Talk:1970 Cambodian coup d'état

Untitled

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 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This article should be renamed "Khmer Republic"

The title of the article really no longer matches the content. The Khmer Republic and its history deserves its own article. I would suggest renaming this article to "Khmer Republic". 70.234.193.225 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Khmer Rep. deserves its own article here 64.72.137.241 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Did neutrality end?

Did Cambodia's neutrality end with the 1970 coup? This should be added to the article. Badagnani (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Khmer

Who is full of ****? Lon Nol boasted about how anti-Vietnamese he was, and the anti-Khmer Rouge, anti-Communist Cambodian opposition hated the Vietnamese. Cambodian hatred of Vietnamese stretches back to when Vietnam took the Mekong Delta from Cambodia. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with the Khmer Rouge. Both Lon Nol and Khmer Rouge wanted to reconquer the Mekong Delta. The FULRO insurgents fought against bot South Vietnam and the Vietnamese Communists. It has to do with anti-Vietnamese sentiment by Cambodians and nothing to do with Communist or anti-Communism. This isn't controversial and not disputed. The part about the Khmer Rouge was specifically them dumping bodies into the Mekong in the 1990s during their insurgency which was reminiscent of Lon Nol's actions. Not about what happened during Khmer Rouge rule which was unprecedented.Rajmaan (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence of the rabidly nationalist (and particularly anti-Vietnamese) nature of Lon Nol's regime, as there is of rabidly anti-Vietnamese rhetoric under Sihanouk's Sangkum and under the (mis)rule of the CPK. All these organisations had drunk at the same well, so to speak. So you should easily be able to find several references both to this and the massacres of Vietnamese residents in 1970 (the petit frere Lon Non is particularly implicated in these events). However I'm not sure that the Khmer Rouge can be said to have 'imitated' these massacres or whether such a comparison is particularly illuminating given that the xenophobic nature of both regimes is well known. The most one can say is that both regimes, at various points, killed residents of 'foreign' origin as they were both inheritors of a long tradition of xenophobia and concern about domination by Vietnam.

On the other hand I agree that dismissing Kiernan as an apologist is astoundingly unhelpful. He has done a lot of work to increase understanding of why the KR regime became what it did.Svejk74 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I already have another source available on the slaughter of Vietnamese after Lon Nol's coup.Rajmaan (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

References

A legal take-over?

The coup is described as a legal take-over that "followed essentially constitutional forms". Is this really true?

Perhaps the Article 122 gave the National Assembly authority to withdraw confidence in the president, but from there to Lon-Nol & co's take-over there are several steps.

• Was Lon-nol & co elected?
• Was the Khmer Republic really a legal government for Cambodia?

Either way this issue needs to be addressed, as it affects the article greatly. RhinoMind (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I am also confused by what happened and how its described. WP defines a coup as "overthrow of an existing government; typically, this refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction", here it seems that constitutional steps were followed to withdraw confidence in Sihanouk and install Lon Nol, so that doesn't meet the definition. However we are probably bound by the reporting of the event which all refers to this as a coup. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

U.S. involvement is "speculation, not supported by RS"?

@Mztourist says that U.S. involvement in the coup is just my "speculation" and "not supported by RS," so I'm going to quote the sources I cited:

• Kiernan, Ben (2004). How Pol Pot Came to Power: Colonialism, Nationalism, and Communism in Cambodia, 1930–1975. Yale University Press. pp. 300–301. ISBN 9780300102628.

Prince Sihanouk has long claimed that the American CIA 'masterminded' the coup against him. ... There is in fact no evidence of CIA involvement in the 1970 events, but a good deal of evidence points to a role played by sections of the US military intelligence establishment and the Army Special Forces. ... While [Samuel R.] Thornton's allegation that 'the highest level' of the US government was party to the coup plans remains uncorroborated, it is clear that Lon Nol carried out the coup with at least a legitimate expectation of significant US support.

• Clymer, Kenton (2004). The United States and Cambodia, 1969–2000: A Troubled Relationship. Routledge. pp. 21–23. ISBN 978-0415326025.

Sihanouk's dismissal (which followed constitutional forms, rather than a blatant military coup d'état) immediately produced much speculation as to its causes. ... most others see at least some American involvement.

• Jones, Adam (2023). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Taylor & Francis. p. 331. ISBN 978-1-000-95870-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

First, in 1970, came US support for a coup against Prince Sihanouk, whom the US saw as a dangerous socialist and neutralist.

I don't see the "speculation"; if "most others see at least some American involvement," then why shouldn't Wikipedia? Skornezy (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Kiernan is expressing Sihanouk's opinion. Clymer uses the word "speculation" and then makes an unsupported generalisation. Jones just states the US view of Sihanouk. So its all speculation. Elizabeth Becker in "When the war was over" on page 112 states "the coup had the earmarks of American approval if not direct American support." In order to include US as a supporter you would need to provide multiple WP:RS that actually confirm US involvement. Mztourist (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Kiernan's analysis concludes that "a good deal of evidence points to a role played by sections of the US military intelligence establishment and the Army Special Forces." That has nothing to do with Sihanouk's claims. "In order to include US as a supporter you would need to provide multiple WP:RS that actually confirm US involvement": That's been achieved as "most others see at least some American involvement," per Clymer 2004. Skornezy (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No it has not, you've just provided speculation. There's already a section covering Claimed United States involvement and you're welcome to add anything new to that, but there is no basis for including the US as a supporter in the Infobox. Mztourist (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Where is the speculation in "a good deal of evidence points to a role played by sections of the US military intelligence establishment and the Army Special Forces" (Kiernan 2004) and that "most [observers] see at least some American involvement" (Clymer 2004)? Those look like pretty direct statements to me. Skornezy (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Those comments are already contained in the Claimed United States involvement, so nothing new. Mztourist (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

So what? You also didn't answer my question: "Where is the speculation in "a good deal of evidence points to a role played by sections of the US military intelligence establishment and the Army Special Forces" (Kiernan 2004) and that "most [observers] see at least some American involvement" (Clymer 2004)?" Skornezy (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

So those points are already covered on the page under the Claimed United States involvement but are speculation that do not rise to the level necessary to include the US as a supporter in the Infobox. Mztourist (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"So those points are already covered"

Not really. The section is pretty garbage as of right now. For one it doesn't note that there was a "a good deal of evidence points to a role played by sections of the US military intelligence establishment and the Army Special Forces" and that "most [observers] see at least some American involvement."

"but are speculation that do not rise to the level necessary to include the US as a supporter in the Infobox"

You still haven't pointed out what's speculative about those statements. Skornezy (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"the section is pretty garbage as of right now" is only your opinion. It has been stable for a long time before you found this page. Did you not read notes b and c? Just because a page doesn't contain every quote that you like doesn't make it garbage. I have explained repeatedly that they are speculation. If there is "a good deal of evidence points to a role played by sections of the US military intelligence establishment and the Army Special Forces" then provide RS that actually shows that, not just someone asserting that. If "most [observers] see at least some American involvement." then provide the RS of who those observers are and what they actually said, rather than just a broad assertion that something is true. Mztourist (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"I have explained repeatedly that they are speculation."

You haven't. Where is the speculation; all I see are direct statements.

"If there is "a good deal of evidence points to a role played by sections of the US military intelligence establishment and the Army Special Forces" then provide RS that actually shows that, not just someone asserting that. If "most [observers] see at least some American involvement." then provide the RS of who those observers are and what they actually said, rather than just a broad assertion that something is true."

??????

Are you trolling? Those are direct quotes from RS; Kiernan 2004 and Clymer 2004 respectively. And I even threw in a third source from 2023 that explicitly says: "in 1970, came US support for a coup against Prince Sihanouk, whom the US saw as a dangerous socialist and neutralist." Skornezy (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is trolling here its you. Notes b and c already contain Kiernan and Clymer's speculation. How the US viewed Sihanouk is a long long way from showing they supported the coup. As I have said repeatedly, if you want to include the US as a supporter in the Infobox then you have to provide multiple WP:RS that actually confirm US involvement, not vague assertions that "a good deal of evidence points to a role played..." or "most [observers] see..." Mztourist (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, explain how "a good deal of evidence points to a role played by sections of the US military intelligence establishment and the Army Special Forces" (Kiernan 2004) and that "most [observers] see at least some American involvement" (Clymer 2004)" is speculation. Probably the hundredth time I've asked you. "Vague assertions"? First you said that it was all speculation, now they're "vague assertions." Get your story straight. Skornezy (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have explained it repeatedly and we cannot reach agreement so there are various dispute resolution mechanisms that you can follow. Don't edit war the page. Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Are they "vague assertions" or is it "speculation?" Skornezy (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Both, but you can seek a 3rd opinion or take it to a noticeboard. Mztourist (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

On what basis are they "vague assertions" and "speculation? Skornezy (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You are continuing to edit-war the page: [1]. Claimed is appropriate because you haven't proven anything. Only RS can do that and none have been provided that prove US involvment. Mztourist (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

My last edit was two days ago and the changes I made this time around are different from two days ago. You are WP:STONEWALLING by claiming that reliable sources haven't been provided to justify the changes when they have. Skornezy (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You deleted "Claimed" which had been stable for a long time. You made this change presumably because you believe that you have proven that the US supported the coup. I do not agree with you on that, however rather than you following any of the relevant dispute resolution procedures you have badgered me here and then once again imposed your views on the page. I don't wish to edit war this and neither should you, so change it back to "Claimed" and follow the dispute resolution procedures. Mztourist (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It being the "stable" version is not a good enough reason to dispute newly added academic reliable sources in which "most [scholars] see at least some American involvement." Skornezy (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

US involvement is not proven by RS. Just as you are trying to do at Talk:Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge#Requested move 12 November 2024, you are trying to present allegations as undisputed fact. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"US involvement is not proven by RS."

It is and it has been pointed out to you. You're just engaging in WP:STONEWALLING by dismissing it out of hand without substantively engaging with it. Skornezy (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You equate some authors saying something is true with it actually being true, its not, there is a distinction which must be maintained. On what evidence do those authors make those claims? That is the RS required to prove US involvement. Mztourist (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources, including independent academics, says its true, therefore Wikipedia says its true. Skornezy (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No, to varying degrees they assert its true, they don't prove its true. They offer minimal evidence to support those assertions. Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not an accurate reading of the sources: "most [scholars] see at least some American involvement." U.S. involvement is the consensus, but the exact extent of that involvement is what's up for the debate. I'm done explaining this to you a million times. Skornezy (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That falls well short of proof of involvement. Mztourist (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't. Skornezy (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You're WP:STONEWALLING. Mztourist (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution then. It's not my problem you have trouble interpreting reliable sources. Skornezy (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You're the one who changed a stable page and are already on a partial block for edit-warring. Mztourist (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The current version is an objective improvement: more academic reliable sources, and intricate details on U.S. involvement. Just because the previous version was "stable" doesn't automatically mean correct. Take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you have an issue. Skornezy (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)