The Town Council Will Vote To Enter Executive Session To Discuss: Fill & Download for Free

Started as the Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party in 1951, the Khmer Rouge was a communist party working against Prince Sihanouk. In the mid-1950s, the party was divided into 2 camps: the urban committee, led by Tou Samouth, and the rural committee, led by Sieu Heng. Samouth was pro-Hanoi, attracted many Buddhist supporters, and promoted a working relationship with the neutralist Sihanouk. In 1959, Sieu Heng defected to Sihanouk’s side and the rural committee was decimated. In the 60s, Pol Pot, a Khmer student in France and an ardent believer of Maoism, quietly rose to power within Samouth’s faction. In 1962, Samouth disappeared. In 1963, Pol Pot’s faction took over the Khmer Rouge and started a purge of pro-Hanoi elements within the party. “Historian Ben Kiernan noted that there is strong evidence that Pol Pot's circle was responsible for Samouth's disappearance: in particular a secret Party report on 'internal enemies', dating from 1978, accused Kandal Province Secretary Som Chea of killing Samouth. Chea, who was later executed, had been a courier for Pol Pot's group in 1962.” In September 1966, the party changed its name to the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK), and the name change was kept secret from Vietnam and the pro-Hanoi elements.In 1968, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge launched an attack against Sihanouk’s regime. In 1970, Sihanouk went to a meeting in Paris in the hope of French intervention against the Vietnamese NLF’s use of its borders. In Sihanouk’s absence, general Lon Nol staged a coup. Sihanouk went to Beijing for help and was approached by Hanoi to be the new leader of a new anti-Lon Nol movement. At first, Beijing was slow to respond, but after Lon Nol showed refusal to cooperate and chose the US’s side instead, Beijing created the FUNK (National United Front for Kampuchea) and GRUNK (Royal Government of National Union of Kampuchea), a coalition of Sihanouk supporters, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, and pro-Hanoi Khmer Rouge, with Sinahouk as the nominal leader and head of state. Sihanouk then played Hanoi and Beijing against each other to his benefits. However, the pro-Hanoi elements were quickly purged by Pol Pot. “Khieu Samphan was designated deputy prime minister, minister of defense, and commander in chief of the GRUNK armed forces (though actual military operations were directed by Pol Pot). Hu Nim became minister of information, and Hou Yuon assumed multiple responsibilities as minister of the interior, communal reforms, and cooperatives.”Meanwhile, Lon Nol launched a massacre of Vietnamese Cambodians.“Most of the population, urban and rural, took out their anger and frustrations on the nation's Vietnamese population. Lon Nol's call for 10,000 volunteers to boost the manpower of Cambodia's poorly equipped, 30,000-man army, managed to swamp the military with over 70,000 recruits.[62] Rumours abounded concerning a possible PAVN offensive aimed at Phnom Penh itself. Paranoia flourished and this set off a violent reaction against the nation's 400,000 ethnic Vietnamese.[60]Lon Nol hoped to use the Vietnamese as hostages against PAVN/Viet Cong activities, and the military set about rounding them up into detention camps.[60] That was when the killing began. In towns and villages all over Cambodia, soldiers and civilians sought out their Vietnamese neighbors in order to murder them.[63] On 15 April, the bodies of 800 Vietnamese floated down the Mekong River and into South Vietnam.”In the background, from 1965 to 1973, the US bombed Cambodia back to the stone age, further destabilizing the country.“Former National Security Adviser than Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, an architect of US policy in Indochina, states in his book Ending the Vietnam War that the Historical Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense gave him an estimate of 50,000 deaths in Cambodia due to the bombings from 1969-1973. The U.S. government released new information about the extent of the bombing campaign in 2000, leaving Owen and Kiernan to argue that the new evidence released by the U.S. government in 2000 support higher estimates.[vii] On the higher end of estimates, journalist Elizabeth Becker writes that “officially, more than half a million Cambodians died on the Lon Nol side of the war; another 600,000 were said to have died in the Khmer Rouge zones.”[viii] However, it is not clear how these numbers were calculated or whether they disaggregate civilian and soldier deaths. Others’ attempts to verify the numbers suggest a lower number. Demographer Patrick Heuveline[ix] has produced evidence suggesting a range of 150,000 to 300,000 violent deaths from 1970 to 1975.”“By the last day of Operation Freedom Deal (15 August 1973), 250,000 tons of bombs had been dropped on the Khmer Republic, 82,000 tons of which had been released in the last 45 days of the operation.[100] Since the inception of Operation Menu in 1969, the U.S. Air Force had dropped 539,129 tons of ordnance on Cambodia/Khmer Republic.[101]”In March 1970, the NVA, in the name of GRUNK, launched an attack against the Lon Nol government. The North Vietnamese overran most of northeastern Cambodia by June 1970. After defeating those forces, the North Vietnamese turned the newly won territories over to the local insurgents. “By 1971, writes Kiernan, the Lon Nol government was secure only in the towns and their outskirts.[iii] As the allied Communist forces gained control of territory, the Communist Party of Cambodia (CPK) attempted to win over the Khmer soldiers fighting with the Vietnamese and to expel the Vietnamese forces. In some places, this effort resulted in heavy fighting between ostensible allies.[iv] As peace talks began in Paris, the CPK adamantly refused to participate in a negotiated solution.”“By late 1973, there was a growing awareness among the government and population of the fanaticism, total lack of concern over casualties, and complete rejection of any offer of peace talks which "began to suggest that Khmer Rouge fanaticism and capacity for violence were deeper than anyone had suspected. […] After the signing of the Paris Peace Accords, PAVN cut off the supply of arms to the Khmer Rouge, hoping to force them into a cease-fire.” (Isaacs, Hardy and Brown).“As time passed, the need of the Khmer Rouge for the support of Prince Sihanouk lessened. The organization demonstrated to the people of the 'liberated' areas in no uncertain terms that open expressions of support for Sihanouk would result in their liquidation. [113] Although the prince still enjoyed the protection of the Chinese, when he made public appearances overseas to publicize the GRUNK cause, he was treated with almost open contempt by Ministers Ieng Sary and Khieu Samphan. [114] In June, the prince told Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci that when "they [the Khmer Rouge] have sucked me dry, they will spit me out like a cherry stone." [115]”In 1975, the Vietnam War ended, and the newly unified Vietnam was put under US embargo. Lon Nol’s Phnom Penh fell to the Khmer Rouge, which already fell out with Hanoi, who picked the USSR’s side in the Sino-Soviet split, at this time. The Khmer Rouge at this time only supported by Beijing.“In the first major clash between the two former allies, the Kampuchean Revolutionary Army invaded the Vietnamese island of Phú Quốc on 1 May 1975 (barely 24 hours after Saigon fell), which they claimed was part of Kampuchea's territory.[26] Nine days later, on 10 May 1975, the Kampuchean military continued its incursion by capturing Thổ Chu, where it executed 500 Vietnamese civilians. The Vietnamese military immediately responded to Kampuchean actions by launching a counter-attack and removing Kampuchean forces from Phu Quoc and Tho Chu, and then invading the Kampuchean island of Koh Wai.[26] In June 1975, while on a visit to Hanoi, Kampuchean leader Pol Pot proposed that Vietnam and his country should sign a treaty of friendship and begin discussions on border disputes. However, those discussions never materialised, and the Kampucheans claimed that Vietnam turned down both offers.[26] In August 1975, Vietnam returned the island of Koh Wai to Kampuchea and formally recognised Kampuchean sovereignty over the island.”“Once the Khmer Rouge (KR) took over the country, they began to implement radical plans to restructure society. Among the influences and populations targeted for elimination were: Buddhism; “foreign” influences (including targeting the urban, educated class); entire minority groups (the Chinese, Vietnamese, Muslim Cham, and Thai[xi]); as well as those Khmer who were deemed unfit as determined by an ever-widening criteria. The KR goal was to create an agrarian communist state by controlling family relations, restructuring agriculture, re-organizing the political, legal, and military institutions of the state, and collectivizing economic production and consumption—in short, to establish complete control over society.The Khmer population was divided into “old citizens” – those who lived in KR zones before their 1975 victory and “new citizens” those who fell under their control thereafter.[xii] As Alex Hinton writes, “in the new revolutionary society, each person had to be reworked, like hot iron, in the flames of the revolution.”[xiii] However, despite the regime’s emphasis on targeting foreign elements in society, by the end of the conflict the majority of killing had been perpetrated by Khmer citizens against other Khmer citizens.[xiv] The lack of popular base for the KR and upheaval wrought by their policies required extensive use of lethal force to maintain control.[xv] Kiernan notes that the “most horrific slaughter was perpetrated in the last six months of the regime” in areas bordering Vietnam.[xvi]. […] Our research suggests a range of 650,000 – 1.4 million violent deaths between 1970-1979.”“Phnom Penh's radical policies and its brutal purge of all suspected class enemies (including thousands of urban residents of Chinese origin) had caused great unrest within the country, and specifically within the party and the armed forces, where Sihanoukists and pro-Hanoi elements had been singled out for extermination.”Up until 1977, Beijing and Hanoi both tried to put political pressure on Pol Pot to deescalate the tension, but all attempts failed.“As the Kampuchean Revolutionary Army made preparations for its war against Vietnam, state-controlled media in Vietnam sent congratulatory messages to the Government of the Democratic Kampuchea on the second anniversary of its establishment, on 17 April 1977. On 30 April 1977, the second anniversary of the fall of Saigon, the Kampuchean reply came in the form of a military attack against the Vietnamese provinces of An Giang and Châu Đốc, killing hundreds of Vietnamese civilians.[32] The People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) responded by moving its troops to areas attacked by Kampuchea and, on 7 June 1977, Vietnam proposed high-level talks to discuss outstanding issues. On 18 June 1977, the Kampuchean Government replied by demanding that Vietnam remove all of its military units from the disputed areas, and create a demilitarised zone between the opposing forces.[33]Both sides ignored each other's proposals, and the Kampuchean Revolutionary Army continued sending soldiers across the border to attack Vietnamese towns and villages. In September 1977, Kampuchean artillery struck several Vietnamese villages along the border, and six villages in Đồng Tháp Province were overrun by Kampuchean infantry. Shortly afterwards, six divisions of the Kampuchea Revolutionary Army advanced about 10 kilometers (6.2 mi) into Tay Ninh Province, where they killed more than 1,000 Vietnamese civilians.[34] Angered by the scale of Kampuchean assaults, the PAVN assembled eight divisions, estimated at around 60,000 soldiers, to launch a retaliatory strike against Kampuchea. On 16 December 1977, the PAVN divisions, with support from elements of the Vietnam People's Air Force, crossed the border along several axes with the objective of forcing the Kampuchean Government to negotiate.[34]”However, even after the military demonstration of the PAVN, the Khmer Rouge refused to negotiate. In 1977, Vietnam contacted with So Phim, a dissident inside the Khmer Rouge’s rank, for a future coup against Pol Pot. In the same year, Beijing discarded the diplomatic option and chose to fund the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam. “On 31 December 1977, Khieu Sampham declared that the Kampuchean Government would "temporarily" sever diplomatic relations with Vietnam until the Vietnamese military withdraw from the "sacred territory of Democratic Kampuchea".[35] On 6 January 1978, PAVN divisions were only 38 kilometers (24 mi) from Phnom Penh, but the Vietnamese Government decided to withdraw its forces from Kampuchea because they had failed to achieve Vietnam's political objective. During the withdrawal, the Vietnamese military also evacuated thousands of prisoners and civilian refugees, including future leader Hun Sen.”“The Kampucheans went on further to proclaim that "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".[4] The Kampuchean leadership claimed that one Kampuchean soldier was equal to 30 Vietnamese soldiers, so if Kampuchea could raise two million soldiers from a population of eight million, it could wipe out Vietnam's population of 50 million and still have six million people left.[36]”“During that same period, military setbacks experienced by the Kampuchean Revolutionary Army in the Eastern Military Zone prompted Pol Pot to label the region as a "nest of traitors".“In order to purge the Eastern Military Zone of those he perceived to have been contaminated by the Vietnamese, Pol Pot ordered military units from the Southwest Zone to move into eastern Kampuchea and eliminate the "hidden traitors". Unable to withstand an attack from the Kampuchea Government, So Phim committed suicide while his deputy Heng Samrin defected to Vietnam.[37]On 12 April 1978, the Kampuchean Government declared they and Vietnam could negotiate again if the Vietnamese gave up their expansionist ambitions and recognised Kampuchea's sovereignty.[34]However, there was also a pre-condition requiring Vietnam to meet several obligations through a seven-month trial ceasefire. The Vietnamese Government immediately rejected the demand and, in response, two Kampuchean divisions penetrated up to 2 kilometers (1.2 mi) into Vietnamese territory, and massacred over 3,000 Vietnamese civilians in the village of Ba Chúc in An Giang Province.”The victims’ skulls still preserved at modern day Ba Chúc.In 1978, Vietnam established the Kampuchean United Front for National Salvation (KUFNS) with Heng Samrin as the chairman and invaded Cambodia. After 2 weeks, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge was overthrown and sought refugee near Thailand’s borders.“The Khmer Rouge leadership, with much of its political and military structures shattered by the Vietnamese invasion, was forced to take refuge in Thailand, where it was warmly welcomed by the Thai Government. Despite the overwhelming economic challenges brought by the Khmer Rouge and the accompanying refugees, the Thai Government sheltered and protected the Khmer Rouge at Khao Larn camp in Trat Province.[47] Meanwhile, in Phnom Penh, the new Kampuchean regime tried to rebuild the country's economic and social life, which was largely destroyed by decades of political upheavals and constant warfare. However, efforts to rebuild the country were severely hampered by the lack of educated and qualified personnel, as most educated people had either fled the country or had been murdered by the Khmer Rouge regime during the previous four years. By the end of the year, the new regime's attempts at nation-building were further challenged by several anti-Vietnamese resistance groups operating along the western regions of the country.[48]”Meanwhile, Beijing strengthened tie with Pol Pot. “At that time, all branches of the Kampuchean armed forces were significantly strengthened by large quantities of Chinese-made military equipment, which included fighter aircraft, patrol boats, heavy artillery, anti-aircraft guns, trucks and tanks. Additionally, there were between 10,000 and 20,000 Chinese advisers in both military and civilian capacities, providing their support to the Khmer Rouge regime.” The US-China alliance was underway. “And Deng Xiaoping embarked on a tour of Southeast Asian capitals to build up support for an anti-Vietnamese coalition among the ASEAN states.”In 1979, as the Cambodian representative in the UN Security Council meeting, Sihanouk distanced himself from Pol Pot’s atrocities and “accused Vietnam of using aggression to violate Kampuchea's sovereignty. As such, he demanded all UN countries to suspend aid to Vietnam and not recognise the Vietnamese-installed regime.”“At the 34th Session of the UN General Assembly, representatives of the People's Republic of Kampuchea and Democratic Kampuchea both claimed the right to represent their country. The former also notified the member nations of the UN Security Council that it was the sole legitimate representative of Kampuchea and its people.[51] In response, the UN Credentials Committee decided to recognise Democratic Kampuchea by a vote of six to three, despite the Khmer Rouge's blood-stained record while in power. Accordingly, representatives of Democratic Kampuchea were allowed to be seated in the General Assembly, with strong support from China.[52] By January 1980, 29 countries had established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of Kampuchea, yet nearly 80 countries still recognised the legitimacy of the deposed Democratic Kampuchea. At the same time, the Western powers and the member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) also voiced strong condemnation of Vietnam's use of force to remove the Khmer Rouge regime.[49]Thailand, which shared an 800-kilometer (500-mile) border with Kampuchea and has historically feared Vietnam's expansionism, demanded that Vietnam immediately remove its troops from Kampuchea so its people could elect a government free from foreign intervention. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore showed their support for Thailand's position.[49].”“The United States, which never maintained any form of diplomatic ties with the Khmer Rouge's Democratic Kampuchea, showed strong support for the membership of their former enemy in the UN General Assembly, and echoed ASEAN's call for an immediate withdrawal of Vietnamese military forces from Kampuchea.[49]”“The international community's political stance towards Kampuchea had a severe impact on the Vietnamese economy, which was already wrecked by decades of continuous conflicts. The United States, which already had sanctions in place against Vietnam, convinced other countries of the United Nations to deprive Vietnam and the People's Republic of Kampuchea of much-needed funds by denying them membership to major international organisations such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund.[74]In 1979 Japan stepped up the pressure by suspending all economic aid to Vietnam, and warned Vietnamese leaders that economic aid would only resume when Vietnam amended its policies towards Kampuchea, the Sino-Soviet rivalry and the problem of the boat people. [75]Sweden, which was considered the staunchest supporter of Vietnam in the West, also considered reducing its commitments to the communist country as virtually every other country cancelled its aid. [73]”In 1979, China invaded Vietnam to make the PAVN retreat from Cambodia and relieve pressure from their ally, the Khmer Rouge. It didn’t work, and the PAVN stayed in Cambodia for 10 more years.In response to such preconditions, two non-communist movements were formed to fight the Vietnamese occupation. The first group, a right-wing and pro-Western organisation, was formed in October 1979 by former Prime Minister Son Sann and was called the Khmer People's National Liberation Front (KPNLF). The KPNLF operated from several refugee camps on the Thai-Cambodian border. The other non-communist organisation was the National United Front for an Independent, Peaceful, Neutral, and Cooperative Cambodia, formed by Sihanouk and known by its French acronym FUNCINPEC. ASEAN, which had backed the Khmer Rouge throughout their diplomatic confrontations with the PRK regime at the UN General Assembly in 1979, urged the Khmer Rouge leadership to put its blood-stained image behind it in order to join forces with other non-communist movements. Early in 1981, Sihanouk and Son Sann began engaging in talks with Khieu Samphan, President of the deposed Democratic Kampuchea, to discuss the prospect of forming an alliance.“On 22 November 1982, Singapore, with the backing of ASEAN, proposed that three organizations form a coalition government with equal decision-making powers within the alliance. Singapore's proposal was welcomed by Sihanouk, who believed it was a fair deal for the non-communist movements.[70]Khieu Samphan, on the other hand, rejected that idea, viewing it as an attempt by Sihanouk and Son Sann to isolate the Khmer Rouge. However, Sihanouk knew that Chinese support would not be made available to the FUNCINPEC unless he made some compromises and joined the Khmer Rouge on their terms.[69] So, in February 1982, Sihanouk met with Khieu Samphan in Beijing to work out their differences. In what he described as "another concession", Khieu Samphan proposed forming a coalition government without integrating the other resistance groups into institutions associated with Democratic Kampuchea. However, he emphasized that all parties must defend the legal status of Democratic Kampuchea as the legitimate state representing Kampuchea on the world stage.[70] In May 1982, with the urging of Sihanouk, Son Sann decided to form a coalition government with the Khmer Rouge.”“On 22 June 1982, leaders of the three organizations formalised the formation of their coalition government by signing a Thai-sponsored agreement which established the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK).”“During a meeting between Kim Il-sung and Sihanouk on 10 April 1986, in Pyongyang, Kim Il-Sung had reassured Sihanouk that North Korea would continue to regard him as the legitimate head of state of Kampuchea.[54] By 1987, Democratic Kampuchea still held its membership at the UN General Assembly, even though it lacked four criteria of statehood: people, territory, government and supreme authority within the borders of a country.[67] In spite of those limitations, forces of the three armed factions within the CGDK continued to fight the Vietnamese to achieve their objective of "bring about the implementation of the International Conference on Cambodia and other relevant UN General Assembly resolutions".”“To reengage with the international community, and to deal with the economic challenges brought by the changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Vietnamese leaders decided to embark on a series of reforms. At the 6th National Party Congress in December 1986, newly appointed General Secretary of the VCP Nguyen Van Linh introduced a major reform known as Doi Moi, the Vietnamese term for "renovation", in order to fix Vietnam's economic problems.[82] However, Vietnamese leaders concluded that Vietnam's dire economic situation came as a result of the international isolation which followed its invasion of Kampuchea in 1978, and that for Doi Moi to be successful it needed radical changes in defence and foreign policy.[83] Subsequently, in June 1987, the Vietnamese Politburo adopted a new defence strategy in Resolution No. 2, calling for the complete withdrawal of Vietnamese soldiers from international duties, a reduction in the size of the army through a discharge of 600,000 soldiers and the establishment of a set ratio for military expenditures.[84]”“To implement the new reforms, Vietnam, with support from the Soviet Union, started transferring several years' worth of military equipment to the KPRAF, which numbered more than 70,000 soldiers. The Vietnamese Ministry of Defense's International Relations Department then advised its Kampuchean counterparts to only use the available equipment to maintain their current level of operations, and not to engage in major operations which could exhaust those supplies.[79]In 1988, Vietnam was estimated to have about 100,000 troops in Kampuchea, but, sensing that a diplomatic settlement was within reach, the Vietnamese Government began withdrawing forces in earnest. Between April and July 1989, 24,000 Vietnamese soldiers returned home. Then, between 21 and 26 September 1989, after suffering 15,000 soldiers killed and another 30,000 wounded during the 10-year occupation,[72] Vietnam's commitment to Kampuchea was officially over, when the remaining 26,000 Vietnamese soldiers were pulled out.[79] However, armed resistance groups opposed to the Vietnamese-installed PRK regime claimed that Vietnamese troops were still operating on Kampuchean soil long after September 1989. For example, non-communist groups engaging in land-grab operations in western Kampuchea after the withdrawal reported clashes with elite Vietnamese Special Forces near Tamar Puok along Route 69.[85] Then, in March 1991, Vietnamese units were reported to have re-entered Kampot Province to defeat a Khmer Rouge offensive.[85] Despite such claims, on 23 October 1991, the Vietnamese Government signed the Paris Peace Agreement, which aimed to restore peace in Kampuchea.[85]”“On 14 January 1985, Hun Sen was appointed Prime Minister of the People's Republic of Kampuchea and began peace talks with the factions of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. Between 2–4 December 1987, Hun Sen met with Sihanouk at Fère-en-Tardenois in France to discuss the future of Kampuchea. Further talks occurred between 20–21 January 1988, and Hun Sen offered Sihanouk a position within the Kampuchean Government on the condition that he returned to Kampuchea straightaway.[86] However, Sihanouk did not accept the offer, even as preparations were made in Phnom Penh to receive him. Despite that failure, Hun Sen's Kampuchean Government was able to persuade Cheng Heng and In Tam, both ministers in Lon Nol's regime, to return to Kampuchea.[86] In the first major step towards restoring peace in Kampuchea, representatives of the CGDK and the PRK met for the first time at the First Jakarta Informal Meeting on 25 July 1988. In that meeting, Sihanouk proposed a three-stage plan, which called for a cease-fire, a UN peacekeeping force to supervise the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops and the integration of all Kampuchean armed factions into a single army.[87]”“In the meantime, however, peace talks between the warring factions continued, with the First Paris Peace Conference on Cambodia held in Paris in 1989. On 26 February 1990, following the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops, the Third Jakarta Informal Meeting was held, at which the Supreme National Council was established to safeguard Cambodian sovereignty. Initially, the Supreme National Council was to have 12 members, with three seats allocated to each faction of the CGDK, and three to the pro-Vietnam Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party.[88] However, Hun Sen objected to the proposed arrangement, calling instead for each faction of the CGDK to be given two seats for a total of six, and the Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party to have six seats. In 1991 the Supreme National Council began representing Cambodia at the UN General Assembly. Then, in a bold move, Hun Sen renamed the Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party to the Cambodian People's Party in an effort to portray his party as a democratic institution and renounce its revolutionary struggle.[89]On 23 October 1991, the Cambodian factions of the Supreme National Council, along with Vietnam and 15 member nations of the International Peace Conference on Cambodia, signed the Paris Peace Agreement. For the Cambodian people, two decades of continuous warfare and 13 years of civil war seemed to be over, although an atmosphere of uneasiness amongst the leaders of the Cambodian factions remained.[90] In order to include the Khmer Rouge in the agreement, the major powers agreed to avoid using the word "genocide" to describe the actions of the Government of Democratic Kampuchea in the period between 1975 and 1979. As a result, Hun Sen criticised the Paris Agreement as being far from perfect, as it failed to remind the Cambodian people of the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge regime.[90] Nonetheless, the Paris Agreement established the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC), in accordance with the UN Security Council's Resolution 745,[91] and gave UNTAC a broad mandate to supervise main policies and administration works until a Cambodian government was democratically elected.[92]On 14 November 1991, Sihanouk returned to Cambodia to participate in the elections, followed by Son Senn, a Khmer Rouge official, who arrived a few days later to set up the organisation's electoral campaign office in Phnom Penh.[90] On 27 November 1991, Khieu Samphan also returned to Cambodia on a flight from Bangkok; initially he had expected his arrival to be uneventful, but as soon as Khieu Samphan's flight landed at Pochentong Airport, he was met by an angry crowd which shouted insults and abuse at him. As Khieu Samphan was driven into the city, another crowd lined the route towards his office and threw objects at his car.[93] As soon as he arrived at his office, Khieu Samphan entered and immediately telephoned the Chinese Government to save him. Shortly afterwards, an angry mob forced its way into the building, chased Khieu Samphan up the second floor and tried to hang him from a ceiling fan. Eventually, Khieu Samphan was able to escape from the building by a ladder with his face bloodied, and was immediately taken to Pochentong Airport, where he flew out of Cambodia. With the departure of Khieu Samphan, the Khmer Rouge's participation in the election seemed doubtful.[94]In March 1992, the start of the UNTAC mission in Cambodia was marked by the arrival of 22,000 UN peacekeepers, which included troops from 22 countries, 6,000 officials, 3,500 police and 1,700 civilian employees and electoral volunteers.[91] The mission was led by Yasushi Akashi.[95] In June 1992, the Khmer Rouge formally established the National Union Party of Kampuchea, and announced that it would not register to participate in the upcoming elections. Furthermore, the Khmer Rouge also refused to disarm its forces in accordance with the Paris agreement.[96] Then, to prevent ethnic Vietnamese from taking part in the elections, the Khmer Rouge started massacring Vietnamese civilian communities, causing hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese to flee Cambodia.[97] Towards the end of 1992, Khmer Rouge forces advanced into Kampong Thom in order to gain a strategic foothold, before UN peacekeeping forces were fully deployed there. In the months leading up to the elections, several UN military patrols were attacked as they entered Khmer Rouge-held territory.[98]Despite ongoing threats from the Khmer Rouge during the elections, on 28 May 1993, FUNCINPEC won 45.47 percent of the vote, against 38.23 percent for the Cambodian People's Party.[99] Though clearly defeated, Hun Sen refused to accept the results of the election, so his Defense Minister, Sin Song, announced the secession of the eastern provinces of Cambodia, which had supported the Cambodian People's Party. Prince Norodom Ranariddh, leader of FUNCINPEC and son of Sihanouk, agreed to form a coalition government with the Cambodian People's Party so the country would not break up. On 21 September 1993, the Cambodian Constituent Assembly approved a new Constitution and Ranariddh became First Prime Minister, and he appointed Hun Sen as the Second Prime Minister.[100] On 23 September 1993, the constitutional monarchy was restored with Norodom Sihanouk as the head of state.[101] In July 1994, the Cambodian Government outlawed the Khmer Rouge for its continuous violations of the Paris Agreement. Most significantly, the Cambodian Government also specifically recognised the genocide and atrocities which occurred under Democratic Kampuchea.[102] By 1998, the Khmer Rouge was completely dissolved.[103].”“On the night of 15 April 1998, two days before the 23rd anniversary of the Khmer Rouge takeover of Phnom Penh, the Voice of America, of which Pol Pot was a devoted listener, announced that the Khmer Rouge had agreed to turn him over to an international tribunal. According to his wife, he died in his bed later that night while waiting to be moved to another location. Ta Mok claimed that his death was due to heart failure.[186]”In 2013, Ieng Sary died of “gastrointestinal problem”.In 2015, Ieng Thirith died from complications of Alzheimer’s.In 2018, after 11 years, the Khmer Rouge Tribunal convicted 3 (three) people of crime against humanity for the death of 1.4 million people, or 1/4th of the Cambodian population of the time.And it only took 11 years, too.Sources: Mass Atrocity Endings at sites.tufts.edu, China and Vietnam: The Roots of Conflict by historian William J.Duiker, the New York Times, and a bunch of wiki pages.

For the uninitiated, learning about the Kronstadt Rebellion is an exercise in interpreting history. For example, if you go to the Wikipedia page and read the article about it, you get the impression that the KR was launched by reasonable anarchists and socialists who simply wanted the same things the Bolsheviks were asking for, and that the Big Bad Lenin, Trotsky, and Bolsheviks were power hungry hypocrites who cared more about having power than staying true to socialist ideals. But tucked away within the article are a few barely mentioned concerns, concerns which are serious:The Bolsheviks were concerned that abandoning a centralized power system would lead to thousands of independent communes which could be easily crushed by invaders, destroying the Soviet Union. The purpose of having centralized power was to leverage the strength of the entire nation against invaders and counterrevolutionaries.The Bolsheviks considered the demands of the KR rebels unrealistic and reactionary.The article makes reference to the anarchist Paul Avrich, who closely aligned himself with the anarchist movement. Much of the article cites his work. The article is written from the perspective of an anarchist, and tries to minimize the very serious concerns held by the Leninist government.Political discussions aim to draw lines between the powerful and the powerless, between victim and oppressor. This is very obvious if we look at war, which is about violence, the most naked form of power. But this principle is also true of matters such as healthcare. Healthcare is about ensuring that people do not have to worry about minor illnesses or accidents. In a society with universal health care, the populace could be free of these worries and thus spend more time considering how to combat injustice. To argue against universal health care is to argue in favor of the current balance of power; to argue in favor of universal healthcare is to argue against this current balance. Power lurks everywhere and is at the heart of every political argument. If we want to effect political change, we must engage in politics. If we want to engage in politics, we must engage with and struggle for power. To be revolutionary is (in part) to desire an inversion of the balance of power-to grant power to the oppressed by taking it away from the oppressors.Many self-styled revolutionaries, especially those who identify as anarchists, reject this analysis. They claim that power is not instrumentalized, that it will always be oppressive. Even if those in power claim to be exercising it on behalf of the oppressed, indeed, even if they sincerely believe themselves to be doing so, they will always ultimately pursue their own interests: the continuation of power.As evidence for this, anarchists often cite the Kronstadt rebellion. The Bolsheviks, who either cloaked themselves as defenders of the oppressed or genuinely thought they filled this role, took power in the interests of the workers. When a group of workers and soldiers rose up against the government at Kronstadt, they were mercilessly crushed. This is supposedly evidence of the corrupting nature of power. In this essay, I will argue that the Kronstadt rebellion was not crushed because of power-madness, but rather specific material conditions and an uncorrupted desire to defend the oppressed. In so doing, I will open up Leninism-a politics concerned with the conquest of political power-as a viable strategy.I would like to counterpose the effectiveness of this strategy to the Spanish Revolution of 1936, in which a group of anarchists took power in Catalonia amidst a civil war. I have spent considerable time discussing this event elsewhere, so there is little point in spending a great deal of space doing so here. However, I believe it is an instructive example of where the aversion (what we might call an “allergic reaction”) to power will lead us. As such, I want to briefly draw some lessons from it here.Firstly, I should mention that the Kronstadt naval base was the first line of defense against an invasion of Moscow, the new capital of the Soviet Union. It was a key defensive point. If the government had not exercised iron control over it, the invading enemies could have ended the fledgling socialist state.The Kronstadt sailors felt that their concerns over worker’s rights and repression outweighed these concerns. Their first move was to form a Provisional Revolutionary Committee. Following this, they put forward a series of demands. These encompassed not only the economic but also the social and political. In the economic sphere, they desired a relaxation of the strict conditions of war communism (a policy imposed, as the name suggests, by the particular conditions of the ongoing Civil War). The rebels also called for Increased food supplies to be sent to the cities. Their political demands included the restoration of freedom of speech, increased democratic input and consultation in policy formulation, the release of non-Bolshevik socialists from detention, guarantees of civil rights and, most importantly for our purposes here, “Soviets without communists.” Their document asserted that the Bolsheviks were “usurpers” and described the conditions imposed by the new government as “greater enslavement”, “moral slavery”, “a new serfdom” and much greater than the oppressions of tsarism. The Kronstadt sailors called for the revolution to be placed back into the hands of the workers who it had originally claimed to represent.The popular image that anti-Bolshevik critics cling to is that there was widespread sympathy among the Red Army soldiers towards the rebels. There has been a lot of speculation about the mass of soldiers refusing to take part in the attack for political reasons, as well as stories of mass desertions among the Red Army soldiers. It is claimed that many of them passed to the side of the Kronstadt rebels.There was one case where one unit moved to the side of those defending Kronstadt. This was during the first unsuccessful attack. It was a battalion from the 561st Red Army regiment. This regiment was recruited from among former Makhno, Wrangel and Denikin prisoners. During the civil war in Russia, some peasant units also changed sides even several times as a result of military failures. This incident was not the result of political ideas or anti-Bolshevism, but rather a desire to remain safe (and, to put it bluntly, alive).One example of this could be seen when 236 and 237 infantry regiment refused to attack. When questioned as to their motives, they replied, “We’ll not go on the ice.” These peasant units were terrified at the idea of having to attack across the ice this first class fortress defended by battleships. There are other reports about refusals to carry out orders on the part of different units, but in all these cases the causes were such things as the poor quality of food and clothing, the bad quality of the camouflage, and unfavorable weather conditions No political reasons were ever given.At this juncture, it is important to remember that the Soviet government had been forced to use its scarce resources to defend itself against the White armies backed by the imperialists who were trying to crush the revolution. They could not devote resources to improving the lives of their soldiers because they were struggling simply to survive. This is the same reason they imposed War Communism in the first place. In light of these circumstances, it is understandable why conditions on the battlefield were so bad.There was no solid mass of soldiers firmly behind the rebellion. Even bourgeois historians such as Krasnov have had to recognize this fact. Inside Kronstadt, there were clashes between the old revolutionary sailors and the new recruits who came from peasant and petit-bourgeois families. As a result of this lack of unity, the Kronstadt sailors continually shifted positions and acted erratically. Some ships declared their neutrality. Others disregarded this completely and moved against the rebels.To further illustrate this, we should turn to of the statements issued by the crews of a number of ships: the minesweepers “Ural,” and”Orfei.” They said, “The men of the White guards that are leading the rebels can do a lot of damage to the Republic, and they may not even hesitate to bomb Petrograd.”The same situation was to be found behind the rebel battle lines. According to the 7th Army intelligence report, many rebel sailors and soldiers wanted to move over to the side of the Bolsheviks, but they were terrorized by their rebel commanders. It is interesting to note that the rebels justified their rebellion as an objection to Bolshevik terror, but were more than willing to use similar tactics when it suited them.According to documents published in recently declassified Soviet archives, during the attack on Kronstadt, the workers of the town liberated it even before the main forces of the Red Army arrived. Cooperation between the sailors and the Bolsheviks-against the rebels-was far more common than the reverse.The Kronstadt rebellion itself was not led by the workers. Rather, according to the Kronstadt archives themselves, the rebellion had been instigated by “the men of the White guards that are leading the rebels.” The real command over the rebels was concentrated not in the Kronstadt Soviet, as the anarchist propagandists assume, but in the so-called “Court for the Defense of Kronstadt Fortress.” One of its leaders was rear-admiral S.H. Dmitriev (who was executed after the fortress fell). The other was General A. H. Kozlovsky, who escaped to Finland. Both of these senior officers were allied with Tsarists, and thus very far from having any kind of sympathy for Socialism “with Bolsheviks” or “without Bolsheviks.” The counter-revolutionary forces co-opted Ultraleft, anti-soviet rhetoric to secretly launch an attempt to restore the previous feudal order. This is one reason why the “Worker’s Opposition,” itself formed to defend the particular interests of the industrial proletariat, sided with the Bolsheviks at Kronstadt.S. M. Petrechenko, sailor and anti-Bolshevik leader, was recruited by Stalin’s GPU in 1927. He remained one of Stalin’s agents until 1944 when he was arrested by the Finnish authorities. The following year he died in a Finnish concentration camp. Even the most prominent leader of the rebellion came to understand that the Soviet state was one worth defending.The Kronstadt workers and sailors actually understood the real nature of these rebels far better than any of the later intellectuals who have tried to build up the myth of Kronstadt. The same can be said of the counterrevolutionary forces that were operating in Kronstadt. The former Tsarist prime-minister and finance minister, Kokovzev, transferred 225 thousand francs to the Kronstadt rebels. The Russian-Asian bank transferred 200 thousand francs. The French prime-minister, Briand, during the meeting with the former ambassador of Kerensky’s government, Malachov, promised: “anything necessary to help Kronstadt.”Even if we charitably grant that the Kronstadt sailors had noble intentions, the fact remains that their rebellion was quickly co-opted by reactionary and anti-communist forces, seeking to revive the Tsarist system of rule. This is the reason it was crushed. The notion that Lenin crushed the rebellion because he had a vendetta against the working class is more or less a moot point in light of the above evidence, but I would also like to point out that Lenin called for greater worker participation in the Central Committee. He made that call in April of 1921, the same year as the rebellion. He also fought against Trotsky to give trade unions power in workplaces. A month later, 14 capitalist nations launched a full-scale invasion of the backward Soviet Union. Their only option at the time was to centralize productive forces so that necessary defense material could be produced.Some might argue that the above evidence does not negate the fact that the Kronstadt rebels had explicitly socialist demands. If these demands were not being met by the Soviet government, it must, therefore, follow that the Soviet Union was oppressing its workers. If this is the case, it must be true that power has inherently corrosive effects. Surprisingly, there are elements of truth to this argument. Apart from the Kronstadt rebellion, there was widespread dissatisfaction among peasants and workers over the state of the Soviet economy. However, claims that this dissatisfaction was the result of Leninism are false. We know this because it was Lenin who called for the New Economic Policy at the Tenth Party Congress. This NEP, in response to the demands of the peasants, ended the policy of forced grain requisition by the State. It also made possible the creation of agricultural co-ops and the private operation of means of production. This was one of the demands of the Kronstadt sailors. Lenin, although he ultimately crushed the uprising due to its counter-revolutionary character, sympathized with many of the expressed demands of its participants.We can conclude from all of this that Lenin crushed the Kronstadt rebels because material conditions dictated that he had to do so, rather than out of any twisted personal desire. The actions taken by Lenin flowed from said material conditions, not the power that Lenin wielded.As with Kronstadt itself, Anarchist propagandists portray the Soviet government as a ruthless, dictatorial body that “crushed” the anarchists for ideological reasons, because the ideology of anarchism threatened the power of the Bolsheviks. Also as with Kronstadt, the truth is very different.Thousands of anarchists in Soviet Russia were ardent defenders of the Soviet government, giving their energy in battle, their lives at the front and their participation in the soviet institutions. The Bolsheviks worked alongside these anarchists and regarded them as their comrades.Four anarchists, Bogatsky, Bleikhman, Shatov, and Iatshurk, were members of the Military Revolutionary Committee which carried out the October Revolution—the insurrection which today’s anarchists (wrongfully) denounce as a coup d’état. The armed detachment carrying out the orders of the Soviet Government to dissolve the Constituent Assembly was led by an anarchist named Anatoly Zheleteznyakov. Almost all anarchists were opposed to the bourgeois Constituent Assembly in revolutionary Russia, yet today’s anarchists denounce the Bolsheviks’ decision to dissolve it as having been “anti-democratic”. Historian Jeff Hemmer gives more detail about the aforementioned Vladimir Shatov and other anarchists who staunchly defended the Soviet state:“A member of the Military Revolutionary Committee in 1917, Shatov became the chief of police in Petrograd in 1918. In 1919 he defended Petrograd against the advance of General Yudenich as an officer in the Tenth Red Army, and in 1920 was appointed Minister of Transport in the Far Eastern Republic. A number of other anarchists followed his example and accepted small government posts, urging their comrades to do the same or at least refrain from anti-Bolshevik activities that would jeopardize the revolution. The Bolshevik cause attracted anarchists from all backgrounds, ranging from former Black Banner terrorists like Heitzman and Roschin to Anarcho-Communists like German Sandomirskii, who took a position in Chicherin’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, and Alexander Ge, according Victor Serge one of the organisers of Red Terror in the Terek region. Other well-known anarchists in the service of the Bolsheviks were the Anarcho-Syndicalists Shapiro, who joined Sandomirskii in the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, and Daniil Novomirskii, in 1905 a prominent figure in syndicalist circles in Odessa, who entered the Communist Party and became a Comintern official in 1919…In spring 1918 the Anarcho-Communist Apollon Karelin formed the pro-Bolshevik All-Russian Federation of Anarchist-Communists in Moscow, arguing that a Soviet dictatorship was acceptable as a transitional phase in the development of a free anarchist society. According to Karelin, the defence of the Soviet Government was to be regarded not as an affirmation of authority, but as a means of protecting the revolution. A similar view was put forward by the Moscow-based Universalists, formed in 1920 by the brothers Gordin, who had previously been rabid anti-Marxists and anti-intellectuals, and German Askarov, an Anarchist-Communist who was also a member of the Soviet Central Executive Committee [as was Karelin from 1918]. Roschin, the former Chernoznamenets and staunch anti-Marxist who, in 1919, came to see the Bolsheviks as “the advance guard of the revolution,” seems to have taken these ideas even further; according to Victor Serge, he tried to develop an “anarchist theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”The support from the “Soviet Anarchists” was welcomed by the Bolshevik leadership, who insisted that the only anarchists that were persecuted in Russia were criminal elements.”We can see, then, that there was a strong current of unity between the Marxists and the Anarchists in the Soviet Union. If it were true that the repression of Soviet Anarchists was carried out on ideological grounds, this would not have been the case. If power had an inherently corrupting effect, then it would it be the case that the Marxists would have crushed the Anarchists in the very beginning. They did not do this, and in fact took great pains to accommodate the Anarchists.If the repression of anarchists was not ideological, as I have argued, how and why did it arise? The answer lies in the anarchist Black Guards, which flourished throughout Russia and Ukraine in 1918. Originally created in Alexandrovsk during the summer of 1917 by Maria Nikiforova, these armed anarchist detachments had spread to Moscow by January 1918, and by April 1918 “there were already more than 50 groups and detachments of the Black Guard, numbering some 2,000 militants” In the city.“All groups and organizational units of the Black Guard have grouped around the Council of the MFAG [Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups] and headquarters of the Black Guard, stationed in the House of Anarchy in Malaya Dmitrovka.” Nestor Makhno would later establish similar detachments in different regions of Ukraine which ultimately grew into the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine. According to the American anarchist historian Paul Avrich, the MFAG armed the Black Guards “with rifles, pistols, and grenades. From their headquarters in the House of Anarchy, the leaders of the Federation tried to impose a measure of discipline on the Black Guardsmen and to limit the activities of the local clubs to the distribution of propaganda and the “requisitioning” of private residences. This proved to be an impossible task; once armed, a number of groups and isolated individuals succumbed to the temptation of carrying out “expropriations,” and, adding insult to injury, they sometimes acted in the name of the Federation.”Avrich explains that “armed detachments of Black Guards… held up banks, shops, and private homes. Many of their comrades — especially the “Soviet anarchists” – condemned such acts as parodies of the libertarian ideal, which wasted precious lives, demoralized the movement’s true adherents and discredited anarchism in the eyes of the general public.”Looting was rife among the Black Guards. The leadership of the MFAG seemed unable to discipline its detachments. The Bolshevik (and former anarchist) Victor Serge wrote that “The anarchists themselves admitted that suspicious elements, adventurers, common criminals, and counterrevolutionaries, were thriving among them, but their libertarian principles did not permit them to refuse entrance to their organizations to any man or to subject anyone to really control. They sensed acutely that their movement needed to be purged, but this was impossible without authority or a disciplined organization. Splits among them and this reverence for principle were slowly leading to the political suicide of the movement, which was becoming more compromised each day…”The Black Guards were out of control. “Several incidents such as an attack on an American car, the murder of several Cheka agents followed by the summary execution of several bandits, the arrests of “expropriators” who were promptly claimed by the Anarchist Federation, led Dzerzhinsky, the President of the Cheka, to insist on the liquidation of the Black Guard.”Avrich gives the details of this operation:“[O]n the night of the 11-12th of April, armed detachments of the Cheka raided 26 anarchist centres in the capital. Most anarchists surrendered without a fight, but in the Donskoi Monastery and the House of Anarchy itself, Black Guardsmen offered fierce resistance. A dozen Cheka agents were slain in the struggle, about 40 anarchists were killed or wounded, and more than 500 were taken prisoner.”Anarchist propagandists, with their dishonest “selective memory,” take this evening’s events out of historical context; treating it in isolation and ignoring the backward trend of conflict that the anarchist Black Guards had been unleashing in Russia. The Bolsheviks had been forced into carrying out the task that the anarchists were seemingly incapable of achieving on their own; purging from their ranks the “criminal elements” that were pillaging and burgling under the flag of anarchism and causing chaos throughout Russia. As the elected and legitimate government, it was their obligation to restore order.The Bolsheviks sought to eradicate these “criminal elements” which were considered to be “pseudo-anarchists.” In their view, no genuine anarchist could condone random acts of theft and violence against workers and the Soviets’ officials. Trotsky stated in Moscow on the 14th of April that “these hooligans… are simply raiders and burglars who compromise the anarchists. Anarchism is an idea although a mistaken one, but hooliganism is hooliganism… I have talked about it to the idealist anarchists and they themselves say: ‘A lot of these jailbirds, hooligans, and criminals have smuggled themselves into our movement…’… It is stated that among these hooligans there are a few who are honest anarchists; if that is true… then it is a great pity, and it is necessary to render them their freedom as quickly as possible.” His general argument was that the “honest anarchists” should distance themselves from the “hooligans” so that “one should know once for all… that is a burglar, and this is an honest idealist…” This was not an attack against anarchism or the “honest” anarchists. It was an attack against “the hooligans, who put on the mask of anarchism in order to destroy the order and life and labor of the working class.” Yet “some fifteen anarchists demonstratively left the hall” creating a frightening scene, breaking solidarity and order.Before long, the anarchists resorted “once more to their terrorist ways.” According to Avrich: “Anarchists in Rostov, Ekaterinoslav, and Briansk broke into city jails and liberated the prisoners” in the middle of a civil war. “[I]n the summer of 1918, Black Guardsmen who had survived the Cheka raids of the preceding months, contemplated the armed seizure of the capital but Aleksei Borovoi and Daniil Novomirskii talked them out of it.” But according to the historian Marcel Liebman — evidently against the wishes of Borovoi and Novomirskii — some anarchists were involved in the Left SR revolt in Moscow on the 6th and 7th of July, which was, of course, an “armed seizure of the capital” that was quickly crushed.“Lev Chernyi, secretary of the Moscow Federation of Anarchists… joined an organization called the Underground Anarchists, founded by Kazimir Kovalevich, a member of the Moscow Union of Railway Workers, and a Ukrainian anarchist named Petr Sobolev. Though based in the capital, the Underground Anarchists established ties with the battle detachments of the south… On the 25th of September [1919], together with a number of Left SR’s, they bombed the headquarters of the Moscow Committee of the Communist Party in Leontiev Street, while a plenary meeting was in session. The explosion killed 12 members of the Committee and wounded 55 others, including Nikolai Bukharin, the eminent Bolshevik theorist and editor of Pravda…”But even while chaos ensued on the streets of Moscow — terrorism conducted under the flag of anarchism — the Bolsheviks tried their best to meet the “honest” anarchists halfway:“When Kamenev in 1920 offered the Moscow Anarchists freedom to issue their papers and to run their clubs and bookshops in exchange for their adoption of party discipline and a purge of the criminal and irresponsible elements which had infiltrated into their membership, they indignantly rejected the offer.”It is clear then from the information I have provided that, contrary to anarchist mythology, the Bolsheviks did not “crush” the anarchists in Soviet Russia for ideological reasons. The Bolsheviks-alongside the anarchists who peacefully collaborated with them -appealed to sincere anarchists involved in the dubious activity to distance themselves from the hooligans who had infiltrated their ranks. The “anarchists” who were subdued had been looting, burgling, engaging in violent and destructive acts and assassinating government figures. The “repression” of these explicitly anti-soviet and counter-revolutionary terrorists should be seen as nothing more than an overdue retaliation to criminal provocation.We have seen that Leninists have historically been willing to place unity in the struggle over ideology, while anarchists have not. This proves that it is possible to wield power on behalf of the oppressed, and need not devolve into an “authoritarian” nightmare.Indeed, it is not possible to succeed without wielding power in this manner. This was true during the Spanish Revolution, another historical event that anarchists uphold as a successful example of their theory in practice. Salvador de Madariaga, a Spanish historian, wrote about the elections in the period leading up to the Civil War in this way: “the workers affiliated to the U.G.T. voted for their men. But the Anarcho-Syndicalists voted for the middle-class liberals. There were two reasons for this: the first, the unbridgeable enmity which separates Socialists and Syndicalists, due to their rival bid for the leadership of the working classes; and the second, that as the Anarchists always preached contempt for suffrage, they had no political machinery of their own; so that when it coming to voting—which they did this time to help oust the Monarchy—they preferred to vote for the middle-class Republican whose liberal views were more in harmony with the anti-Marxist idea of the Spanish Syndicalists than with the orthodox and dogmatic tenets of the Socialists.”In this context, anarchist ideology worked against the interests of the proletariat by advancing the interests of the petite-bourgeoisie. Anarchists put their ideology ahead of the struggle. It was impossible for them to avoid doing this because they refused to engage with the centers of power. Ultimately, that is what led to the defeat of the Spanish Revolution.It has not, historically, been Leninist parties that put their own power ahead of worker’s struggles. On the contrary, Leninists have been more than willing to cooperate with forces which were not ideologically aligned with them for the purpose of making or defending the revolution. The two most successful anarchist movements, Soviet anarchism, and the Spanish Revolution have in fact been guilty of a rank sectarianism. Leninists have stood for workers, Anarchists have stood for themselves.The anarchist “allergic reaction” to power has, time and again, alienated them from the struggle. The working class instinctively understands that politics is about power. They learn this through their struggle with the bosses, which is ultimately about the balance of power between two opposing camps. This is why the anarchist movement has taken hold primarily among petit-bourgeois artisans and middle-class liberals. In its a priori rejection of power, anarchism dooms itself to discontinuity with the revolutionary agent: the working class. In swearing off power, anarchism also swears off victory.BibliographyKronstadt Tragedy, by Russian historian Yuri Shchetinov“The Truth About Kronstadt” John G. WrangelKronstadt: 1921, Paul AvrichCronstadt, Jean-Jacques MarieThe Unknown Trotsky: The Red Bonaparte V. G. KrasnovBlackshirts and Reds, Michael ParentiThe New Cambridge Modern History, volume xxi.Steve Phillips (2000). Lenin and the Russian Revolution.The Demands of the Kronstadt Sailors, available at The Kronstadt RebellionHemmer, J. What Was The Role Of Anarchists In The Russian Revolution?Trotsky, L. The Military Writings of Leon Trotsky – Vol. 2).Avrich, P. The Russian AnarchistsAvrich, P. Russian Anarchists, and the Civil WarSerge, V. Year One of the Russian RevolutionAvrich, P. The Russian AnarchistsTrotsky, L. An Appeal to the Toiling, Oppressed, and Exhausted Peoples of EuropeLiebman, M. Leninism Under LeninSchapiro, L. The Origin of the Communist AutocracySpanish Labyrinth, Gerald Brenan, Cambridge Univ. Press. London, 1950Spain, a Modern History, Salvador Madariaga, Praeger. N.Y., 1958Source: Power in Practice: Kronstadt and the Spanish Revolution

Ok. Let’s for a moment pretend that I’m the answer of DC/Warner to Kevin Feige :p Bear with me for a moment. First thing I’m going to do is walk away from the current continuity. Let’s leave it at that for the moment. Then of course comes the part to choose the people who are talented and independent and yet willing to toe a certain line when it comes to cohesion and non-conflicting plot lines.The “Creative Team”:I’m gonna go with the following directors:1. Patty Jenkins - she’s already proven herself with one Wonder Woman movie and I’m pretty sure she has more up her proverbial sleeves.2. Matt Reeves - his take on Apes is simply amazing; Cloverfield and 28 Weeks Later are also stunning combinations of visuals and story-telling. Batman is in good hands with him.3. Russo Brothers - there’s no law that says I can’t use people who have worked with Marvel so, there you go. The Russo brothers know how to capture a hero’s dilemma while still retaining the essence of the character. I’d let them handle Superman and I’m confident they’ll do great work with the richness of the material.4. Darren Aronofsky - with Black Swan, we know Darren is perfect for a psycho-thriller/controversial/dark hero flick. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and put him on a project involving the Suicide Squad.5. Simon West - a bonafide “blockbuster action movie” veteran, Simon would be perfect directing an ole 90s bang-bang style Green Lantern movie.6. Sam Mendes - Road to Perdition (which is technically a comic book movie) and Skyfall are proof that this guy can tell a good story using camera frames and lighting; I’d put him in charge of Aquaman.7. Paul Greengrass - this guy revolutionized the “fight scene” with The Bourne Identity, which many movies now try to imitate. Paul would be amazing doing a Grayson movie.8. Wachowski Brothers - a controversial choice but I’d trust them enough to do a Flash movie.With those directors, I’d hire the following to collaborate as writers:1. Wonder Woman - Patty Jenkins would write in partnership with comic book veteran Greg Rucka -Greg, having written plenty of materials for the Wonder Woman comic books, could provide additional insight and complement Patty Jenkin’s already stellar handle on the character.2. Batman - although Matt Reeves would direct and have writing input for this, I’d give the main writing assignment to the team of Scott Snyder and Jeph Loeb.3. Superman - after the disappointment with Nolan and Zack Snyder, at this point the only person I’d trust to write a Superman story for the movies is Mark Waid. The Russo Brothers would have input of course, but Mark is the main pilot on this one.4. Suicide Squad - I believe Aronofsky should write this one, but with assists from Jeph Loeb, who knows a little something about villains.5. Green Lantern - this one should be co-written by James Mangold and Michael Green; I know some people would say Green had already tried once and failed with Green Lantern, but I’ll be willing to give him a second chance.6. Aquaman - I’d give this job to director Peter David, closely assisted by Paul Pelletier.7. Grayson - for this one I would hire Jeph Loeb and James Mangold.8. The Flash - I’d put Geoff Johns to personally write this one.9. Justice League Chapters 1, 2, 3, and beyond (?) – the team-up movies I will put under the writing chops of Jeph Loeb and Mark Waid, and as with Superman, the Russo Brothers will direct.Now that I’ve chosen the creative team, I’d also add the following to assist closely with the projects as producers/unit B directors/visual effects coordinators, etc.1. Zack Snyder - say what you will about this guy, but I still trust him to deliver a stunning-looking film. I won’t put him on the helm, but I’d like for him to contribute in the visuals/storyboard/concept/director of cinematography department.2. David S. Goyer - again, controversial choice given the current state of the DCEU, but Goyer would still make for a good producer.3. Jim Lee – I’ll take this guy to be creative consultant, co-producer, and “continuity doctor.”And to provide the over-all coordination and direction of the franchise, I’ll give the control to Geoff Johns. Johns is no stranger to cross-overs and mega-events and he has proven that he has the handle on DC’s most precious characters and story lines. Johns will be the ultimate anchor to hold down and stabilize the whole franchise; he’d set the over-all tone while still giving the individual teams the leeway to “go play” with their projects.You’ll notice two things with my line-up so far: 1. I’d hire top-tier directors who can make the material “alive”, and 2. I’d partner them with true comic book writers who know the essence of the characters. Reasons:1. I’ve always believed that the essential flaw of the current DCEU is that it’s got the wrong people doing the wrong job.1. Case in example: Chris Nolan - this guy “deconstructed” Batman and anchored him to reality. His style worked for 3 movies, yes, but WB made the fundamental mistake of thinking Nolan’s template will work for other materials as well. I’m not the only one to make this observation but I’ll say it anyway: Nolan laid the foundations of the failure of the current DCEU. He was brilliant, but his brilliance led WB and most especially Zack Snyder to a totally nonviable take on the DC heroes.2. Man of Steel - this is what I’m talking about; WB must have thought: “gee let’s adopt the Nolan tone for Superman and let’s get the guy who directed Watchmen to flesh it all out.” They totally missed the point. Superman will never fit into Nolan’s Batman mold, he’s Superman for heaven’s sake. There’s no traumatic experience to mar his childhood; there’s no struggle to rise above the past; there are no ghosts to confront. Ok, I’m getting way ahead of myself; I’ll get back to Superman in a moment.2. I’ve always believed that a superhero movie should have legitimate action scenes, complete with stunning visuals and sterling dialogue/lines, not just moments and sound bites.3. The directors I chose are all “proven” masters of their craft.4. And…the writers I chose are also “proven” masters of their respective materials.The time-line/tone/outline of the projects -both as individual movies and how they fit in the bigger picture.1. I would start with Wonder Woman - this is tricky but hear me out. The good thing about 2017’s Wonder Woman is that with a few cuts and re-edits (not reshoots!!), you can actually make it look like it’s got nothing to do with Justice League and the current DCEU, thus preserving Jenkin’s and Gadot’s already great work. I know this will be controversial, but prior to another WW movie, I’ll re-release 2017’s WW in theaters and home video to highlight that it’s an origin movie and that it now has nothing to do with the scrapped DCEU. 2017’s WW established two important things: the old gods are dead and Diana remains in the world of men looking for peace. The next WW will be a sequel of sorts but will take place in the 80s. The story will center around Diana trying to live up to Trevor’s memory by helping people through charity and volunteer work (she has long realized that the world of men will not be changed by arms and war, but by acts that set noble examples; we’ll also see that she became a nurse during WW2 to further embrace her new philosophy of “saving the world with acts of kindness”, but that she’d also performed superhuman feats when the need arose). But unknown to her, a secret CIA op called “Omega”, under its nominal leader Marshall Ducard, has its sights on her. Omega has figured out Diana’s secret past (including her mythical Amazonian heritage) and now seeks to add her to their roster of special individuals at whatever cost. The movie will feature Diana fighting off Omega’s agents and thwarting their plan to incite World War 3 by assassinating Russia’s leaders. At the end of the movie war is prevented, the US and Russian leaders come into amicable understanding, and both sides thank Diana (although not publicly). Omega is shut down by the US President (Ducard is seen to be arrested) and the Soviet Union dissolves thus ending the Cold War. This movie will provide a “closure” of sorts for Diana’s arc that began in World War 1. At the post credits (yes I’ll use them, so sue me!), we see Diana returning to Paradise Island, seemingly to retire, only to promise to return to the world of men because with the coming era of peace (the 90s), she feels the real work has only just begun. Another post-credits scene will reveal that Omega lives on under a new name, “Checkmate”; a teen Tigress will be shown sleeping/incubating in a water tank while a shadowy character called “Black Bishop” looks on, calling Tigress “a Queen of our own”. Black Bishop then orders a minion to order the death of Ducard, saying that much as Ducard would like to think of himself as a valuable piece, “he remains, after all, a pawn.” This movie will serve the purpose of reinforcing Jenkin’s vision for Diana as a powerhouse movie with a strong female character and a balanced, positive message.2. Batman - enough origins. The Batman movie I have in mind will be a good ole’ detective story set in the 2010s. Just as the criminals of Gotham have learned to fear the Batman and Gotham seem to be heading for days of peace and order, terror grips the city anew as a group calling itself ‘The Court of Owls’ starts undermining the Caped Crusader. Their terror acts include ambushing cops known to cooperate with Batman and displaying their mutilated victims in broad daylight; killing and mutilating victims in neighborhoods where Batman had been previously sighted; freeing criminals nabbed by Batman; and (almost) assassinating Gotham notables such as the Mayor, Commissioner Gordon, and various businessmen/women. This creates a bat-panic in Gotham as people start to think that maybe Batman is a bad idea after all. Batman must race against time to solve the mystery of what or who the Court really is. He “interrogates” perennial villains such as Penguin, Falcone, and Maroni to catch the Court’s trails but to no avail. Batman’s detective work leads him to cross paths with a highly skilled assassin, simply called “The Talon”; we see Batman here having a hard time with the Talon. Finally, the Court will reveal itself to Batman: a group of “high-society” types under the leadership of a Wayne Enterprise executive who aims to kill both Batman and Bruce Wayne and then take control of the idea of the Batman to impose their own version of order to Gotham and to America -a sort of Wall Street Illuminati. Batman exposes the Court but not before suffering numerous injuries from the Talon. He and the Talon inflict mutual “deathblows”, and the Talon seemingly die while Batman is rescued by Gordon (who refuse to peek under the mask). The leader of the Court commits suicide while the surviving Court members are arrested. At the post credits scene, we see a shadowy figure calling herself “White Queen” ordering the assassination of the arrested Court members to protect the identity of Batman, remarking that the whole purpose of the ‘Court of Owls gambit’ is not to expose Batman but to bury Checkmate deeper in order to pave the way for “a new kind of war”, and to test the mettle of the “Dark Knight” and that Batman will “serve Checkmate’s purpose yet”. Another post-credits scene will show Bruce recovering in the bat-cave and having a silent meal with Alfred. Suddenly a perky young man will remark: “Still having dinner in the cave? Dude…” Enter Dick Grayson, smiling. Bruce will beam up positively upon seeing an old friend and say “I even saved a seat for you…” Grayson will decline the offer, saying that he just wanted to check up on Bruce and to pick up “some old things of mine”.3. Grayson - again, enough origins. We simply get a short exposition/flashback scene that Dick Grayson was an orphan who was rescued from juvenile jail by Bruce Wayne in the early 2010s. Having served as Robin for 2 years, he left Batman to “find his own way” -we never see what really caused his departure, yet. The movie will pick up on the events of Batman. He reveals to Bruce that he found clues as to who killed his parents. Bruce tries to dissuade him from chasing his leads saying there are graver threats out there (we see hints that Batman is going to dig deeper into the ‘Court of Owls’ thing, sensing something more sinister underneath the organization) and that Batman would need Robin. Grayson responds by saying he needs to do this for himself, for closure. Bruce asks if Grayson is sure he’s not doing this for revenge. They get into an argument until finally Grayson walks out, taking his old weapons and tools and utility belt. The movie then takes us to a roller coaster, Jason Bourne-style ride of Grayson fighting thugs, following his leads that would take him directly into the path of Checkmate’s “White Rook”. White Rook’s henchman, the Talon (revealed to be a reanimated gene-spliced hybrid) knocks out Grayson and takes him into a Checkmate facility. White Rook (talking through a video avatar) then reveals that Checkmate knows all about Bruce Wayne and Batman and that Grayson’s parents’ assassination was part on an elaborate plot by Checkmate to make sure Grayson would end up gaining all the skills and knowledge from Batman thus making him a perfect candidate to become the next Talon. She further reveals that after becoming a Talon, Grayson will lose all memories of what has been revealed and that he and Batman both have their own roles in the “game board” - a pawn and a Dark Knight. Grayson asks her what Checkmate’s ultimate goal is, and White Rook responds: “A pawn is not supposed to know the whole plan”. Grayson is then taken to a lab where he undergoes the painful gene-splicing, alteration procedure, but halfway through the whole thing Batman arrives and rescues Grayson, trashing the place in the process. The Talon arrives and gives Batman another sound beating but Grayson, still groggy and unstable, helps Batman and together they kill the Talon. Batman carry a semi-conscious Grayson outside and as he prepares to put him in the bat-mobile, White Rook’s voice taunts them by saying they behaved exactly as Checkmate wanted them to. Batman looks into the source of the voice (a computer screen) and says: “After tonight, I’m coming for all of you.” White Rook answers: “No. You’ll come to us when we want you to”. Back at the bat-cave, Bruce apologizes to Grayson for not being a good friend. It is finally revealed that the two had a falling out because Batman refused to aid Robin in his quest to find his parents’ murderer, because he (Batman) is against the notion of revenge. Bruce contemplates that had he helped Grayson in the first place, none of this would have happened. Grayson responds by saying he barely remembers what just happened and that his mind doesn’t “feel right”, indicating that the Talon procedure was half-successful after all. In the post-credits, we see a short scene where White Rook is confronted by her colleagues for being “sloppy” and for losing her grip on “some essential pieces”; she responds by saying she “knows how to take care of my side of the board, I’ll thank you to worry about yours”; another post-credit scene will show Grayson sitting on a chair in the bat-cave trying hard to remember White Rook’s words only to fail and have a piercing headache. Bruce approaches him and says: “Maybe this can help”, holding out the Robin eye-mask.4. Superman - again, not an origin story, but with a twist. We see flashback scenes of Jonathan and Martha finding baby Kal-El (set in the 90s), taking him in, thinking he’s an experiment subject on a NASA test craft. We see how they kept Clark a secret while the government took the craft and surmised that it’s an advanced guard for an alien invasion and thus making preparations against it. The main story is set in the same point in time as Batman (2010s, but sometime after the events of Batman and Grayson) and we see Clark Kent living paycheck to paycheck in Metropolis, keeping his head down and trying his best to be ordinary. He’s heard of the Batman and the events of the Batman movie but because of internal turmoil, refused to take part in the action. The only clue he has to his past is his parents’ story of how they found him, and an odd object: a crystal stylus emblazoned with an “S”. Clark grapples with the idea that he is an alien -both figuratively and literally. (We learn that Jonathan Kent was killed in a store robbery -a nod to Jerry Siegel’s real life experience). He tries to enjoy the trappings of a human life but, knowing that he’s not human, fails. This will result in a Clark Kent that is clumsy, awkward, shy, and almost comedic (emphasis on almost). But when an occasional danger beckons (like a mugging, or a factory accident), Clark forgets his awkwardness and flies in to the rescue, albeit wearing a hooded jacket with a small Superman logo in the chest. A bigger threat soon arrives, in the form of General Zod (again, sue me!). Zod arrives with a single Kryptonian ship full of “immigrants” from the long-lost planet of Krypton. He talks to the UN and says he and his people needs shelter and asylum. The world is thrown into panic and confusion. Questions are asked: do we have what it takes to take in space immigrants? What are they running from? Are there others out there? What if they bring plague and stuff? As the UN Security Council votes against taking in the Kryptonians, Zod reveals that he’s not really for asylum, he is seeking a Kryptonian refugee and that he only tried to seek asylum to avoid an “annoying confrontation” with primitive earthlings. He then revealed that Kryptonians are super-powered on Earth and started eliminating the leaders of UN. Panic ensues as Zod and his “immigrants”, now revealed as warriors, destroy major cities. Clark, seeing the destruction, leaps into action thus revealing himself to Zod. Zod remarks that the crystal stylus houses the “Brainiac Protocol” needed to reconstruct Krypton on Earth, and that Jor-El sent Kal-El to be an advanced guard to the invasion. Shocked at this revelation, Clark lashes out and almost kills Zod, but he is overpowered by Faora and Non. Zod takes the crystal and leaves Clark for dead, saying “You’ve done your job, son; New Krypton will remember you.” Zod begins the lengthy process of activating the Brainiac Protocol -Kal-El’s pod (revealed to be in the possession of Checkmate) activates and flies off to rendezvous with Zod’s ship to provide the last pieces of tech needed to terra-form the Earth. World leaders are in crisis mode, and we finally see Checkmate’s leaders revealed, the “White Queen”: Amanda Waller, “Black Bishop”: retired US General Sam Lane, while “White Rook” remains anonymous. Checkmate offers to defend Earth with a special weapon devised by reverse-engineering Kal-El’s pod and using the mineral/metal sample from it; but there’s a catch, activating the (hitherto untested) weapon will potentially unleash large amounts of gamma radiation into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, Clark is “picked up” by a mysterious character who then takes him home to Smallville. There he spends a brief moment contemplating his purpose; he is devastated that all along he was “an agent of the enemy” and that he brought the invaders; hearing about the touted Earth assault against the invaders in the news, he contemplates suicide by getting in the middle of the cross-fire, sure that whatever secret weapons the humans have will be enough to kill him. He is then slapped out of this thinking by Martha, saying that she and Jonathan didn’t raise him to be a coward. She reminds Clark that his true character is not what others planned for him, but what he decides for himself. She goes on by telling Clark that no matter what happens, he will always be their son and that he will always be loved. Clark is encouraged by Martha’s words and decided to make a stand to protect Earth and prevent a disastrous war. Martha reveals a Superman suit that they kept hidden all these years; she says that it was the only thing they salvaged from the pod and that it’s always been their wish that Clark would make something good out of this. Martha then says something like: “This is a Kryptonian symbol and I know right now it means fear and destruction; but go make this symbol your own; make it stand for something else; make it stand for hope”. Clark then “becomes” Superman. He stops the war by destroying both the Checkmate weapon (injuring Waller and Lane while “White Rook” escapes) and the Kryptonian terra-forming vessel. His pod, amazingly, bonds to him and responds to his commands. He tells the pod to “go home” and it flies off, but not before shooting Superman with a beam of light that enables him to absorb the knowledge of Krypton. In a final battle, Zod is forced to confess that he lied about Jor-El’s purpose; he says that Jor-El was “a pacifist fool who thought we could live in peace with these apes”; we see Superman as we are supposed to see him: noble, god-like but benevolent, and kicking some ass! He defeats the Kryptonians single-handedly and using his new-found knowledge of Krypton tech, activates Zod’s ship’s Phantom Drive thus sending the invaders to the Phantom Zone. In the aftermath, Superman addresses the UN in an emergency session. He states that although he is of the same race as the invaders, he is not the threat humans fear him to be. He states that he loves Earth and its people and that this is his home and while many of them fears and distrusts him, he will “work night and day to earn your trust”. He then smiles and flies off while the world looks up in the sky. We then see a montage of Superman helping the rebuilding efforts, rescuing people, providing comfort to those injured and those who lost loved ones. Finally, we see Superman flying into the horizon while we hear a voice-over from the original Superman (the Marlon Brando monologue), the Russell Crowe monologue, and the Kevin Costner line from Man of Steel: “Live as one of them, Kal-El, to discover where your strength and your power are needed. But always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son…You will give the people of earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders…“One day, you’re gonna have to make a choice. You have decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. … Whoever that man is, good character or bad, is gonna change the world.” Yes, I decided I would use those exact same audio and not have someone else read those iconic lines. I think this gesture will reconcile this version of the DCEU and Superman to the ones that went before it and finally bury all the ugliness that plagued Superman in these recent years. Ok. So post-credits scenes: First, we see Superman, still wearing the suit but also wearing glasses, seated on the front porch of their Smallville house, holding a picture frame of Jonathan, Martha is right beside him:Martha: how’s the suit son?Clark: I’ll get used to this. But seriously ma, glasses?Martha: what? They worked when your pa had to disguise himself to sneak into the town cinema <laughing>Clark: I miss him. And I already miss you.Martha: we’re always here Clark, your father and I. We’ll always watch over you, Superman. I wish I could just keep you and father here with me, but the world needs you, just as those folks at the general store needed your dad.Clark: Will the world ever accept me, do you think?Martha: Why not? We did.Clark: <standing to go into the house> By the way mom, you never did tell me who brought me here…Martha: <beaming> Oh, you never asked!Clark: So who was he?Martha: She! A very lovely she. She said her name is Diana.Clark: <looks puzzled, smiled, and went into the house>Second post-credits scene: we see “White Rook”, now revealed to be LexCorp’s CEO, Tess Mercer reporting to “Black King” and “White King” through “facetime”: White King sounds like a logical, deep voiced middle-aged man, while Black King is revealed to be an older-than-Jessie Eisenberg Lex Luthor. Both Kings seem unconcerned that the anti-Kryptonian weapon was destroyed, saying that it served its purpose and proved the potential of kryptonite. They are however, slightly vexed that Superman thwarted and exiled Zod and the invaders, saying “now all we have is one new piece”. Black King considers removing Waller (White Queen) and Lane (Black Bishop), but White King disagrees, saying they still serve a purpose. White Rook asks about their next move, now that Checkmate has been revealed to the government. White King answers: “I’ll leave that to you, Black King; Luthor answers: “The plan proceeds, then. Oh, the board just got a little bit more interesting.”5. Justice League Chapter 1: Trinity – this movie will cap off my Volume 1 of the DCEU and will pit Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman against Checkmate. The story kick-off with Batman and Grayson (now Nightwing) hot on the heels of Checkmate, investigating through the mess left behind by Superman’s battle against Zod and the invaders. Through various contacts they now know that White Queen is Amanda Waller and Black Bishop is Sam Lane but they always seem to be one step ahead of the Dynamic Duo. While rethinking their strategy in the bat-cave, Nightwing remarks that maybe they should seek help from “the big guy over at Metropolis”. Batman responds that he has thought of that, but “something tells me we, the two of us and him, are all missing the bigger picture.” Meanwhile Superman acclimates to his new role as Metropolis’ resident hero. To keep his disguise, he’s been working as a part-time news stringer for The Daily Planet, where he’s already met and befriended Jim Olsen and a particularly stand-offish Lois Lane. After stopping a routine bank heist, Superman is introduced to Diana, who finally reveals her identity and her role in the previous Superman movie –after a brief respite on Paradise Island Diana, already suspecting that Omega might have survived in another form, went back to the world of men to investigate. For years her search turned up nothing, a testament to how good Checkmate has become. But during all those years Diana has been aware of and closely monitoring the developments in Gotham City and in Smallville/Metropolis. She tells Superman that she wanted to see what Batman and “the big red hood-man” are all about before revealing herself. She then expressed regret that she never found out about Checkmate until it was already too late and that had she linked efforts with Batman way earlier in his career then they might have uncovered Checkmate before the events of Superman. Superman concludes that the bigger fight is with Checkmate and that they can’t go on mulling over past mistakes and regrets. He offers to help Wonder Woman and the two decides to seek out the Batman to share what they already know about Checkmate. Meanwhile, Batman and Nightwing close in on a lead to White Rook (they still don’t know she’s Tess Mercer); they track and confront her with the coordinating efforts of Alfred (speaking through “ear-coms”). We find the Dynamic Duo para-jumping to intercept Mercer’s jetplane over the Pacific and fighting thugs; they face her personal bodyguard –a warrior called Katana who is more than a match for the Duo. Mercer orders Katana to escape the plane with some vital Checkmate data. Katana jumps off the plane and Nightwing jumps after her. The two fight it out while on free fall, while Batman confronts Mercer. Batman tells her “it’s over White Rook” but she merely laughs and shoots at Batman with a pistol. Katana, meanwhile, damages Nightwing’s parachute before going on an accelerated free fall and then opening her chute. Nightwing starts blacking out as he falls uncontrollably while fragment scenes of his experience with the Talon procedure flashes in his mind. Alfred relays Nightwing’s peril to Batman, who is momentarily distracted. The distraction gave Mercer the chance to push a secret button, opening a secret cabin and releasing “my best pawn, your Bane!” Bane overpowers Batman, giving Tess Mercer the chance to jump off the plane safely. Bane (portrayed here in much the same way as in the Nolan movie) taunts Batman that much as it would excite him to see the new world Checkmate is creating, he’d be quite content to die knowing he’s taking Batman down with him. Suddenly the plane stops crashing and seem to float in mid-air before gently landing in the middle of the ocean. Puzzled, Bane peeks out the window only to be grabbed by Superman who then knocks him out with a tap on the forehead. Superman then introduces himself to Batman and the two share a brief awkward moment together. Later, Batman and Superman meets up with Wonder Woman (who is revealed to have rescued Nightwing from his free fall) and the three compare notes on Checkmate and whatever data they salvaged. They learn that Bane (safely frozen in suspended animation) is an international terrorist who was taken in by CIA agents back in the 80s. Diana says she always believed Bane was behind bars, if not already dead. Further analysis of Bane’s tissues reveals he underwent gene-splicing, modifications, and nano-tech infusion. After more discussions between the heroes, they come to the conclusion that Checkmate is a shadow organization underneath the US government (and possibly other countries too) that performs illegal experiments to create an army of super-powered terrorists to usher in a new world order, and that Omega and the ‘Court of Owls’ were just fronts or “practice” for Checkmate. Batman agrees with all of this, but opines that much as they have learned, he still feels they’re far from figuring out the whole picture. Meanwhile, Mercer regroups with Sam Lane (Black Bishop) and the latter chides her for this latest screw-up, saying that she’s now lost three pieces (Batman, Grayson, and now Bane). Mercer respond by saying she doesn’t answer to anyone but the Black King (Lex Luthor) and that Luthor is not displeased with her work. The two have a tense argument only to be brought back in line by Amanda Waller (White Queen). The three then proceeds to plan their next move to further Checkmate’s agenda: the release of the Kryptonian invaders from the Phantom Zone in order to co-opt them in Checkmate’s take-over. Using the data saved by Katana and Mercer, the three Checkmate leaders (Black Bishop, White Queen, and White Rook) trace Kal-El’s pod to the North Pole and proceed to retrieve it. The pod, however, refuses to respond to Checkmate’s probes and commands (having previously bonded with Superman) and instead sets off a distress call that only Superman can hear. Meanwhile, the Trinity, aided by Nightwing, assembles for a final showdown with Checkmate. In the third act battle, Sam Lane unleashes his “Queen” –a fully matured Cheetah, against Wonder Woman, while Mercer orders Katana to bring in Batman and Nightwing. Superman proceeds to help the heroes but is intercepted by Mercer, who shoots him with Kryptonite bullets. As Superman is rendered helpless, Mercer activates some more Luthor tech to force the pod to open the Phantom Zone. Wonder Woman and Cheetah are locked on an even battle while Batman and Nightwing gradually overpowers Katana. At a crucial moment in the fight, Nightwing is again rendered helpless by headache and flashes of his experience with the Talon procedure and he passes out completely. As the pod is forced to open the Phantom Zone, it unleashes uncontrollable amounts of energy and space-bending burst of waves. Wonder Woman, seeing an opening, kicks Cheetah into the Phantom Zone opening where hands quickly takes hold of her and pulls her into the Zone, screaming. Batman knocks Katana out and tries to shut down the pod and close the Zone opening. Silhouettes of Zod and other prisoners manifest through the opening, trying to pull Batman in. Zod actually makes it out of the Zone and immediately goes for the dying Superman. Superman, with a last supreme effort, fights Zod and pushes him back into the Zone. Then, realizing that the pod and the Luthor tech are emitting vast amounts of radiation, Superman hooked himself into the machinery and absorbed the energies emitted, thus powering down the pod and closing the Zone opening. Wonder Woman then delivers the final blow to destroy the Luthor tech. The pod completely shuts down but continues to emit a faint warm glow. Superman, spent by his efforts, falls, seemingly dead. As Batman and Wonder Woman approach him he shows faint signs of life and reaches out his hand towards the pod. Understanding, Batman and Wonder Woman takes Superman into the pod and lay him in its chamber bed. The pod then reactivates and declares: “Life signs detected. Activating healing mode. Heading for home. Thank you for your patience.” It then flies off, taking Superman with it. Batman is alarmed but Wonder Woman restrains him, saying she doesn’t think Superman is in danger anymore. In the aftermath, Mercer is apprehended by Wonder Woman and is sent to prison, while Lane and Waller have long escaped the scene. Katana is also apprehended and taken to cryo-freeze in the bat-cave with Bane. Checkmate seemingly suffers a deathblow as media and the world at large gets wind of its activities (thanks in part to Diana and Grayson releasing Checkmate files and making the topic trend on social media). Checkmate moles and operatives are arrested throughout the world. Checkmate facilities are raided by Diana’s CIA and FBI contacts. Wayne Enterprises is seen to be aggressively buying up Luthor companies left and right. Grayson opens up to Batman about his “episodes” and his fears that he might be turning into something like Bane or Katana –a Talon under the control of Checkmate. Bruce then confides that he feels that somehow, the fight has just begun. Bruce then assures Grayson that no matter what the future holds, he will always be there to stand between the people and those who mean harm, and that for the first time in a long time, he now feels he’s not alone. Grayson asks Batman what he means by “not alone”, Bruce smiles back saying “looks like you’re not the only boy wonder around”. We then see a montage of “hero scenes” cross-fading with on-screen info that the Trinity captured from Checkmate: info about Barry Allen crossfading with a speeding streak of red/yellow light stopping a mugging; info about an “Aquaman” crossfading with an obscure man rescuing a drowning fisherman; finally the scene fades back to Diana, still doing charity and volunteer work, but we catch a quick glimpse of her “Wonder Woman” costume underneath her drab Red Cross outfit. She looks up in the sky and the camera pans upward and then down into a remote site in the North Pole; from an aerial view, we can barely make out Kal-El’s pod sitting in the middle of the snow; it’s glowing warmly, and then suddenly a burst of bright light and Superman’s theme swells in the background and then transitions to the Justice League theme as the credits roll. Post-credits scenes number 1: We see Tess Mercer sitting on a lonely prison cell. She is visited by an obscure man. Mercer is visibly afraid; she tries to reason with the man, saying that she has accomplished the union of the Knights and the Black Queen and that she has greatly progressed Checkmate’s timetable. The man agrees with her but tells her that she has been weighed and that her blunders are greater than her accomplishments. Mercer resigns to her fate and asks how she would be eliminated. The man laughs softly and remarks “But you will not be taken off the game, my sweet, the Black King (Luthor) saw to that himself. No. You are simply stripped of your authority. You are no longer a rook, not even a pawn.” “What am I to be then?” asks Mercer. The man laughs again. “A spectator” he answers. Post-credits scene 2: A plush office. Luthor is seated on his executive chair, contemplating. On his table is a laptop and an assortment of files –pictures of the “red/yellow streak”, pictures of ancient carvings/wall paintings/pottery depicting people riding the waves of the sea, arcane artifacts, star charts, specs sheets of different gizmos/tech, a folder labelled ‘Green meteorite sightings and witness accounts’, and most ominously, a miniature model of what looks like a mother-box. The scene is shot in total silence (no ambient music, save for the sounds of the street below). Finally Luthor looks up into his laptop screen and smiles. On the screen we see that he’s “chatting” with someone. We read the words “Board clear. Permission to proceed?” Final post-credits scene: A dark room. We see a faint silhouette of a man seated. The man is talking; whether he is monologue-ing or talking to someone is anyone’s guess. The voice is faint, but we recognize that it belongs to the White King –we hear scraps of words like “control”, “according to plan”, “Omega”, “not entirely useless”, and “yes...yes, of course”. The camera closes in on the White King and he slowly looks up; the light is too dim for us to see his face fully but as his head levels with the camera, we see his eyes are mechanical red and on his forehead, three circles linked together in a triangular pattern.So this movie ends my DCEU Volume 1. I know not all of you Quorans will agree with my take; some might even say that this is way worse than the current DCEU. But hey, a guy can dream, right?6. Volume 2 will kick off with a darker, humorless, possibly R-18 Suicide Squad movie that will pit Waller against Sam Lane set after the events of Justice League, while Lois Lane is caught in the middle while playing the part of an investigative reporter out to dig deeper into the Checkmate hole. At the end of this movie, one will be revealed a villain and one will be revealed as the (anti-) hero. This movie will serve as a launching pad for what happens to Checkmate now that the Trinity has put a monkey wrench on their plans. I think this should also be the last movie appearance of Sam Lane, so Lois (not Superman though) is in this movie to give a human dimension to General Lane’s demise. The theme of the movie will be double-cross, deception, and doing whatever it takes to achieve a goal one perceives to be just. The post-credits scene will show Clark Kent returning just in time to comfort Lois after her ordeal.7. After Suicide Squad, I’ll start rolling off origin movies for Aquaman, Green Lantern, and a non-origin movie for the Flash (but with references to how he got his powers). The movies will have cameos from the Batman, Wonder Woman, and of course, our dear surviving Checkmate villains. The movies will provide a strong base for these title characters and hopefully will reignite interest in seeing a massive DC heroes’ team-up movie.8. Before setting off another Justice League, I’ll release a Superman sequel where the machinations of Luthor and how it all fits with the Checkmate agenda are further revealed. The main villain of this movie shall be Metallo –a “Talon” candidate sequestered by Luthor and transformed into something deadlier. The pod will be revealed to have “grown” into a full-fledged Fortress in the Artic wastes, well-hidden from prying eyes. Batman will also have a friendly cameo.9. Wonder Woman 3 will have Diana dealing with her Olympian heritage as it is revealed that a child with the god-spark has been born. The Amazons hope the child will grow up and reignite the life-force of the Greek gods, but in the wrong hands, the child can spell the doom of all. Diana must protect the child and his mother from mysterious threats even as she figures out the best course of action to take. The main villain is a character called “the First-born” and the origins of the Greek gods and the Amazons will be revisited. Green Lantern will have a cameo in this movie. Diana will have to make a very difficult choice at the end of the movie.10. Batman 2 will set off the events that will lead to a final confrontation with Luthor (Black King). The fate of Nightwing will be settled (and a possible Grayson 2 hinted at), and Batman will take on a new Robin as he continues his battle against crime.11. Justice League Chapter 2: Doom for All – in this movie, which will cap off Volume 2 of my DCEU, Luthor’s plan will all be laid bare. We get an exciting thrill-ride as Superman and Wonder Woman act as recruiters to bring in new members like the Flash, Aquaman, and Green Lantern, while Batman uncovers just exactly how deep the Checkmate hole really goes. The heroes must unite against Luthor’s final gambit as Checkmate’s Black King: an army of Metallo-like drones run by a sinister AI, Brainiac (yes! The same AI that courses through Superman’s Fortress) led by a gene-spliced, Kryptonite enhanced, hybrid super armor-wearing general: Luthor himself! As the fate of the world hangs in a balance, Luthor will reveal the true purpose of Checkmate: to unite the world under one rule and to force the next step of human evolution in order to create a warrior race fully capable of facing an invasion. The Justice League, along with their allies from all over the world (ARGUS, UN, and even Waller’s rogue Checkmate off-shoot, Task Force X), fights an epic all-out battle against Luthor. In the aftermath, we see our heroes extending a helping hand to the leaders of the world, vowing that no matter what comes next, the Justice League will stand as Earth’s protectors. At the post-credits scene, we see all Luthor assets seized by Wayne Enterprises as Checkmate dissolves and Luthor is taken to a max security, solitary prison. Alone in his cell, Luthor breaks out laughing hysterically and then burst into tears. His last words are “Well played, White King. Woe unto the Earth.” Another post-credit scene will take us to an unknown spaceship parked in an unknown region of space. We see the White King (now obviously Brainiac) monitoring several hundreds of screens at the same time. We catch glimpses of Green Lantern members (what’s he doing, spying on Oa?), Justice League members, different planets and life-forms in their natural habitat. Finally Brainiac speaks: “Do your best Darkseid. I have found the perfect defenders for my collection.”At this point, either my vision for the DCEU is ultra-successful and I’ve been put on a lifetime retainer salary by Warner and DC, or everything is a total disaster and I’m out in the streets looking for work. Assuming it’s the former rather than the latter, I’ll move on with my Volume 3...that is, if I haven’t ran out of ideas yet :pThe stellar cast. Finally, to cap off (I’ve never actually written an answer this long before) this answer, a list of who I’d pick for my vision of the DCEU.1. Superman – no more Henry Cavill (sorry Henry, I’m still a fan of your work though). Henry’s great and all but I’d want someone who has a wider range of acting (Henry is actually a great actor, but he’s kinda stiff as Superman TBH). I think I’ll probably go with Armie Hammer, with Sam Claflin as a close second choice.2. Wonder Woman – Gal Gadot. Shame on you for thinking I would replace her.3. Batman – people would tell me Jon Hamm, but if I could, I’d retain Ben Affleck. Failing that, it’d be a close call between Kyle Chandler and Wes Bentley.4. The Flash – Dave Franco seem like a shoo-in for this one.5. Green Lantern – my choice/s would run the gamut from Idris Elba, Michael B. Jordan, Tyler Posey, and Zac Efron (don’t laugh this one off, he might just have what it takes).6. Aquaman – Jason Momoa is out (aaawww...but hear me out). In his place, a ripped and rugged, but not overly bearded Alexander Skarsgard.7. Grayson – I have only one choice for this bad boy. Jake Gyllenhaal.8. Amanda Waller – I think I’ll have no problem recalling Viola Davis for this role.9. Sam Lane – this role could go David Strathairn or Jon Voight.10. Voice and Silhouette of Brainiac – I can only think of Colin Firth’s sinister, silky, upper-class voice.11. Tess Mercer – Bryce Dallas Howard is my pick to play this cold, calculating CEO.12. Lex Luthor – Mark Strong is the obvious choice to play the Black King. Think him acting opposite Colin Firth’s Brainiac.13. Martha Kent – automatically goes to Diane Lane. Come on guys, the “Martha line” is not her fault!14. Alfred Pennyworth – I could give the role to Gabriel Byrne.15. Lois Lane – Jenna Coleman would be perfect to play this feisty, inventive, and smart reporter who would later be the love of Superman’s life. Plus, imagine Jenna playing Jon Voight’s daughter.Final thoughts:I’d totally not hire Hans Zimmer again. Why? Because, reportedly, he bad-mouthed DCEU and Ben Affleck when he announced he will quit scoring superhero movies. Then later, he is reported to confirm doing the score for X-Men. That makes him a pariah in my book. My movies will be scored by James Horner, Howard Shore, Pharell Williams, James Newton Howard, and Michael Giacchino.