I know the wording is weird but I hope you guys get what I’m saying. For example, what Nazi Germany was doing obviously justified it being taken down. I know generally the reasons given by western govts for invading countries is bs lies used to justify colonialism, exploitation, etc but I’m saying if said invasion was done by a socialist country without a military industrial complex and profit in command. Perhaps Tibet is an example of this but I just don’t know much about that at all. Would China for example be justified in invading Israel and giving power/land back to Palestinians? Self determination is a very key aspect of ML and I’m wondering how far that goes.
Removing pol pot and angkar from power was definitely justified and good but i don’t think militarily occupying it for a decade and turning it to a quasi-colony did any good for the cambodian people
It was necessary to occupy it, otherwise Pol Pot would have come back to power since he had full support, including many weapons, from China and the CIA. There was no “quasi colony”, Vietnam didnt tell the Peoples Republic of Kampuchea (PRK) who to trade with. The problem was that the UN, under US pressure, still recognized Pol Pot as the legitimate government so the PRK was sanctioned by most countries. This is shown in John Pilgers documentary “Cambodia: Year Zero”. People were starving in 1979 but UN and western NGOs sent 0 aid because “we cant send aid to an illegitimate government”. They simply couldnt trade with anyone besides COMECON countries. Besides, their trade was more than just Vietnam, there was plenty of trade with USSR for example. USSR also aided the PRK a lot. Many cambodians were able to go to study in the USSR and USSR aid helped rebuild the country a lot. To say that PRK was “a colony of Vietnam” is like saying that Cuba was “a colony of the USSR”. Pure “social imperialism” maoist bs. The PRK depended on Vietnam because it was under severe imperialist aggression, not because it was a colony. Same with Cuba and the USSR.