Talk:Gavan McCormack

Rubbish removed concerning libellous statements to do with position on Pol Pot.
 * And a little bit more I see. What is libellous about what was said about GM?  Either he said that there was no genocide in Cambodia or he did not.  It looks to me as if he did.  What is libellous about pointing that out?  Lao Wai 14:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * With a little trivial effort I find what GM did say in 1980 was
 * McCormack, Gavan, The Kampuchean Revolution 1975-1978: The Problem of Knowing the Truth, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 10:1/2 (1980) pp. 20-21
 * Are we looking at a situation like that in post-war France, where, by the most conservative estimate, 30,000 to 40,000 people were massacred in the wake of liberation [sic] in 1945, but with social and class antagonism inflamed infinitely in the Kampuchean case .... Or are we looking at a clear case of genocide?
 * The evidence points to ... the existence of large-scale unnecessary violence and to a deep gulf separating the regime from the masses in whoe name it claimed to act, though not pointing to genocide.
 * McCormack, Gavan, The Kampuchean Revolution 1975-1978: The Problem of Knowing the Truth, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 10:1/2 (1980) p. 32
 * The notion of a regime that slaughtered millions, or engaged in genocide upon its own people is not one that the evidence so far substantiates.
 * So there you have it. It was either 30,000 to 40,000 (plus a bit more thanks to the Americans) or it was genocide and it was not genocide.  What is that other than denying genocide in Kampuchea?  The guy is not ashamed of what he said.  He puts the links on his webpage.  Why should anyone else be?  Lao Wai 15:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that as denying genocide outright. Clearly he is acknowledging large-scale killing. Scrutinising the evidence is not a denial.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)