![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think there should be just 2 sides: Vietnam + the pro-Vietnamese government and the guerilla factions + Thailand, as those factions, all their differences notwithstanding, were united in their fight against Vietnam for most of the period (see Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea). Thoughts? -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The article portrays Thailand as the victim, (deliberately?) ignoring Thailand's role in protecting Pol Pot and undermining the PRK/SOC troughout the latter's existence. After the defeat of Democratic Kampuchea in 1979, the Khmer Rouge fled Cambodia quickly. Protected by the Thai state, and with powerful foreign connections, Pol Pot's virtually intact militia of about 30,000 to 35,000 troops regrouped and reorganized in forested and mountaineous zones behind the Thai-Cambodian border. During the early 1980s Khmer Rouge forces operated from Thailand, inside the refugee camps near the border, and were able to receive a steady and abundant supply of military equipment. The weapons came mainly from China and the US and were channeled across Thailand with the cooperation of the Royal Thai Armed Forces. In order to balance this one-sided article it would be useful to read texts written by Thais that are not blindly pro-Thai, disregarding Thailand's negative role, like Puangthong Rungswasdisab, Thailand's Response to the Cambodian Genocide and rewrite the article accordingly. Xufanc ( talk) 21:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The topic of this article is indeed Vietnamese raids into Thailand, therefore the content deals exclusively with those instances of Vietnamese incursion into Thai territory, or cases in which Thai troops engaged Vietnamese troops. Although Thailand protected the KR and other guerrilla groups, it is debatable that this was intended to destabilize the government of Kampuchea. Kiernan, whom you quote, does indicate that Thailand was defending itself against what it (and the US) believed was a threat to its security, but Thai troops did not enter Kampuchea nor did they attack without provocation. As for Vickery, much of his work has been discredited as an apologist for the KR. A careful reading of the article should also show that many Thai civilian casualties occurred far from any KR base, and the PAVN killed and injured hundreds of Khmer civilians in non-communist camps, in some cases deliberately as in Nong Chan on June 23, 1980.
Thailand's actions prolonged the conflict and were heavily influenced by China and the US--this is indisputable. There is however no real evidence to suggest that Thailand planned to invade Kampuchea. Cmacauley ( talk) 18:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with those who question the POV of this article. There is a systematic anti-Vietnamese bias, no mention of the reason for cross-border incursions, no mention of the role the Cambodian government of the time was playing in the conflict, an unquestioning acceptance of Thai deeds and yet no justification cited for their actions, an almost complete absence of references, particularly those of external sources such as Kiernan above. This is all too common with articles about Thailand, where a systemic bias, strongly propagated from internal Thai factions, permeates Wikipedia. Brunswicknic ( talk) 02:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This image of Vietnamese prisoners captured by the Thai would qualify for fair use.
Rajmaan ( talk) 23:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thailand's suspicion of Vietnamese long-term objectives and fear of Vietnamese support for an internal Thai communist insurgency movement led the Thai government to support United States objectives in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War.[7] ---> I think this line is based on your opinion. The US wouldn't have been on Thailand soil if pro-democracy Viets didn't ask for their support since their situation was much more worse than in Thailand. Thailand could manage with pro-commie on our own. 2001:44C8:42A5:E4F7:A0E0:B0A7:CA79:1620 ( talk) 07:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
A user, User:反共抗獨光復民國 keeps inserting Canada as a supporter of the Khmer Rouge on this and other pages despite their citations not supporting this conclusion. Please remove their edits unless they find a different source that supports this claim. Their current sources:
- An article about a vote at the U.N. regarding Cambodia that does not mention Canada.
- The autobiography of a Canadian diplomat who compares the Khmer Rouge to the Nazis. Hardly supportive.
I suspect they have done somehing similar for other countries listed under supporter, so we should check. Loquacious Folly ( talk) 05:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think there should be just 2 sides: Vietnam + the pro-Vietnamese government and the guerilla factions + Thailand, as those factions, all their differences notwithstanding, were united in their fight against Vietnam for most of the period (see Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea). Thoughts? -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The article portrays Thailand as the victim, (deliberately?) ignoring Thailand's role in protecting Pol Pot and undermining the PRK/SOC troughout the latter's existence. After the defeat of Democratic Kampuchea in 1979, the Khmer Rouge fled Cambodia quickly. Protected by the Thai state, and with powerful foreign connections, Pol Pot's virtually intact militia of about 30,000 to 35,000 troops regrouped and reorganized in forested and mountaineous zones behind the Thai-Cambodian border. During the early 1980s Khmer Rouge forces operated from Thailand, inside the refugee camps near the border, and were able to receive a steady and abundant supply of military equipment. The weapons came mainly from China and the US and were channeled across Thailand with the cooperation of the Royal Thai Armed Forces. In order to balance this one-sided article it would be useful to read texts written by Thais that are not blindly pro-Thai, disregarding Thailand's negative role, like Puangthong Rungswasdisab, Thailand's Response to the Cambodian Genocide and rewrite the article accordingly. Xufanc ( talk) 21:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The topic of this article is indeed Vietnamese raids into Thailand, therefore the content deals exclusively with those instances of Vietnamese incursion into Thai territory, or cases in which Thai troops engaged Vietnamese troops. Although Thailand protected the KR and other guerrilla groups, it is debatable that this was intended to destabilize the government of Kampuchea. Kiernan, whom you quote, does indicate that Thailand was defending itself against what it (and the US) believed was a threat to its security, but Thai troops did not enter Kampuchea nor did they attack without provocation. As for Vickery, much of his work has been discredited as an apologist for the KR. A careful reading of the article should also show that many Thai civilian casualties occurred far from any KR base, and the PAVN killed and injured hundreds of Khmer civilians in non-communist camps, in some cases deliberately as in Nong Chan on June 23, 1980.
Thailand's actions prolonged the conflict and were heavily influenced by China and the US--this is indisputable. There is however no real evidence to suggest that Thailand planned to invade Kampuchea. Cmacauley ( talk) 18:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with those who question the POV of this article. There is a systematic anti-Vietnamese bias, no mention of the reason for cross-border incursions, no mention of the role the Cambodian government of the time was playing in the conflict, an unquestioning acceptance of Thai deeds and yet no justification cited for their actions, an almost complete absence of references, particularly those of external sources such as Kiernan above. This is all too common with articles about Thailand, where a systemic bias, strongly propagated from internal Thai factions, permeates Wikipedia. Brunswicknic ( talk) 02:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This image of Vietnamese prisoners captured by the Thai would qualify for fair use.
Rajmaan ( talk) 23:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thailand's suspicion of Vietnamese long-term objectives and fear of Vietnamese support for an internal Thai communist insurgency movement led the Thai government to support United States objectives in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War.[7] ---> I think this line is based on your opinion. The US wouldn't have been on Thailand soil if pro-democracy Viets didn't ask for their support since their situation was much more worse than in Thailand. Thailand could manage with pro-commie on our own. 2001:44C8:42A5:E4F7:A0E0:B0A7:CA79:1620 ( talk) 07:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
A user, User:反共抗獨光復民國 keeps inserting Canada as a supporter of the Khmer Rouge on this and other pages despite their citations not supporting this conclusion. Please remove their edits unless they find a different source that supports this claim. Their current sources:
- An article about a vote at the U.N. regarding Cambodia that does not mention Canada.
- The autobiography of a Canadian diplomat who compares the Khmer Rouge to the Nazis. Hardly supportive.
I suspect they have done somehing similar for other countries listed under supporter, so we should check. Loquacious Folly ( talk) 05:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)