Pol Pot once said, “Although a million lives have been wasted, our party does not feel sorry.” Pol Pot was the ruthless dictator of Cambodia during the 1970s and was single handedly responsible for millions of deaths and suffering. Pol Pot was considered a dictator because he was the leader of three consecutive parties and governments in Cambodia, and in all of them, he made his own people suffer while trying to make radical changes. His main goals were to completely reshape his country Cambodia, into a communist society based on peasants and agriculture. He wanted to create a new type of Cambodia where the population was made up of entirely workers and peasants, and all evidence of the wealthy classes was removed. Pol Pot wanted an equal society …show more content…
He was able to gain popular support by promising the lower classes, the largest portion of the population, more power and equality, which are the main characteristics of communism. Pol Pot’s goal was to create a new type of Cambodian man immune from foreign influence (Rainsy). Class was to be based on social and ideological grounds where the former lowest classes of society; the peasants, farmers and workers, made up the entire population. He basically wanted to dismantle all wealthy classes in order to give power to the peasants, even though he would eventually be considered a dictator and control almost all aspects of Cambodian government. By doing this he would create a collectivist agrarian utopia, or a communist society based on agriculture (Tucker). He was able to use the ideas of this ideal society to gain political power and support from the oppressed masses under the former government. He promised the majority of his population what they deserved as human beings, but no one knew how he would carry out this destruction of the wealthy classes. He sought genocidal tactics to force all people into agriculture and to transform his country into the society that he dreamed of (Thayer). With these ideas, Pol Pot was able to receive public support, but he did not yet have the power necessary to enact his …show more content…
Pol Pot believed that the wealthy had too strong of an influence in Cambodia and his goal was to introduce communist ideals equalling or eradicating the class system. This would have enabled the lower classes to gain power and create a new type of cambodian man (Rainsy). He wanted to base his society of social and ideological grounds and give power to the workers and farmers. With these ideals, Pol Pot believed that the only way for Cambodia to survive was to create a collectivist agricultural utopia, and this was the only way to change the past oppressive government (Tucker). Pol Pot’s ideas themselves were not bad, but the way that he carried them out was the problem. Like in many of the other newly communist republics, the problem is not completely the ideas, it is the person that carries them out. They end up using some incredibly inhumane route to construct their communist society and a large number of people die. There were many ways that Pol Pot could have changed Cambodia into an agricultural society other than Year Zero, but those were the things that show Pol Pot was a true ruthless
In cambodia, the uprising was much different from Stalin to Khmer Rouge. Khmer Rouge was lead by Pol Pot, a man originally from Vietnam but moved to france becoming a powerful leader as a communist. Pol Pot eventually became one of the most powerful communist leaders of all time. He then starts the group Khmer Rouge and takes over Cambodia. Another very important detail creating difference between the two hardships in two different countries would be the amount of time the country was under distress because of their cruel leaders.
Although Ho Chi Minh and his policies could be characterized as communist, the people of Vietnam were able to connect with him and his aspirations of a independent
The best way to answer any question is to be clear about what is being asked and to look only for the facts of that question. We are not being asked whether Joseph Stalin was a good person. The question is, what are the accomplishments of Joseph Stalin that improved his country and made it great? From this point, we can clearly identify what he did, as seen in the articles. Was Stalin beneficial to the USSR?
The denial of human rights in Ukraine and Cambodia has had huge impacts on regional and international communities. Ukraine was very independent, and Stalin wanted to remove the threat that the Ukrainians were becoming. In Cambodia, Pol Pot attempted to create a utopian Communist agrarian society. When Stalin came into power after Lenin’s death in 1924, the government was struggling to control and unwieldy empire.
In April of 1975, the Communist party had gained enough power to capture the capital of Cambodia, Phnom Penh. Once capturing the city, the communists began emptying it of its inhabitants and replacing them with peasants. Along with the inhabitants, the communists destroyed Western consumer goods, burned books and libraries, severed most of its diplomatic relations, abolished money, and markets. Evidently, the ideology of total revolution could only be carried out through mass bloodshed and destruction; in the words of Franz Fanon: “true liberation cannot come without violence and that the only true revolutionaries are those who participate directly in the shedding of blood” (Jackson
The Chinese communist party gained much power after going after and attacking the Kuomintang and its anti communist policies into Taiwan. With the growth of the communist party’s power, the peasant and lower class experienced major influence that would change the course of their lives forever. Chinese peasants and the Chinese communist party between circa 1925 and circa 1950 had a relationship in which the party fostered and cared the state of the people. This created a sense of nationalism and pride for the peasants, while they were advocating social equality, and showing anti-Japanese sentiment. First of all, the Chinese communist party greatly influenced the peasant class in sparking and igniting a sense of nationalistic unity into the
The atrocities committed against Vietnamese civilians was a political threat to Nixon’s strategy of Vietnamization. Nixon’s goal was to turn the war over to the South Vietnamese so that he is able to withdraw most of the U.S. troops. The massacre in My Lai would further justify the resistance of the enemy and it was the complete opposite of what Nixon wanted to accomplish.
The impact of Lenin’s victory over a capitalist monarchy defines an important change in the way Sino-Vietnamese relations would occur, since the focus on nationalism would slowly convert to communism as the dominant ideology to resist western capitalism. The rise of the communist resistance Ho Chi Minh in the early 20th century defines the overarching influence of Chinese/Soviet communist policies, which he followed by building a military force on the northern border of China and Vietnam in the 1920s: “By late 1924, Nguyen Ai Quoc (Ho Chi Minh) was in southern China, building a new revolutionary organization meant to operate inside Indochina. These efforts culminated in 1930 with the establishment of the Vietnamese Communist Party” (Ward 45). In this historical perspective, it is imperative to understand the impact that the Soviet Union had on Chinese Communism, which had been steadily growing as a counter-ideology to the capitalist nationalism of Sun Yat-sen.
In a repressive regime, many people cannot conclude whether it was the fault of the people or the fault of the ruler. Without taking the people into consideration, new rulers come into the government, knowing how they want things to go, regardless of how the people feel. Stalin used his power, and fear to be sure that they were going to do what he wanted. Although while Stalin was getting power, the people were not aware of what was going on. The people were at fault because they sat back and watched the events unfold.
He used the political system of totalitarianism in order to remain an authority figure
Trujillo vs. Hitler The definition of a dictator is a ruler with complete and absolute power over a country that is usually received forcefully. Adolf Hitler and Rafael Trujillo are two examples of powerful dictators that impacted their country immensely. During their reins of power, German and Dominican people were abused, manipulated, and many were killed. Hitler and Trujillo have several similarities on how they dictated; although, the ways in which they chose to use their power differed.
He launched the Cultural Revolution in order to maintain that system. First he would use indoctrination to get kids to know he is like the “god” and they need to show loyalty and follow his rules. A group called red guards pledged their devotion to Chairman Mao and the revolution. They were mostly students and teenagers who were part of this group. They wanted to smash the old, non-maoist way of life, by destroying buildings, beat and even kill alleged enemies.
Who would have ever thought that a simple dictator could have so much in common with a pig from a book. It’s quite silly actually to think about it almost makes it seem like it 's a common thing for a dictator to make decisions like these. Though the things that Putin and Napoleon did are very weird both of them did it which makes it seem like it actually isn’t that weird especially for two dictators to do. No matter how common it is for dictators to pull stunts like the examples that have been given it is wrong nonetheless. As this essay is being written it is questioned, why is it that most dictators do terrible things and why isn’t their a dictator doing something good for a
“Communist rule in Vietnam...would be repressive and antidemocratic..”(Farber,140). Communist rule will not be nice and beneficial to Vietnam, that is the wrong view of Communism. Their oppressive government needs to be overthrown, just like how the British were to the Americans. They got their peace and freedom through fighting. The Domino theory is if Vietnam becomes a Communist country, the rest of the dominos will fall (Farber,122).
When people think of dictators, names like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong come to mind. One name that too often joins this list, despite most definitely belonging on it, is Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a kind and just leader, and always attempted to do what was right. He was by no means unconstrained and tyrannical, as the word dictator suggests. Napoleon fought for what was best for his people, even when doing so wasn’t the easiest way, and he was never cruel or murderous.