# Talk:Cambodian–Vietnamese War

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thhsalgado.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I attempted to bring a measure of clarity and organization to the page that I felt was lacking (it was also a class assignment). That said, I realize that I need to work out all of the absent citations in order to legitimize the information. However, I'm still very new to Wikipedia, and felt completely lost encountering the system of references in the paper. The red error flags in the reference portion seem due to the fact that I erased some of the corresponding text. But I don't quite understand how to fix that. I'd appreciate any help or suggestions. Over the next few days I will begin to insert all of my citations and finish cleaning up brackets, etc. [User:IR393.awc211|IR393.awc211]] (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This article should be taken with a grain of salt. Its totally lacking foot notes and other references.
-Bill
Sept 22, 2007
True - The whole 'they started it' argument looks a lot like the one that China uses for their 'counter attack' against Vietnam, or at least it would if we were talking about anyone but Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.
52.000 kill, 200.000 wounded, HAHA.
total number of VN troops in Cambodia from 1979 to 1989 about 300,000
Bui Tin is a former officer with the last save ideas against Comunist. His data did not reliably116.99.43.158 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldnt this war (Cambodian-Vietnamese War 1975-1989) be called the Third Indo-China War because it began before the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979. The Sino Vietnamese war should be considered the Fourth Indo China War not the third. 
Thats my opinion does anyone agree?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.2.82 (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 

Yes, I argree with you, Cambodian–Vietnamese should be 3rd war, and Sino-Vietnamese would be the 4th war. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This article sort of fades out at the end. 
An interesting sidenote to make would be of the US's support for KR forces later on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.56.120 (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 
I may be wrong but I highly doubt the US supported a communist regime in the middle of the Cold War.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.2.82 (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 

They did. Although it was less 'pro-Khmer Rouge' than 'anti-Vietnam and USSR'. Also, in this period the US was trying to improve their relationship with China and since China was supporting the Khmer, the US did too. Avmarle (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Miacek, I would argue that the genocide ceased because of the invasion, not despite it. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese occupation definitely ended the KR genocide. The wording 'despite ...' referred to the fact that Cambodia remained occupied throughout 1980s, which was the reason (or pretext) for Western countries for arming KR cutthroats. Whether or not such arguments of diehard anti-Vietnamese commentators/statesmen made sense is not the matter of this intro. Feel free to re-word the passages in the article so as to raise the quality of the text. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone here said that the US wouldn't support a communist regime in the middle of the Cold War. More accurate to say that they wouldn't support a Russian-backed regime in the middle of the Cold War. The Khmer Rouge was allied with China, and yes, the US supported them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.227.228.186 (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 

Agreed. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Classical case of the enemy of your enemy being, well, not precisely your friend. Also, in those days the US would probably have supported anybody against Vietnam.

"With the direct Chinese support lost after Vietnamese recapitulation, the Khmer Rouge..."
I am confused.  Surely the Vietnamese did not [re]capitulate.  According to the rest of the article the Khmer Rouge capitulated.  Forgive me if I have misunderstood but it makes no sense that the Vietnamese capitulated - again according to the rest of the article.  I am just unsure as to whether I have the knowledge to correct the article myself.
If I am mistaken, the end of this article needs to be rewritten to match the main body.  Then maybe I am just missing something"
W1 m2 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, we could have two separate articles : one about the Cambodian-Vietnamese war of 1978-1979 (all of the Khmer rouge government) which deserves its own page, and one about the continuing conflict, starting in 1978, going on until the 1991 peace talks, then resuming after the 1993 elections and ending with the Khmer rouge defeat in 1998-1999 (Ta Mok's capture in 1999 being the last blow to the movement). Also, it is a bit misleading to call the conflict going on until 1989 a "Cambodian-Vietnamese war". It sure was in 1978-1979, but in 1979-1989, it was Vietnam and the Vietnamese-supported cambodian government vs the Khmer rouge and their allies. So it was more a "Cambodian/Vietnamese-Cambodian war". Also, since the conflict continued after Vietnam's withdrawal, it is also misleading to have it end in 1989, if we change the current title. IMHO, Cambodian-Vietnamese war should be about the 1978-1979 campaign, and the rest of the conflict should appear under a different title. Maybe Conflit in Cambodia (1978-1999) ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with this article remain as a whole, because in Vietnam they refer to the period between 1978 and 1989 as the 'South-western Border Campaign', but I'd rather rename this article the 'Cambodian War'. Everything that happened after 1991 certainly deserved a separate article.Canpark (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, of course it may be referred as a whole, but the 1979 invasion of Cambodia is certainly a different campaign than what took place after that, until 1989, so it deserves a separate article. Vietnam invading the whole country is definitely something else than a 'South-western Border Campaign'. Anyway, dedicating separate articles to specific aspects of a war, when they are relevant, is standard practice on wikipedia. If you like, we may have three articles, with the 1978-79 invasion, the 1979-1989 (or 1979-1991) action and the later phases of the conflit (1993-1999), although the last could also remain as a whole. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cambodian–Vietnamese War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk • contribs • count) 06:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll have a good read of the article and do the review over this weekend. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the slowness of my reviewing - final bits are below, but it's looking almost there. Nicely done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that's everything - will mark up as GA in a sec - nicely done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1. Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; 
Some thoughts listed below:
Lead:

"fought within the geopolitical context of the Cold War" - could you just say "fought during the Cold War"?
"The war began with limited objective campaigns along the land and maritime boundaries " - is there an alternative to saying "limited objective campaigns"? A non-military reader may not make much sense of the phrase.
"an Indochinese federation with themselves" - I'd say "with Vietnam" here, as it could be misread.
Fixed.Canpark (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Background:

"influence over Cambodia as early as the Angkor civilization" - worth linking Angkor civilisation; if there was a way of clarifying in the text whether the Angkor civilisation was Vietnamese or Cambodian, that would be ideal.
I replaced that sentence with "Angkor, the seat of the [[Khmer Empire],] was subjected to Vietnamese influence as early as the thirteenth century".Canpark (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
"In 1813, Nak Ong Chan gained the Cambodian throne" - again, worth linking Nak Ong Chan
Unfortunately there is no article on Nak Ong Chan.Canpark (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd red-link him - he's bound to be notable. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
"Cambodia became a protectorate (Ibid)." - A stray "ibid".
Fixed.Canpark (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
" the Khmer culture" - first time Khmer culture is mentioned, so worth saying "Cambodia's Khmer culture" or something like that
to erase Khmer culture, which had derived the basis of Cambodian society, dress and religion from India rather than China.Canpark (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
"what would be Saigon" - "would later be Saigon..."?
Fixed.Canpark (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
"Attempts to regain this territory later became the justification for border incursions committed " - do you mean that the attempts became the justification for the incursion, or that the border incursions were justified as attempts to regain the territory? I think you probably mean the latter."Canpark (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this make sense: "The Khmer Rouge later justified their incursions into Vietnam as an attempt to regain the territories which Cambodia lost during the previous centuries.Canpark (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Fixed.Canpark (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
"During this time, Vietnamese forces greatly used Cambodian territory" - "forces used Cambodian territory extensively"?
Fixed.Canpark (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
"The leftist vacuum Vietnam left in its wake in Cambodia" - the "leftist vacuum" assumes the reader knows that the communists were left-wing; is there an easier way of describing this?
I don't get this sentence either. The background was actually written by a different editor, and I left it as it is. The best I could do is rewriting it like this:"The power vacuum the Vietnamese communists left in its wake in Cambodia was soon filled by the return of a young group of Cambodian communist revolutionaries".Canpark (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
That would work for me.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
"In 1960, the KPRP changed its name to the Kampuchean Communist Party (KCP), which was later adopted by the majority coalition that formed around Saloth Sar (Pol Pot), Ieng Sary and Khieu Samphan as the ‘true’ date memorialising the KCP." - this sentence threw me a bit - it wasn't clear that the "which" referred to the date, rather than the name.
The "which" actually refers to the name, so I tweaked it like this:"In 1960, the KPRP changed its name to the Kampuchean Communist Party (KCP), and the name was later adopted by the majority coalition that formed around Saloth Sar (Pol Pot), Ieng Sary and Khieu Samphan as the ‘true’ political institution memorialising the KCP."Canpark (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
" it embodied the communist branch most influenced by Maoist doctrine" - surely the clique was a communist branch? I'm not sure a branch can be embodied either. How about "the clique was heavily influenced by Maoist doctrine", or a phrase like that?
How does this sound?>"This clique became the genesis of the Khmer Rouge, and its doctrine was heavily influenced by the Maoist ideology.Canpark (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Diplomacy and military action:

"which they claimed was part of Kampuchea’s sovereignty" > "sovereignty" > "territory"?
" ‘U.S. bombing’ " - worth putting this in double speech marks to make clear its a quote.
"reinforcing the Kampuchean’s fictitious claim of the incident" - didn't quite read right to me. "...fictitious claims over the incident."? "...fictitious claims."?
"Militant Solidarity and Friendship between Peoples of Democratic Kampuchea and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Grow Constantly Greener and Sturdier" - I'm not sure this needs to be in italics. Does it need the capital letters?
"sent greetings to the Vietnamese Communist Party on the occasion " - "on the occasion" sounded odd. "sent greetings to the Vietnamese Communist Party during..."?
"the leadership of both countries began to be overcome by their distrust of each other." - the last bit reads odd. "the private suspicions of both countries' leadership grew."?
"‘genuine’" - if it's a quote, you'll need to attribute, but I'm not convinced you need the speech marks here.
"a seething hatred and fear" - I'd have gone for "seething fear and hatred", but that might just be me!
"with Vietnamese-trained individuals" - "individuals" - read oddly. "agents"? "sympathisers"?
"‘temporarily’" - double speech marks.
"our 6 January victory over the annexationist, Vietnamese aggressor enemy has given all of us greater confidence in the forces of our people and nation, in our Kampuchean Communist Party and our Kampuchean Revolutionary Army, and in our Party’s line of people’s war”." - Italics aren't needed.
" In such context, " - You could lose this and go straight into the meat of the sentence.
" ‘liberation army’ " - double speech marks
" ‘people’s war’ " -ditto
" ‘Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique’" -ditto
"However, like they had done before, the Kampuchean Army" - "However, as they had done before..."
"In a major turning point in the triangle of..." A bit of a mixed metaphor. "In a major turning point in the course of..."?
"in the scenario that China intervened" Worth adding "intervened in the conflict."?
"To replace earlier losses and augment its units along the border, the Vietnamese Government drafted 350,000 men into the military." - Would be clearer if you reversed this: "The Vietnamese... to replace earlier losses...."
" ‘unbridled fashion’" - double speech marks
"‘liberation zones’" -ditto
All fixed.Canpark (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Aftermath:

" to avoid using the word ‘genocide’ " - double speech marks
"Khieu Samphan was able to escape from the building on a ladder" - "by a ladder"?
"In March 1992, the commencement of the UNTAC mission" - would "the start of the UNTAC mission" be simpler?
"its efforts to rebuild the country were handicapped due to the lack of aid " - "by the lack of aid"?
" Chinese bombardment of Ha Tuyen reached an all-time high" - "reached a peak"? (would be slightly less informal)
All fixed.Canpark (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Looks generally really good. Minor bits:
A couple of the volumes lack ISBN numbers.
I have added the ISBN numbers where necessary.Canpark (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The capitalisation doesn't quite fit with the MOS (the wiki prefers capitalisation for all words longer than four letters I think)
Do you mean the book titles??Canpark (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep - e.g. "Vietnam, past and present" would be "Vietnam, Past and Present".Hchc2009 (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Fixed.Canpark (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Looks fine at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
(c) it contains no original research.

None spotted so far.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Appears so, will check as I work through it. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; 

Yes, although the explanation associated with the valid fair use of H 4 ill 639759 cambodia-phnom penh-1979-61.jpg might usefully be strengthened (I thought the explanation for Phnom Penh 1989.jpg was clearer). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to edit the date of the war with the beginning of the Vietnamese invasion in December 25 1978 and the end of the Vietnamese withdraw in February 26 1990. Can someone tell me why it is not an acceptable edit? --124.148.127.77 (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Even while United Front for the Liberation of Oppressed Races was being crushed, attacked, and persecuted by the Khmer Rouge, it persisted in fighting against Vietnam, with Chinese support.
http://chamtoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79%3Achuyevuiboltarie&catid=37&Itemid=1
http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/history-l-ch-s/79-post-fulro-events-1975-2004
http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/history-l-ch-s/80-from-the-f-l-m-to-fulro-1955-1975
http://books.google.com/books?id=2_zKFyHlBk0C&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=xAKbllE5bioC&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=CgwOi-5JrBYC&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=BtmrZYAag58C&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/91-news-world/139-vietnam-s-hidden-hand-in-cambodia-s-impasse
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-02-091013.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=ehCWYZ13SPsC&pg=PA101&dq=montagnard+genocide+chams&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NpTYUoy3NdWksQT74ICgCw&ved=0CDUQ6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=montagnard%20genocide%20chams&f=false


### Montagnard insurgency against Vietnam
http://books.google.com/books?id=xAKbllE5bioC&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.montagnard-foundation.org/comm-070402.html
http://montagnard-foundation.org/wp/2011/07/08/1458
http://books.google.com/books?id=YmQJV_wT5EIC&pg=PT23&dq=montagnard+genocide&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mEj5UsTKKqrJ0gGCyoCoCA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=montagnard%20genocide&f=false
http://www.mhro.org/montangards-history/conclusions
http://www.unpo.org/members/7898
http://chamtoday.com/index.php/ngonngu/77-the-uprising-of-the-central-highlanders-in-february-2001
http://www.degarfoundation.org/
Rajmaan (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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 04:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

United States national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski openly and unashamedly admitted that he told China and Thailand to support Khmer Rouge because it was anti-Soviet
http://books.google.com/books?id=7i0jGxysUUcC&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No, he didn't. Just one of several made-up quotations conspiracy theorists have invented to libel Brzezinski.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
conversation continued hereRajmaan (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
oh yes he did! absolutely no evidence exists that the quote is fraudulent. the quote is plausible and the source (Becker's recorded interview) is credible.Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The source for this claim, a short article titled "SEVENTY YEARS OF EVIL: Soviet Crimes from Lenin to Gorbachev"  in an American conservative publication, has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. It is clearly non-specialist, propagandistic, horribly biased, and wastes no time on things like "footnotes" and "evidence". Some of the claims in there are true of course, but all propaganda contains truth to make the distortions and lies more credible. It's exactly like citing Pravda. But this is standard fare for en.wikipedia.org. The title itself is ridiculous, implying that every "communist" leader from Lenin to Gorbachev was a mass murderer. Let's check out one of its supposed "crimes of Communism": "August 28, 1977 - Two years earlier, CBS News reports that some 7,000 lobotomies were performed on Soviet citizens to cure patients of “wrong political belief.” " I hope no comment is necessary here. This source will be deleted.Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khmer_Rouge#650.2C000_famine_deaths_after_the_fall_of_Pol_Pot Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tag pertains to the section, not the entire article.
- huge numbers of victims are deduced from a dated, biased, rushed, and error-ridden CIA report.
- demographically impossible (using most sources) 650,000 famine deaths reported as fact.
- chemical weapons reported as fact from a laughably unreliable, non-documented, and non-specialist source.
- virtually all sources share a severe anti-PKK bias, which leads to strong and dubious claims being presented as fact. almost no discussion from more neutral or sympathetic observers.
- Etcheson's damning discussion of the K-5 Plan is cited, but is misrepresented using inflammatory language to advance a POV. Military conscription becomes "enslavement" and the hardships of working on the front line (disease, land-mines, military attacks) turns into being worked to death. As usual, one estimate of the number of victims is presented as fact without discussion. The K-5 plan should be discussed, but without inflammatory POV-laden language.
- PKK's anti-KR struggle is only mentioned once, with the KR being presented as the victims.
- etc, but I don't have the time to list them all.Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cambodian–Vietnamese War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614224951/http://research.yale.edu/ycias/database/files/GS24.pdf to http://research.yale.edu/ycias/database/files/GS24.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It's widely known and reported that the US provided money, intelligence and materiel to first the Khmer Rouge and then the DK "coalition". Between 1980 and 1986 the US funneled over $85 million to Pol Pot alone. They provided food and "humanitarian aide" to Khmer Rouge held territories/camps and provided satellite intelligence, military strategic planning and other war materiel to the DK coalition. After 1986, Congress approved another $26 million to fund "the resistance" in Cambodia. Here's an article in The Statesman. Much of the previously classified documentation was made public by Wikileaks. Here's a summary by Ben Norton. Here's another article describing the US support for the DK (remember: the war was between the Vietnamese and the resistance coalition, which included more that just the Khmer Rouge). A quote from that article: "U.S. funding to the KPNLF and ANS armies allied with the Khmer Rouge was handled by a working group composed of representatives from the United States, Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia. CIA satellite intelligence was provided, as were weapons..."--William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

None of your sources (political commentator John Pilger, who had to pay libel damages for his claims about British support for the Khmer Rouge, far-left newsletter CounterPunch, et al.) are reliable for the fringe, exceptional claim that the CIA gave the Khmer Rouge "satellite intelligence." I've seen no reliable sources that state the CIA gave the non-communist opposition "satellite intelligence"—let alone the Khmer Rouge directly!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm aware of the quality of the sources -- that's why I listed them here instead of trying to ram them into the article. The information was classified and outright denied by the US government at the time and was only made public through wikileaks. With current events dominating the modern news cycle, I don't really expect mainstream outlets to cover this bit of "news" from 30+ years ago. So we have what we have and I'm aware it may never get into Wikipedia. (Also, the libel damages were paid to two specific individual former SAS members whose images appeared in a television documentary; the judgement was not for his claim of British support of the Khmer Rouge.)
Secondly, I think some of us are hung up on the Khmer Rouge angle of it. Listing the US as a supporter of the DK faction doesn't require proof that the US supported the KR. The Cambodian-Vietnamese War (the subject of this article) was between Vietnam/FUNSK and a coalition made up of everybody else, including the Khmer Rouge, but also the KPNLF and FUNCINPEC, grouped under the CGDK/Democratic Kampuchea umbrella. Whether the US gave aid, at anytime between 1977 and 1991, to the KR, the KPNLF or Sihanouk, they were coming down on the side of Democratic Kampuchea against the PRK. The quoted article says the US gave intelligence and weapons to the anti-communist KPNLF, not the Khmer Rouge. No doubt they fully expected them to be shared, however. The US and China were among the most vocal supporters of giving the Cambodian UN seat to the DK and were very anti-Vietnamese and anti-Soviet. It is naive to think that they didn't also provide covert support to the opposition.
With that in mind, look at the last paragraph of this section: Khmer People's National Liberation Front#Origins. I won't bother to quote it, but there are sourced statements indicating the US gave money and weapons to the KPNLF in the 80s which qualifies it to be added as a supporter of the DK side in the war.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
You make a reasonable argument about the infobox dispute, which I have not yet taken a firm stance on.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest the article's name to change to Khmer Rouge-Vietnamese War. The 1979 war and subsequent insurgency is between KR forces and Vietnam, not between the people or government of Cambodia and Vietnam. The People's Republic of Cambodia was on Vietnamese side and fought consistenly. The same of Vietnam War cannot be simply called "American-Vietnamese War". Sgnpkd (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The Vietnam War was only against some of the Vietnamese forces. Many wars are named as such. At any rate, I find no sources using the proposed name. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Smallchief  (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose any name change. A nation is controlled by whatever group is in power, at the time Cambodia was controlled by the Khmer Rouge. Agree with Laszlo Panaflex that no WP:RS use that name Mztourist (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The naming of articles is based more on what reliable sources call an event as opposed to pure factual accuracy and precision. Sure, the Glorious Revolution would be more accurately described as "1688 Dutch invasion of England", but nobody calls it that. Likewise, "Khmer Rouge-Vietnamese War" may be somewhat more accurate, but nobody calls it that. ansh666 19:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose name change per Laszlo and Ansh666. WP:COMMONNAME states that we should use the most common name that is used on reliable sources. No such sources was provided for the proposed new name. Pandakekok9 (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Romania should be removed from the infobox as a supporter of DK. I tried to do it but I just can't make the Wiki syntax function. 
The reason for removal is that Romania was just one of the many countries (most of the countries represented in the UN), which continued to recognize the Khmer Rouge/DK regime diplomatically. They didn't offer any material support, unlike Singapore and Thailand which are rightly listed there.Potugin (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to a state where there are no referencing errors. In this state, I don't see Romania in the infobox. FWIW, we don't remove material from Wikipedia just because we don't like it -- material must be verifiable and should be referenced. --  Mikeblas (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Nah, Romania currently is included under "Supported by" section. It's surely not my browser doing tricks, right? Also, I understand that you're an editor since 2005 and I was just a reader back then, but well, my point is, there is no source for Romania as offering any kind of support in any meaningful sense for DK. Most UN states recognized the Khmer Rouge DK regime, just like Romania, but we are not gonna list all these 77 countries under "Democratic Kampuchea - Supported by:" section. So I still think my point stands. Potugin (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Cambodia–Vietnam Friendship Monument.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It could be naive, but is it a problem for the references on this page? for example the reference "Mei p. 78" for
"The following day, China announced that it would not move deeper into Vietnam, apparently after meeting unexpectedly harsh resistance by well-trained Vietnamese forces equipped with Soviet and captured American weapons. Furthermore, Vietnam's politburo had ordered a general mobilization and begun planning for full conscription. The Chinese subsequently withdrew their forces"
I mean, where to find the source of "Mei p. 78"? Thanks :-) 142.68.85.220 (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This page is persistently being vandalized by User:反共抗獨光復民國, who seems to believe Canada supported the Khmer Rouge for some reason. The sources they keep inserting do not support this conclusion:
- One is a report of a vote at the U.N. related to Cambodia where Canada is not mentioned in the article.
- The second is from the autobipgraphy of a Canadian diplomat. In the passage the diplomat compares the Khmer Rouge to the Nazis; it's unclear how this constitutes support for them.
Please revert and report any edits by this user. Loquacious Folly (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Pol Pot.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)