Talk:Vietnamese border raids in Thailand

Battle infobox

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)

Hi Miacek, thanks for asking this question. I'd say that they were most definitely not united, except for appearances' sake. Even after the formation of the CGDK there were skirmishes between KR, ANS and KPNLF troops. They did not share supplies or intelligence with each other nor with the Thai military. Even the PRKAF and the VN occasionally exchanged fire, and it was clear that Khmer soldiers in the PRKAF were coerced into fighting. The alliances were strictly political and yet each side had its own agenda. Cmacauley (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But the thing is the CGDK, though a union of apparently incompatible bedfellows, still concentrated on a common enemy (regardless of their own occasional skirmishes). After all, if we separate KR from the ANS and KPNLF based on their differences, then based on that logic the latter two factions should also be represented as different sides, as Sihanouk's and Son Sann's forces were also in many respects just allies of convenience. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well, that's a reasonable argument. I guess the infobox is meant to summarize the political situation, and not to reflect all the complexities of this nasty war! Feel free to edit as you see fit, and thanks for discussing. Cmacauley (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Article needs NPOV cleansing

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)

Please give examples. I don't see any POV problem in the descriptions of military engagements here. Thailand and other nations did support the KR, this is fact. The article does not deny this nor does it offer any opinion. PAVN inflicted casualties on Thai civilians and Khmer refugees, and this is also fact. Please show how the POV is biased. Cmacauley (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

To the uninformed reader the article portrays Thailand as the passive victim of a Vietnamese enemy bent on posing security threats to a peaceful country. This anti-Vietnamese bias was the US (& ASEAN) line after it had lost in Vietnam and the Chinese line after the overthrow of their Cambodian ally, Pol Pot. But the reverse is closer to the truth: that Thailand posed more of a threat to the PRK/SOC's security throughout its existence than the latter to Thailand. If there were Thai civilian casualties, it was as a result of Thailand's active role in providing a sanctuary for the Khmer Rouge within its territory from which to regroup and operate in order to launch attacks to destabilize the PRK government. Thailand's Armed Forces not only did not disarm the Khmer Rouge, but supplied and channeled weapons to it from China in order to impose a civil war on the People's Republic of Kampuchea and hamper the reconstruction of Cambodia. The article is biased in the sense that it shows the China-US led contempt towards the pro-Soviet PRK by not even mentioning that it was the established government in Cambodia during those years (there is not even a link to PRK), instead it highlights only Vietnam (just see the profusion of "Vietnamese" in the chronology). The decision to help Pol Pot's army was wilful: see article above Thailand's Response to the Cambodian Genocide; chapter 2; Alliance with the Khmer Rouge, that begins: "The new Thai administration of General Kriangsak Chomanan quickly took a new foreign policy direction, dealing with the communist neighbors in a more subtle way." In fact it was Thailand who had the most aggressive role in the conflict, As Ben Kiernan (The Pol Pot Regime) and Michael Vickery (Cambodia 1975-1982) point out. It was precisely in order to stop attacks from Thailand, that the PRK and the Vietnamese sought to build a defensive line, the K5 Project, which made them unpopular because of the amount of effort involved from an unenthusiastic and burned-out Cambodian civilian population. Already by 1985, halfway though the PRK/SOC's existence some Thai academics began to voice their dissatisfaction with Thai government policy, which was seen as causing a protracted war and a diplomatic stalemate with Cambodia. Please correct accordingly. The article should mention clearly and in a prominent position that Thailand provided a base from which the Khmer Rouge could attack Cambodia and that the KPRAF/PAVN attacks took place in order to attack not specifically Thailand, but Pol Pot's guerrilla's bases. Xufanc (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that such changes are necessary. The intro should be edited, so as to point out Thailand's role in providing safe haven for KR and other rebel factions starting with 1979 (it has been suggsted sometimescomplethat Thailand's willingness to protect the remnants of KR and to transport Chinese/US aid to the rebels was the most important factor why the KR were not totally defeated immediately after the regime was overthrown).--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog File:Pikachu.png | woof! 11:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

POV Cleansing: A rebuttal

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)

Vietnamese prisoners captured by the Thai

This image of Vietnamese prisoners captured by the Thai would qualify for fair use.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19840409&id=40VPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GgMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5538,3597152

Rajmaan (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on what source?

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)

Supported By in Infobox

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)