that John Pilger had to pay "very serious" libel damages in England for making the claim). There are many, many more conspiracy-minded and unclear statements on the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, and History of Cambodia articles. I don't have the time to deal with them all, especially because most of the editors seem to believe these claims are well-sourced (which is a serious problem--it took me three attempts to convince the editors of CIA activities in Iran that asserting the CIA installed Khomeini was not appropriate on Wikipedia). As a final point, Fifelfoo, I (to be perfectly honest) did not like you very much at first; but I've come to appreciate that your advice is always accurate and helpful. I don't think, unlike most editors I've dealt with, that your personal views influence your editing--you are always very calm and lucid in your reasoning.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

When I'm not an editor, I have strong views and conduct original research to report according to scholarly standards. When I'm a wikipedia editor, I try my best to provide advice in line with wikipedia policy and the best practice to make policy work for the encyclopaedic project. I found editing contentious articles where I have knowledge to be too frustrating; so I went into reviewing articles and determining source reliability issues. It is very possible for wikipedians of radically different methodology, political views, and literary-source backgrounds to produce excellent articles together. Oh, and if English libel law is anything like NSW, truth is no defence to libel—doesn't indicate Pilger's claim was true of course. And I'm glad you're improving articles! Fifelfoo (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Improvements

A sections needs to be made to include the North Vietnamese attempt to overrun the entire country in March–April 1970 which preceded the Cambodian Incursion by the US and ARVN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.216.174 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Operation Menu

Made a minor edit to this section where I added in direct quotes from the book Manufacturing Consent, which directly quoted Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 93d Cong., 1st sees., July/August 1973, pp. 158-60, the primary source on the "secret bombings." The change made was showing that Sihanouk publicly condemned the attacks, whereas previously it said that he stayed quiet. At issue was using Chomsky (and Herman) as a reliable source. This was discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and it was shown that it could be used as a RS. Balgill1000 (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Thankfully, Itsmejudith, TFD, and I have agreed to use Clymer.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was, spoken very well by User:TFD when he said

"just to recap. Shawcross claimed that Sihanouk's silence constituted consent. Herman and Chomsky, in their section about about media coverage of the wars in Laos and Cambodia, say Shawcross, who is a journalist, misrepresented Sihanouk. Bellamy reported both versions. Here is a link to the Senate hearings, pp. 158-160 that Herman and Chomsky use. bobrayner, Chomsky's books from reputable publishers are as reliable as those publishers' other books. In fact it is typical of high quality sources that their writers have opinions, and it is up to us to be neutral not them. No one took a snippet from Chomsky. They took a snippet from Shawcross, then other editors checked to see whether or not he was accurate, and found he was not. Shawcross btw like Chomsky has opinions and like everyone else is not always correct. We could avoid these discussions if instead of challenging sources because we do not like what they say, we instead check facts that we question. That btw is what was done when Chomsky's source was added." AND "Seems fair enough, because Bellamy's book is more recent and came from an academic publisher, unlike Shawcross and Chomsky. I would also add a link to the Senate hearing. The source used by them btw was the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, part of the CIA that openly gathered local news for U.S. government. Bellamy also mentions that in the months leading up to the news conference, Cambodia had complained 100 times to the U.N. about the bombings, confirming that they were not silent about them at the time, as Kissinger and Shawcross claimed."

But I see you (User:TheTimesAreAChanging) decided to just delete the lie instead of replacing it with the truth. Maybe instead of being completely biased against sources that you don't like for no valid reason other than you don't agree with their politics (?), you could maybe take a neutral point of view? Balgill1000 (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD agreed that it was undue to give more coverage to Chomsky than reliable academic experts on Cambodia, and he was the only editor who felt Chomsky could be used at all. The whole conversation is not summarized by the above quote.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Putting in a couple of sentences is not giving more coverage to Chomsky. I agree with the conclusion made by User:Darouet that:

"Looking through the talk page, I'd definitely suggest that you include a mention of Sihanouk's public denunciation of the bombing, while also maintaining all contested references by historians and journalists that Sihanouk tacitly approved of or even invited intervention. There's no reason not to mention Sihanouk's public statements, nor is there reason to delete informed commentaries by academics on the actual position of his government."

So I will let you (User:TheTimesAreAChanging) make the change to the page first to specifically mentioned that Sihanouk publicly denounced the attacks, or I will make the change myself again if this is not done.Balgill1000 (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Questionable history?

I question some of the assertions made in this article. First is the mention at least twice that in the 1970 North Vietnamese (NVA) invasion they intended to "overrun the whole country." I don't recall seeing that mentioned in books I have read on this subject -- although I can't check the references given in the article because I don't have them available.

Secondly is the statement that the North Vietnamese came within 15 miles of Phnom Penh before being "pushed back." I haven't seen any reference to a battle outside Phnom Penh in 1970 in which the NVA was "pushed back," implying they were defeated. Rather it sees to me that the NVA campaign had as a principal objective capturing more Cambodian territory to move their military installations deeper into Cambodia and more insulated from both the U.S. and a newly-unfriendly Cambodian government. They achieved that.

Third is the statement implying that a major reason for the U.S. incursion (why is the NVA operation an "invasion" while the US operation is an "incursion?") was the NVA attack on Cambodian forces. I don't think that was a reason at all. I need to see some good references to accept what is now in the article. Smallchief (talk 22:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement about Phnom Penh is currently unsourced. I assume it is based on Nixon's speech announcing the incursion ("North Vietnam in the last 2 weeks has stripped away all pretense of respecting the sovereignty or the neutrality of Cambodia. Thousands of their soldiers are invading the country from the sanctuaries; they are encircling the capital of Phnom Penh. Coming from these sanctuaries, as you see here, they have moved into Cambodia and are encircling the capital."), but obviously a better source is needed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with stub: Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76)

Hello, I noticed there was a gap in the former states of Cambodia so I created Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76); any help in expanding this stub would be much appreciated. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sihanouk says 'no' again to hot pursuit by U.S. The Straits Times, 8 January 1968

Is this kind of stuff relevant to the claim Sihanouk gave permission for the invasion of Cambodia? There is are certainly more like it that could be found

Sihanouk says 'no' again to hot pursuit by U.S. The Straits Times, 8 January 1968 http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19680108-1.2.2?ST=1&AT=filter&K=+Sihanouk+bombing&KA=+Sihanouk+bombing&DF=&DT=&Display=0&AO=false&NPT=&L=&CTA=&NID=&CT=&WC=&YR=1968&QT=sihanouk,bombing&oref=article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:9309:5300:80B1:175:C45D:D0C3 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't combed this article, but as you also state, Sihanouk did not give any permission to invade Cambodia, including the hot pursuit carpet bombings by US airplanes. It was one of the reasons that the US-backed Lon Nol coup was launched when Sihanouk was abroad. There are many sources to this, including the two you provided. If the article states that Sihanouk "gave permission for the invasion of Cambodia" it should definitely be changed. RhinoMind (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course Sihanouk didn't approve the Cambodian Campaign, which occurred after his March 1970 overthrow, but he did engage in a sudden about-face and embrace "hot pursuit" on January 10, 1968—which is not refuted by earlier sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Civil War in 1974: did much happen?

This article, and the internet generally, is very quiet on what happens in the war during 1974. What were the key events and things to know? Thanks. 2A02:8084:6A22:4980:989B:EC0:1E31:5F3F (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

There aren't many books about that period, you'd have to sift through newspapers to find out what was going on. Mztourist (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

PAVN invasion began in March not April

Can't believe this article has the North Vietnamese invasion being a response to the US incursion rather than the other way around. Going to edit this massively. 160.86.240.57 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)