"They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:25 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:If the facts are different to what's in D-H's posts - I also know that since Lemkin there's been controversy about this question, ranging from Wheatcroft and Ellman and Himka to two authors I was alerted to read today, Werth and Kuromiya - and show an intent to destroy the Ukrainian people and a systematic, persistent, conclusive effort to do so, those facts would mean defining the situation as a genocide using the narrower view.


Ellman argues they were targeted as a social class and that the famine as a target against the peasantry was not just the Ukraine, Don region, and the national autonomies of the North Caucasus region. But also the Lower Volga.

Werth also argues the famine was genocide, I would recommend his 2016 article on the matter.

That's one I plan to read. Just to state it - I hope to get through pieces by Kuromiya, Ellman, Himka, Marples, Werth, Graziosi, Wheatcroft, representing both sides of the controversy.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Denying-History » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:17 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:Or in other words, does a genocide need to be 100% successful to deserve the term "genocide"?

No, it has to aim at a destruction of the target group - not another policy aim or goal, which, if achieved, brings the assault to a halt.

That seems too fit into the category though, no one has argued that the intent was to kill everyone and was only intended to kill a portion of the targeted group.

My reply was to Balsamo's question. I don't think you raised that old straw man! Heck, as we both know the UN definition says "intent to destroy, in whole or in part." My earlier question was how much of a part . . . but that was a general question, not about points you raised! So I was replying to Balsamo . . .


No I am definitely aware of what Balsamo said, Its just by the way you phrased things above I was left rather confused. By allowing one to kill a portion of the targeted group It seems too me the Ukrainian case would fit within the 1948 definition. I am lost on two factors, most likely because I didn't read your entry into the matter very carefully.

1) Lemkins definition allowed for the targeting of social groups. On instinct I believe you would say no with the point on "stricter"definition.

2) That the Ukrainian case was only to kill people in part. Which again I think falls under the areas I bolded from the 1948 definition, are you saying that international definition is too vague?

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:On the otherhand I am confused by this point.

I am trying to draw a distinction about perpetrator side intent. There are many massive destructive actions that are undertaken for different reasons and I'm trying to make distinctions among them, and worried that the UN "broad" definition falls short. It's really that simple.

Except those perpetrating the famine knew full well what was happening and what they were doing. Its quite clear that Stalin viewed the 1933 famine as a fight with Ukrainian nationalists and his methods of doing so were via the usage of the famine. Postyshev himself outlined how the fight was carried out in 1934:

"Last year was... the defeat of the nationalist counter-revolution, the exposure and the defeat of the nationalist bias led by Skrypnik."
"... the power of the significance of daily management by the CC of the CPSU (b) and Comrade Stalin is particularly visible in the correction of errors and failures of the CP(b)U"
"when it was said: beat him, the nationalist, the counterrevolutionary. beat this scum, beat harder, don't be afraid, these activists, party members, Komsomol members started working... Bolshevik-style, and the collective farms progressed."


Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:I don't think it was argued that Stalin viewed this as the nature of the peasantry as a whole during the period.

I am not sure why that quotation is used so often. IIRC it is from polemics on the policy of Communists in Yugoslavia in the 1920s. I've seen it quoted as being conclusive of something. It's not.

Denying-History wrote:The point was during the period Stalin came to view that “The esteemed grain growers were in essence waging a 'quiet' war against Soviet power. A war by starvation.”

Almost a decade later than that quotation.


Its roughly under seven years difference. If I remember correctly however he covers the topics in "the foundations to Leninism" with more or less a similar veneer.

Denying-History wrote:
Denying-History wrote:It seems what you are missing is that they were targeted as "Ukrainian citizens" which falls under the category of nationality, I think the issue is you keep relating them to a social target.

It's more that I am asking whether the intention was to destroy Ukraine/Ukrainians - or to force concessions on policy and to put down resistance. As I said, that's an empirical question I can't answer - but as I read what you posted, it seemed to suggest that the actions were more in the vein of forcing concessions.

That doesn't seem to deviate much from the way I put it. Targeting a group not for their nationality but for social reasons such as "forcing concessions" vs targeting the group because of regional affiliation as a collective punishment.

Denying-History wrote:One question to ask - and the answer won't fully address the issues - is whether the target group can give in on policy or whether there's nothing it can do to stop the destruction. Back to the FS, from my reading the Nazis' intent was destruction of Jewry. Jews could not stop the persecution and destruction by ending some resistance movement, by giving up war against Germany, by halting black market trading, by being more hygienic, by no longer pulling Allied wires, by giving up Communism, by no longer intermarrying with Aryans - or by any other action addressing Nazi paranoid fantasies, because the intent wasn't these issues but dealing a death blow to the Jews.

If the same is true with regard to Stalin and the Ukraine, then the Ukraine situation would qualify as a genocide under a narrower definition than the UN's. On its face.


That seems to be levying it away from what happened in Ukraine. This was a policy that was enacted as a punishment, its not something that Stalin would just end over night because all the rebels put down their arms. 1933 for the soviets was to become "the defeat of Ukrainian nationalist counter-revolution." Stalin's policy was as Ellman put it a "knock out blow" the final destruction to put away any revival of Ukrainian statehood. This came with the destruction of Ukrainization and subduing the peasants via mass starvation. “It would be unwise for the communists, proceeding from the fact that collective farms are a socialist form of economy, to fail to respond to the blow of these individual collective farmers and collective farms with a destructive blow...” as Stalin would put it.

Read more on UNIAN: https://www.unian.info/society/143515-t ... rdict.html
« Yes, that may surprise some people, including my colleagues. But have no illusions. I never compelled anybody to work for me, just as we didn't compel the German people. They themselves gave us the job to do. Why did you work with me? Now, you'll have your little throat cut...but the earth will shake when we leave the scene... »
- Joseph Goebbels

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Denying-History » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:If the facts are different to what's in D-H's posts - I also know that since Lemkin there's been controversy about this question, ranging from Wheatcroft and Ellman and Himka to two authors I was alerted to read today, Werth and Kuromiya - and show an intent to destroy the Ukrainian people and a systematic, persistent, conclusive effort to do so, those facts would mean defining the situation as a genocide using the narrower view.


Ellman argues they were targeted as a social class and that the famine as a target against the peasantry was not just the Ukraine, Don region, and the national autonomies of the North Caucasus region. But also the Lower Volga.

Werth also argues the famine was genocide, I would recommend his 2016 article on the matter.

That's one I plan to read. Just to state it - I hope to get through pieces by Kuromiya, Ellman, Himka, Marples, Werth, Graziosi, Wheatcroft, representing both sides of the controversy.

Marples is alright, although mind most of his writings are overviews not really comments on the famine, but comments on scholarship. Though I would also recommend Kulchytsky, most of his writings have been translated and published in the day. (sadly without citation though).
« Yes, that may surprise some people, including my colleagues. But have no illusions. I never compelled anybody to work for me, just as we didn't compel the German people. They themselves gave us the job to do. Why did you work with me? Now, you'll have your little throat cut...but the earth will shake when we leave the scene... »
- Joseph Goebbels

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:10 pm

Denying-History wrote:. . . Its just by the way you phrased things above I was left rather confused. By allowing one to kill a portion of the targeted group It seems too me the Ukrainian case would fit within the 1948 definition. I am lost on two factors, most likely because I didn't read your entry into the matter very carefully.

1) Lemkins definition allowed for the targeting of social groups. On instinct I believe you would say no with the point on "stricter"definition.

2) That the Ukrainian case was only to kill people in part. Which again I think falls under the areas I bolded from the 1948 definition, are you saying that international definition is too vague?

Not exactly. I'm trying to draw a distinction on the grounds of intent. "Part" was not what I was thinking about in the case of Ukraine. And taking into account the "in part" element of the UN definition of genocide doesn't get at my question about intent.

(My initial thought, in the OP, was really to clarify aspects of the UN definition: what is meant by intent - and whether in fact intent is a defining feature as the UN definition states; what kinds of perpetration are envisioned - from actors to systematic and persistent character; how seriously to take "any of the following" for reasons already noted; how to think about "in whole or in part" - and whether we need to think about something like "in substantial part"; whether there can be local genocides - whether local, ad hoc, improvised massacres cumulate into a genocide without an overall intent, etc.)

Denying-History wrote:Except those perpetrating the famine knew full well what was happening and what they were doing. Its quite clear that Stalin viewed the 1933 famine as a fight with Ukrainian nationalists

Ah, this gets at the key issue: a fight with nationalists is not, IMO, the same as a genocide. There have been many suppressions of nationalist movements and uprisings in 20th century history, and ones using horrific violence, and I don't see how these were genocides. I will take a case we've been discussing in another thread recently, the US intervention in Vietnam, which I view from the Vietnamese side as nationalist at core. Algeria. Certain revolts against the Ottomans. Ireland's independence movement. And so on.

(Just to note, what you're quoting again sounds like something different to the Final Solution, to me . . . )

Denying-History wrote:That doesn't seem to deviate much from the way I put it. Targeting a group not for their nationality but for social reasons such as "forcing concessions" vs targeting the group because of regional affiliation as a collective punishment.

The narrow definition would rule these cases out as genocides.

Denying-History wrote:. . . its not something that Stalin would just end over night because all the rebels put down their arms.

I didn't mean to imply that but rather the dynamic of the action. If the dynamic was the same as how I characterized the FS, then it would be genocide as I'm thinking through a narrower definition. I'm not following this well enough at this point . . . the dissonance is that everything you quote seems to support the view that the Ukrainian action fundamentally differed from the FS.

Denying-History wrote:Ellman put it a "knock out blow" the final destruction to put away any revival of Ukrainian statehood.

Are defeating a national movement and denying statehood by forceful measures a genocide? Is imposing an economic form on various regions a genocide? If these things constitute, by definition, genocides, then I think we need a different concept for the FS and Armenian situations.

Again, I'll read more on Ukraine to refresh my memory and expand what I can talk about. But, from this exchange, using the same concept to embrace Ukraine, just based on this back and forth, and the FS seems like too blunt a tool.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Balsamo » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:16 am

Statmec:
I am trying to draw a distinction about perpetrator side intent. There are many massively destructive actions that are undertaken for different reasons and I'm trying to make distinctions among them, and worried that the UN "broad" definition of genocide falls short in this regard. It's really that simple.


Simple? Certainly not.
You did ask many questions in your OP... The topic itself is a pandora box that could unleash a great deal of parameters...

My reply was to Balsamo's question. I don't think you raised that old straw man! Heck, as we both know the UN definition says "intent to destroy, in whole or in part." My earlier question was how much of a part . . . but that was a general question, not about points you raised! So I was replying to Balsamo . . .
[/quote]

I did not mean to throw a Straw man, but to ask for more explanation to the phrase you used...which was not clear...as wasn't clear your distinction between "genocidal atrocity" and "genocide"...
It is obvious that you can kill - in a genocidal way for whatever that mean - group of people without a genocidal aim (anti-partisan operations for example).
I did not mean that you would think that a genocide if only completed when successful, but to point out that your phrase could be understood as such, hence the asking for explanation.

But again, the UN definition was not meant to produce some kind of scholar definition of what constitutes a genocide. Which is what i explained in my first post: it defines what constitutes the "crime of genocide" on a legal basis in order to prosecute those tempted to commit the crime IN THE FUTURE. It was not meant to be used as a conceptual definition to be used in social science - as you and other pointed out - there are various definition of genocide available, and i guess it is anyone's sensibility to accept one or the other.

To create its norm, the UN got inspiration from Lemkin, but only partly. It did not include the "cultural genocide", also did not include the concept of genocide "social classes" which, IIRC, was present in the IMT definition.
It kept the concept of intent by State or State-like authority, and the aims of destruction, focusing on the means (crime weapons) that would allowed the hypothetical International criminal court to judge this crime positively. The final result of such a policy does not matter in the context of the UN.
And given the nature of the UN, indeed, some restrictions were brought in order not to put other State members in a state of guilt:
- Social classes, in case of this inclusion, it would have put most communist States in trouble.
- Homosexuals for the similar reasons.
- Colonization of course as by 1948, most European powers were still colonial powers.
etc.

So it is worrying only in the sense that - on a strict legal perspective - if the target group is for examples the British Nobility or some European homosexuals, it would not fit the legal definition of genocide, which is absurd.
I don't think there are disagreement on that.

The important point regarding the 1948 legal definition is that it focus on the crime itself not on its consequences, the definition is the basis for indictment, not condemnation. It supposed a Trial that would establish the facts and issues sentences. Mladic was charged with the crime of genocide, his defense opposed and the court declared him guilty as charged.
Justice has spoken.
But that does not prevent intellectuals from debating of what the Serbs of Bosnia did to muslim Bosnians or Croats was or was not a genocide, if it can be compared to the Final Solution or not.

What i mean here is that the UN definition has no Scientific or Academic ambitions, only juristic and legal ones.
Last edited by Balsamo on Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Denying-History » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:18 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Not exactly. I'm trying to draw a distinction on the grounds of intent. "Part" was not what I was thinking about in the case of Ukraine. And taking into account the "in part" element of the UN definition of genocide doesn't get at my question about intent.

(My initial thought, in the OP, was really to clarify aspects of the UN definition: what is meant by intent - and whether in fact intent is a defining feature as the UN definition states; what kinds of perpetration are envisioned - from actors to systematic and persistent character; how seriously to take "any of the following" for reasons already noted; how to think about "in whole or in part" - and whether we need to think about something like "in substantial part"; whether there can be local genocides - whether local, ad hoc, improvised massacres cumulate into a genocide without an overall intent, etc.)

My point behind being "too vague" is what disagreements do you have besides what the perpetrators "envisioned" as the character of the assault. Every implication given so far that has been passed as a reason for disagreement is the wording of the targeted by the perpetrators. If you want to be more exact another testimonial form a speech was rather crude on the matter. “Starvation in Ukraine was brought about in order to reduce the number of Ukrainians, resettle in their place people from another part of the USSR, and in this way kill all thought of independence” was the words of a government plenipotentiary on the 12 May 1934. This all for me fits the UN defining rather well, similarly to how Roman Serbyn has argued.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Except those perpetrating the famine knew full well what was happening and what they were doing. Its quite clear that Stalin viewed the 1933 famine as a fight with Ukrainian nationalists

Ah, this gets at the key issue: a fight with nationalists is not, IMO, the same as a genocide. There have been many suppressions of nationalist movements and uprisings in 20th century history, and ones using horrific violence, and I don't see how these were genocides. I will take a case we've been discussing in another thread recently, the US intervention in Vietnam, which I view from the Vietnamese side as nationalist at core. Algeria. Certain revolts against the Ottomans. Ireland's independence movement. And so on.

(Just to note, what you're quoting again sounds like something different to the Final Solution, to me . . . )

The context being is that the "nationalists" too him were the "esteemed grain growers"... Aka the citizens of the Ukrainian soviet socialist republic. By targeting this "country" they target a nationality, it is not the same as Vietnam guerrillas.

(This is implying that the Holocaust itself was a model for describing how a genocide happens, which is far from a perfect way to do thing. Leo Kuper wrote a pretty good work that put out the observation that "governments hardly declare and document genocidal plans in the manner of the Nazis". The point you seem to miss is that the Ukrainians were not targeted in the same way that the Jews were. As Kulchytsky put it in 2005 "We will never prove...that people died in 1933 in the USSR as a result of their national affiliation, i.e., in the same way that Armenians died in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, or Jews in the European countries that were occupied by Hitler's Reich. And there is no need to prove this, because the mechanism of the Soviet genocide was different. The terror by famine that Stalin unleashed on Ukraine and the Kuban was an act of genocide against Ukrainian citizens, not Ukrainians.")

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:That doesn't seem to deviate much from the way I put it. Targeting a group not for their nationality but for social reasons such as "forcing concessions" vs targeting the group because of regional affiliation as a collective punishment.

The narrow definition would rule these cases out as genocides.

You do know that by "regional affiliation" I mean country no? If I take over France and start exterminating the French citizens, that is genocide because I am murdering the French because of their nationality. The same would be true if I was the president of Spain and then decide to kill the population of the Basque region because of Basque separatists.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:. . . its not something that Stalin would just end over night because all the rebels put down their arms.

I didn't mean to imply that but rather the dynamic of the action. If the dynamic was the same as how I characterized the FS, then it would be genocide as I'm thinking through a narrower definition. I'm not following this well enough at this point . . . the dissonance is that everything you quote seems to support the view that the Ukrainian action fundamentally differed from the FS..

This is again implying that the extermination of the Ukrainians was due to their race... Which it is not. The Jews were exterminated by definition of race given too them by the Nazis.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Ellman put it a "knock out blow" the final destruction to put away any revival of Ukrainian statehood.

Are defeating a national movement and denying statehood by forceful measures a genocide? Is imposing an economic form on various regions a genocide? If these things constitute, by definition, genocides, then I think we need a different concept for the FS and Armenian situations..
Would using state power to ethnically cleanse a region to prevent it from leaving your country count as genocide? Like I think this is something we should actually consider outside the topic of the Ukraine famine... Let just say Catalonia or Occitan attempted to leave Spain and or France and then the local government went in and started murdering citizens because of their ethnicity and or national identity on a systematic scale, all as a measure of preventing that territory from leaving your own, doesn't that count as genocide to you?

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Again, I'll read more on Ukraine to refresh my memory and expand what I can talk about. But, from this exchange, using the same concept to embrace Ukraine, just based on this back and forth, and the FS seems like too blunt a tool.


That's fine, I am not expecting instantaneous replies or the conversation to keep alive for any great period of time. I'm just confused by some of your points.
« Yes, that may surprise some people, including my colleagues. But have no illusions. I never compelled anybody to work for me, just as we didn't compel the German people. They themselves gave us the job to do. Why did you work with me? Now, you'll have your little throat cut...but the earth will shake when we leave the scene... »
- Joseph Goebbels

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:20 am

Denying-History wrote:My point behind being "too vague" is what disagreements do you have besides what the perpetrators "envisioned" as the character of the assault.

Intent is what I am asking about in this case, given what you've posted.

To be clear, I'm not really disagreeing but trying to zero on in a minimum definition of genocide - and then try it out, so to speak. In this case, one part of the conventional definition (more on this below) doesn't seem to be met.

The comparative issue is important for me.

Denying-History wrote:This all for me fits the UN defining rather well

I don't disagree but I am questioning the UN definition. It seems that you are more focused on applying to UN definition whilst I am more focused on questioning it.

Denying-History wrote:The context being is that the "nationalists" too him were the "esteemed grain growers"... Aka the citizens of the Ukrainian soviet socialist republic. By targeting this "country" they target a nationality, it is not the same as Vietnam guerrillas.

But as you cited Ellman, "Ellman argues they were targeted as a social class and that the famine as a target against the peasantry was not just the Ukraine, Don region, and the national autonomies of the North Caucasus region. But also the Lower Volga." Still, your reply helps me understand your pov better: you are not saying that an operation aimed at crushing a national uprising is per se genocide. Right?

Denying-History wrote:(This is implying that the Holocaust itself was a model for describing how a genocide happens, which is far from a perfect way to do thing.

Agree, which is why I keep mentioning the Armenians, too.

Denying-History wrote:The point you seem to miss is that the Ukrainians were not targeted in the same way that the Jews were.

Actually, that's the point I am trying to make!

Denying-History wrote:As Kulchytsky put it in 2005 "We will never prove...that people died in 1933 in the USSR as a result of their national affiliation, i.e., in the same way that Armenians died in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, or Jews in the European countries that were occupied by Hitler's Reich. And there is no need to prove this, because the mechanism of the Soviet genocide was different. The terror by famine that Stalin unleashed on Ukraine and the Kuban was an act of genocide against Ukrainian citizens, not Ukrainians.")

This is a conclusion, but it may also depend on how one defines genocide, which has us in a tail chasing discussion! You know, of course, better than I do that there's controversy over whether the Ukraine situation was a genocide. I promise I will dig into that controversy - even though my real aim with this thread was to think about whether the UN definition is the best. I plan to read Mann first of all on this latter point.

I think you're ready to conclude that the UN definition is strong - in a social science sense; I'm not. Even if I fully accepted the UN definition, and found it useful for making these distinctions, I would still need to know more about the empirical issue of intent in the case of Ukraine. I get the legal applicability of the definition, and am not necessarily opposed to its broad thrust in court, but not, as I said to bobbo, the social science usefulness of the UN's definition - and I see it used in social science contexts.

Denying-History wrote:If I take over France and start exterminating the French citizens, that is genocide because I am murdering the French because of their nationality.

But if you take over France, and start murdering French people because they resist your policies, it's different. Sure, you're murdering them in part because they're French - but if they accept your demands, you will stop murdering them. My question hinges on this: isn't this different to a situation in which you won't stop murdering them even if they accede. Or, say, you occupy France, start killing resisters, and you also carry out a small number of murders of French civilians because they're imagined to be resistant. Is that genocide?

Viva la France! btw.

I am not trying to rank atrocities, by the way; I am trying to understand what is like and what is different, at a core level.

Denying-History wrote:This is again implying that the extermination of the Ukrainians was due to their race

Not at all. Where do you get that?

Denying-History wrote:Would using state power to ethnically cleanse a region to prevent it from leaving your country count as genocide?

"Ethnically cleanse" is a different thing, I'm not following. It sounds to me like you're describing here, but I don't quite follow, an "ethnocide" - targeted, selective, ethnically directed massacres and murder actions that have aims different to destroying the group substantially (I don't think this is exactly Mann's definition but I've read others using it, for ethnocide).

Denying-History wrote:Like I think this is something we should actually consider outside the topic of the Ukraine famine... Let just say Catalonia or Occitan attempted to leave Spain and or France and then the local government went in and started murdering citizens because of their ethnicity and or national identity on a systematic scale, all as a measure of preventing that territory from leaving your own, doesn't that count as genocide to you?

If their goal was to destroy the people as a people, not to prevent an action, yes. But if the goal were to prevent secession, I would see this more as "genocidal massacres" - these would be grave crimes against humanity.

I am sorry that I am not being clear. But I do see a distinction between action aimed at making a group extinct and action aimed at enforcing a policy or preventing an action. The difference is that in the latter case, when the policy is enforced or the action prevented, the logic is that the extermination ends, whereas that is not the case when the aim is destruction of the target group, no matter what. These two cases just seem to me to have different logic, albeit a great deal of overlap. And it is comparative logic that I'm after and which I think the UN's (legalistic?) definition doesn't solve for.

Denying-History wrote:I'm just confused by some of your points.

And apparently I still can't explain it - though it is ultra clear in my own mind! LOL
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8225
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:14 pm

Yeah, it’s going to take all weekend trying to get caught up on this thread.... :lol:
When my son had his barmitzvah, and his wedding, there was no family whatsoever -that’s the way the second and third generation feel the Holocaust, they miss their family. My son hasn’t experienced a family life –having uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers. There is just that hole.
Edith Baneth
Savage Continent

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:40 pm

I plan to pause now and come back after reading Mann. Which won't be right away.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Denying-History » Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:03 pm

Then you missed the point, yes under a stronger definition the the UN 1948 ruling would exclude the holodomor. Personally though I think the 1948 definition is fine as it is. But to keep the subject from rolling on as you plan on doing I will wait for you to post your thoughts on Mann.
« Yes, that may surprise some people, including my colleagues. But have no illusions. I never compelled anybody to work for me, just as we didn't compel the German people. They themselves gave us the job to do. Why did you work with me? Now, you'll have your little throat cut...but the earth will shake when we leave the scene... »
- Joseph Goebbels

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Balsamo » Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:11 pm

Statmec:

Intent is what I am asking about in this case, given what you've posted.


Stalin wanted to turned a multi ethnic empire into a centralized republic of Soviets, with a defined "Soviet Man" in mind, freed from former "superstition" and " dangerous ideas". One of the mean he used was to practice the same kind of "demographic engineering" policy as the Nazi will used.
As Denying History pointed out, and also mentioned in Lemkin's article, Stalin's policy in the Ukraine managed to reduce the part of Ukraininans in Ukraine's demography from 80% to 63%, the 63% having been stripped of their intelligentsia and religious authorities, hence making their transformation into "Good Soviet fellows" easier, or so he thought.

Same policies are to be found in other Soviet Republics, especially in the Baltic States, where the elites were liquidated, huge portions of Baltics were deported and replaced by Russians, with the same "INTENTION" to harmonize the population with pure "Soviet values", to derstroy the roots of those Nationals values and cultures, history or whatever could prevent their assimilation/integration in the big soviet federation.

By the early 1920, the Russian minority living in the Baltic was merely around 7%, Stalin's policies will steadily rise this minority to over 30%.
By 1989, The Russians represented 37% of the population of Latvia, 30% of Estonia, but only 10% of Lithuania.
Those "demographic engineering policies" all implied the liquidation of the Elites, intelligentsia/religious, a policy of massive deportation of population.

This "demographic engineering" perfectly fits with Lemkin's definition of a Genocide, and as a matter of fact with the UN definition he inspired.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Denying-History » Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:31 pm

Balsamo wrote:As Denying History pointed out, and also mentioned in Lemkin's article, Stalin's policy in the Ukraine managed to reduce the part of Ukraininans in Ukraine's demography from 80% to 63%, the 63% having been stripped of their intelligentsia and religious authorities, hence making their transformation into "Good Soviet fellows" easier, or so he thought.

Balsamo, you are aware that Lemkins figures are incorrect right?

Image
« Yes, that may surprise some people, including my colleagues. But have no illusions. I never compelled anybody to work for me, just as we didn't compel the German people. They themselves gave us the job to do. Why did you work with me? Now, you'll have your little throat cut...but the earth will shake when we leave the scene... »
- Joseph Goebbels

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:38 pm

Denying-History wrote:Then you missed the point, yes under a stronger definition the the UN 1948 ruling would exclude the holodomor. Personally though I think the 1948 definition is fine as it is. But to keep the subject from rolling on as you plan on doing I will wait for you to post your thoughts on Mann.

I am still missing the point, I have to say. Maybe after I've read Mann I can ask different questions to elicit what the point is :)

I do think there's a problem using a (mostly) legal definition for analytical purposes.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:52 pm

Balsamo wrote:This "demographic engineering" perfectly fits with Lemkin's definition of a Genocide, and as a matter of fact with the UN definition he inspired.

I am really not making this clear, I can see: I'm not remotely saying that Ukraine doesn't fit the Lemkin or the UN definitions. I feel I've written this several times. That is not what I am mulling over. What I am mulling over are the Lemkin and UN definitions, knowing for one thing that a lot of thinking and clarification and questioning has gone on since when they were developed. Then, secondarily, just because we got off on it, I am also aware that a number of students of Ukraine differ with what's being said here, so I am wondering about that and plan to read about that a lot more.

We seem to be discussing completely different topics, thus there is a lot of confusion. I'm actually more interested in questions than answers at this point.

One more time, another try :) : I am questioning the definition you guys are using. That's why I opened the thread. To discuss the concept of genocide in the light of questions I have begun to have about the UN definition, not to say which actions are genocides according to the definition I want to ask questions about.

Ok, this is very clear to me, but I am not conveying it, so I will try being clearer January after I've read Mann.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Denying-History » Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:30 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Then you missed the point, yes under a stronger definition the the UN 1948 ruling would exclude the holodomor. Personally though I think the 1948 definition is fine as it is. But to keep the subject from rolling on as you plan on doing I will wait for you to post your thoughts on Mann.

I am still missing the point, I have to say. Maybe after I've read Mann I can ask different questions to elicit what the point is :)

I do think there's a problem using a (mostly) legal definition for analytical purposes.


I can agree, but then that comes to samantics behind what counts. As I said I'll wait for your reading on Mann.

Mind the point of my original proposition was it fit the UN definition. You did create the thread to criticize the in definition. We'll see what proposition we come up with then decide if it fits the term of genocide.
Last edited by Denying-History on Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
« Yes, that may surprise some people, including my colleagues. But have no illusions. I never compelled anybody to work for me, just as we didn't compel the German people. They themselves gave us the job to do. Why did you work with me? Now, you'll have your little throat cut...but the earth will shake when we leave the scene... »
- Joseph Goebbels

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:35 pm

Phew, we now seem to be more on the same wave length, a little :)

I'll just add that social science concepts aren't merely semantics to me; if the terms are, then they aren't strong concepts. I'm not looking for labels but definitions that help understand phenomena that are different in critical aspects. It could even be that Mann, or someone else, will offer what I (we?) find to be a better definition of genocide than the UN's - but Ukraine, Armenia, the FS will all still be encompassed by it!
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8225
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:33 pm

OK, so (damnit) I looked into getting Harvest of Sorrow and The Dark Side of Democracy, it’s going to be a bit before I dig into them. Probably end of December/beginning of January, I’ll also look at Red Famine again.
When my son had his barmitzvah, and his wedding, there was no family whatsoever -that’s the way the second and third generation feel the Holocaust, they miss their family. My son hasn’t experienced a family life –having uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers. There is just that hole.
Edith Baneth
Savage Continent

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8225
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:35 pm

Mann also wrote a book on Fascism, I don’t remember if Stat Mech mentioned it.
When my son had his barmitzvah, and his wedding, there was no family whatsoever -that’s the way the second and third generation feel the Holocaust, they miss their family. My son hasn’t experienced a family life –having uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers. There is just that hole.
Edith Baneth
Savage Continent

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:47 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Mann also wrote a book on Fascism, I don’t remember if Stat Mech mentioned it.

Just obtained it :) along with Dark Side and Sources of Social Power vol II

Too many books to read . . .
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8225
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:58 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:Mann also wrote a book on Fascism, I don’t remember if Stat Mech mentioned it.

Just obtained it :) along with Dark Side and Sources of Social Power vol II

Too many books to read . . .



Yeah, this thread shifted my focus a bit. I can’t buy any books this close to Christmas, the accountant threatened to string me up by my thumbs.... :lol:
When my son had his barmitzvah, and his wedding, there was no family whatsoever -that’s the way the second and third generation feel the Holocaust, they miss their family. My son hasn’t experienced a family life –having uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers. There is just that hole.
Edith Baneth
Savage Continent

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8225
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:00 pm

It will force me to push the Lodz Chronicle back. I’m getting ready to finish “Iron Kingdom,” if I start Lodz now it will put me even farther behind.
When my son had his barmitzvah, and his wedding, there was no family whatsoever -that’s the way the second and third generation feel the Holocaust, they miss their family. My son hasn’t experienced a family life –having uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers. There is just that hole.
Edith Baneth
Savage Continent

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8225
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:06 pm

Now, I’ve been tossed a curve ball, just received notification that I have a book sitting in my que, “The Vietnam Wars.”

Alright, well.....tonight I’ll start on it.
When my son had his barmitzvah, and his wedding, there was no family whatsoever -that’s the way the second and third generation feel the Holocaust, they miss their family. My son hasn’t experienced a family life –having uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers. There is just that hole.
Edith Baneth
Savage Continent

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:10 pm

I have not read a single book on any other topic than our painful topic since 2008. Right now, a friend is urging me to break the streak and read Kate Manne's Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny . . .
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8225
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:31 pm

I take breaks from it, even though this is my primary focus and has been since 2012.
When my son had his barmitzvah, and his wedding, there was no family whatsoever -that’s the way the second and third generation feel the Holocaust, they miss their family. My son hasn’t experienced a family life –having uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers. There is just that hole.
Edith Baneth
Savage Continent

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Balsamo » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:48 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Balsamo wrote:As Denying History pointed out, and also mentioned in Lemkin's article, Stalin's policy in the Ukraine managed to reduce the part of Ukraininans in Ukraine's demography from 80% to 63%, the 63% having been stripped of their intelligentsia and religious authorities, hence making their transformation into "Good Soviet fellows" easier, or so he thought.

Balsamo, you are aware that Lemkins figures are incorrect right?

Image


No i was not. :lol:
I said from the start that i my knowledge of the Ukraine crisis was very limited.
But then, where does your chart come from? It would be interesting to compare both author's sources.
This is the reason why i switched to the Baltic States which were only recently annexed to Baltic States.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Denying-History » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:08 am

Balsamo wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Balsamo wrote:As Denying History pointed out, and also mentioned in Lemkin's article, Stalin's policy in the Ukraine managed to reduce the part of Ukraininans in Ukraine's demography from 80% to 63%, the 63% having been stripped of their intelligentsia and religious authorities, hence making their transformation into "Good Soviet fellows" easier, or so he thought.

Balsamo, you are aware that Lemkins figures are incorrect right?

Image


No i was not. :lol:
I said from the start that i my knowledge of the Ukraine crisis was very limited.
But then, where does your chart come from? It would be interesting to compare both author's sources.
This is the reason why i switched to the Baltic States which were only recently annexed to Baltic States.

Lessons from Melbourne meetings

Part 1
https://day.kyiv.ua/en/article/close/le ... meetings-0
Part 2
https://day.kyiv.ua/en/article/close/le ... e-meetings
Part 3
https://day.kyiv.ua/en/article/close/le ... meetings-1

International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine
https://web.archive.org/web/20081001225 ... ission.pdf

U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine
https://archive.org/details/TheUSCongre ... aineFamine

Holodomor - The Ukrainian Genocide
https://www.academia.edu/4399286/Holodo ... n_Genocide

On the Ukrainian Genocide, Lemkin, and Himkian Dialectics
https://www.academia.edu/1233026/On_the ... Dialectics

Complicating the National Interpretation of the Famine: Reexamining the Case of Kuban
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23611465

The Kremlin's Nationality Policy in Ukraine after the Holodomor of 1932—33
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23611467
« Yes, that may surprise some people, including my colleagues. But have no illusions. I never compelled anybody to work for me, just as we didn't compel the German people. They themselves gave us the job to do. Why did you work with me? Now, you'll have your little throat cut...but the earth will shake when we leave the scene... »
- Joseph Goebbels

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:48 pm

Thanks for the links D-H
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Denying-History » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:24 pm

Thought Balsamo could use some cheap reading material.
« Yes, that may surprise some people, including my colleagues. But have no illusions. I never compelled anybody to work for me, just as we didn't compel the German people. They themselves gave us the job to do. Why did you work with me? Now, you'll have your little throat cut...but the earth will shake when we leave the scene... »
- Joseph Goebbels

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:39 pm

And I swiped ‘em too ;)
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Balsamo » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:06 pm

Statmec:

One more time, another try :) : I am questioning the definition you guys are using. That's why I opened the thread. To discuss the concept of genocide in the light of questions I have begun to have about the UN definition, not to say which actions are genocides according to the definition I want to ask questions about.

Ok, this is very clear to me, but I am not conveying it, so I will try being clearer January after I've read Mann.


Now, i understand better what you did not want, while only starting understand of what you do want...and not even 100%...
I was reading your OP for the third time and had a vision: you, back to the college where you taught, giving you OP to your student and giving them 2h to write a 20 pages essays, you having fun watching their brains explode one by one. :lol: Seeing them scratching their heads trying to figure out what you meant by "genocide minimum", or "how to prove intent"...
What a show it could have been!

Hey, i even came up with an idea of a new "reality show", "Brainstrorming at Yale", take 5 groups of 10 first year students, give them your OP with the mission to come up with a comprehensive answers to your question in less than 48 hours, no one would be allowed to leave the class room without having finished their mission...they would of course be filmed 24 hours a day.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:14 pm

LOL except in this case I am the student I am trying to teach!
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Balsamo » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:31 pm

LOL...But it is our brains that are exploding...
Or does yours too?

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Balsamo » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:28 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:LOL except in this case I am the student I am trying to teach!



I guess that one of the reasons we got confused is that you presented the UN definition as a possible tool to be used in historical or sociological studies, and then if we agree with it, despite its broad definition.
Actually, at least it is my perception which may be wrong, D-H and I said we agreed with it in the sense that the definition is more or less correct in its intent: providing a definition to a certain category of crimes in order to add it in an international criminal code.

And indeed, adding this definition in our international legal norms was a necessity. Legal norms have to keep things simple and applicable, they have to be straight forward, to be understood easily and to close the doors to eventual legal loopholes.
For example, had the point (b) not be explicitly mentioned, States might have been tempted to use the methods it covers in order to achieve their “genocidal goal”.
This legal definition main objective is of course prevention. Its juristic efficiency can also be proven by the way it would have been sufficient to indict and sentence criminals of previous genocides. I mean, those few lines would have been enough to sentence all the Nazi criminals.

Historians, on the other hand, are not and should not work on the same “scene”, dare I say dimension? , as they are supposed to study the past, presenting thesis trying to explain and understand, historical events. In this regards, it is of course, obvious that the UN definition, while kind of clearing the way, is too broad to be used as a perfect tool.
While effective when it comes to indict criminals, its side effects for historical studies is that this definition will create a blurring inflation of genocides.

One example I came across recently while reading the Mladic verdict, is the “Srebrenica massacre” which to my surprise is sometimes called the “Srebrenica genocide”. Obviously, based on the legal definition, it has all the conditions to be called like this, even if the spectrum of it was quite local: Men and young men separated from mother and children, the first one liquidated without distinction, the other deported or chased, in order to free this small city of one of its minority.
But on a historical level, I do not see how this massacre could be integrated in let’s say a global studies of genocides that took place in the XXth century. If that would be the case, then this studies would immediately be at least 10.000 pages, so wide that no valid thesis could be drawn from it.

But that is also the comfort of Social sciences, we are not tight to legal definition, we are free to submit thesis to refutation with no consequences on others people lives or interests. Historians, sociologists, philosophers are free to propose better/or at least alternative definitions: like democide, ethnocide and of course their own definition of genocide.

But at this point, things are really getting complicated.

As far as this forum is concerned, we already had discussion on the question: When did the Holocaust – that is the Genocide of the Jews – actually begin? Should the Nurnberg laws be included? The Aryanization of the economy; Jews being expelled from civil offices and excluded from some profession? Does it start with the first deportations? Does it start with the first killings on the eastern front? Or Does it start when the decision to destroy the Jews systematically internationally was taken?
The answer to this question has of course an effect on one’s definition of genocide.

Genocide is all about a conjunction of 4 concepts: INTENT, ACTORS/Perpetrators, AIM, MEANS.

I will leave it there in order not to get confused myself and confuse the others. As you wrote that you was focusing on the question rather that the answers. I think that this question should help to clear the path for further discussion:

What would be the date you’d pick to identify the start of the Jewish genocide by the Nazis?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:15 pm

I would, as I started to in the OP, think a little differently about the "conjunction of 4 concepts."

I recalled another definition that I've read and was positive about a couple years ago. It comes from Helen Fein: “Genocide is sustained purposeful action by a perpetrator to physically destroy a collectivity directly or indirectly, through interdiction of the biological and social reproduction of group members, sustained regardless of the surrender or lack of threat offered by the victim.”

This definition is less legalistic and it gets at some of the aspects I raised in the OP (systematic nature, organized quality, persistence, unilateral aspect, scope) that are less developed in the UN definition.

I offer the definition now not to advocate for it but as an example of a non-legalistic alternative approach.

In Fein's definition, genocide is a type of group violence that is persistent and repeated, not ad hoc or episodic (sustained). It has the intent (purpose) of destroying a social group and the destruction is more than cultural, linguistic, etc but also "physical" in character. A genocide is carried out by an organized entity which acts, according to goals and policies (it is not a mob as are the perpetrators in a riot or pogrom - the action is systematic). The targeted group (collectivity) is by implication perpetrator defined and not restricted to groups based on nationality, religion, ethnicity, or race; to be clear, as I read Fein's definition, a purposeful, systematic, sustained attempt to physically destroy a class-based group, a sex-based group, a political group, or other perpetrator defined social group is a genocide. Th destructive effort may include murder (direct) or other deliberate destructive means devised to effect the group's existence (as we've discussed, ghetto deprivation, regional starvation campaign, attractive forced labor, destruction of means of group livelihood). In this regard, actions calculated to bring about the targeted group's destruction by preventing reproduction of members (interdiction of biological and social reproduction), for example, by preventing births, can be means of genocide. Finally, a genocide is not an armed conflict in a normal sense; it isn't a two-sided fight or social conflict; in a genocide, the perpetrator has significantly more power than the targeted "collectivity," which has relatively limited capacity to resist the destruction campaign, and will continue to act against the targeted group in accord with the intent of its destruction (regardless of surrender or lack of threat). Importantly, the murder/physical destruction campaign continues even if a targeted group is to surrender or accept terms.

Two sociologists - Chalk and Jonassohn - have offered an even more concise definition, which I've seen quoted: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator.” The one-sidedness, perpetrator as organized entity, and perpetrator-defined target group all fit with Fein's definition.

Fein's definition still has some fuzziness - how can we think about targeted "collectivities" (e.g., Srebenica), what about groups that don't reproduce themselves (e.g., politically defined groups or a sustained destructive campaign against gays, for example), should we think about the murder of a group's elite or opposition leaders as a genocide?

On the other hand, Fein's definition has some advantages over the UN's: It gets rid of impossible to determine elements like “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” or “in whole or in part.” Fein's definition differentiates genocide from other group violence - mob actions/pogroms, local massacres, slavery, ethnocide, etc. And, I think, it highlights as genocides sustained violence to eradicate or to make extinct targeted "collectivities" such as with the Final Solution, in Rwanda, with the Armenians, possibly in colonial-settler situations in the Americas, possibly the Holodomor, etc.

As to "when," I can't answer that question until having an agreed definition of the concept genocide. Using Fein's definition, I'd say that the genocide begins when the Final Solution is agreed and gotten underway - and I am NOT getting into that debate again here and now :)
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Denying-History » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:52 pm

Since this is about the perceptions of what genocide is, I'll do something similar to SM in sharing the opinions of multiple authors that I have read and their definitions but I'll hold commentary on them. Here is a brief summary from hoover of Norman Naimarks definition:

Naimark defines genocide as “intentional killing of a group of people as such,” meaning that the intention is to eliminate that group completely. He stresses the difference of this definition from warfare, as in war two sides are killing each other with the intention of subjugation rather than extermination. He goes into detail about a few incidents that he considers genocides, including but not limited to Nazi Germany, Stalin’s genocide of the kulaks, the Armenian genocide in the early 1900s, the Carthage genocide in 146 BC, the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s, and the Yuki genocide in California in the 1850s.

Naimark argues that as genocides occur in contemporary society, sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their citizens; if they fail to do so the international community has a moral and civic obligation to step in to stop those genocides from occurring. Granted, he argues, that the cost of intervention needs to be assessed before stepping in but that overall each country has a national obligation to prevent the systematic extermination of people.
« Yes, that may surprise some people, including my colleagues. But have no illusions. I never compelled anybody to work for me, just as we didn't compel the German people. They themselves gave us the job to do. Why did you work with me? Now, you'll have your little throat cut...but the earth will shake when we leave the scene... »
- Joseph Goebbels

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:04 pm

I almost cited Naimark too ;)
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Denying-History » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:21 pm

His book Stalin's Genocides is mainly why I know about him. It was quite popular during the time of its release.

I'll be posting Snyder a bit later on.
« Yes, that may surprise some people, including my colleagues. But have no illusions. I never compelled anybody to work for me, just as we didn't compel the German people. They themselves gave us the job to do. Why did you work with me? Now, you'll have your little throat cut...but the earth will shake when we leave the scene... »
- Joseph Goebbels

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Balsamo » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:28 pm

Thanks, great post."
Now i assume that the purpose of this thread is to kind of codify our personal version of a definition, learning from others, let's have a shot.

I still think that the basis, the basic structure should still be on the "4 concepts" i mentioned, which of course had to be understood as 5, ACTORS meaning PERPETRATORS and VICTIMS"...(not a nice thing to get older when you are not used to it...my eyes!!!)

In Fein's definition, i really do like the notion of "sustained", sustainability should definitely be kept...Her "dless of the surrender or lack of threat offered by the victim.” at first sight pleased me as well, but then it is maybe too subjective, and disregards the rational motivations of the perpetrators - Genocide is rationalized by those who lead the policy, always. There are no genocide i am aware off that would have been organized as a war, that is meant to make the other side surrender...the point is to eradicate the "perceived threats" it supposed to represent. Genocides, therefore, ceased when the perpetrator consider its objectives achieved.

Other weakness of this definition, the lack of definition of who the perpetrators is, as well as the weak definition of the means..."through interdiction of the biological and social reproduction of group members" is a bit short, don't you think?

The same with "collectivity" although it opens doors to a very wide variety of "groups", it is conceptually a bit weak as a definition of VICTIMS and could lead to all sorts of interpretations. What is a collectivity?

So in fine, no real definition of the perpetrators nor the victims, and a proposed means that would actually turn countries like Belgium and Sweden into genocidal State: The State (perpetrators) prevent "biological and social reproduction" of a "collectivity "The mentally handicapped"

But "Sustained" is exactly what i was looking for...as i agree that ONE massacre can be considered as a "crime of genocide" (genocidal by nature) but cannot constitute a "genocide" by itself.

Second definition:
Chalk and Jonassohn - have offered an even more concise definition, which I've seen quoted: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator.” The one-sidedness, perpetrator as organized entity, and perpetrator-defined target group all fit with Fein's definition.


Again: i do like the "ONE SIDED" nature mentioned in this definition.
The perpetrator is also more defined: STATE OR AUTHORITY, that is a group that are in a position of power, either legally or de facto.
And the concise, but very effective, definition of the VICTIMS is conceptually great.

My stance, it is probably more precise than Fein's definition (i am basing my opinion only on your quote), but EDIT: Mass killing is also an important parts ( as the "cide" comes from Caedere which means to kill in latin)...killing is an important aspect, whatever the forms.

Statmec:
It gets rid of impossible to determine elements like “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” or “in whole or in part.”


Hm...I have another understanding here.
First what is not said in a legal definition cannot be deducted. I think that this point (b) in the UN definition was inspired by the harassment by the SA toward the Jews, and is meant to translate "everyday persecution" - which can drives anyone nuts and desperate so that he will leave even losing everything in the process - in a legal way. Of course, i agree that in a historical perspective, this harassment alone is alone (contrary to what the UN suggest) is not a genocide. But again, given the intention of the UN definition, it has its place in the legal definition. But then, there are some who would designate the actions of the SA as the start of the genocide...Hence, my question.

"whole or in part" is as far as i have read from your post not clearly defined by Fein's. (but you know, my eyes... :| )

Some good stuff here, nevertheless, "SUSTAINED" and "ONE SIDED" are both well spotted, and should be integrated into the "perfect definition"...as for the "Whatever the attitude of the victims" which -despite some subjectivity- it is worth some deep thoughts.

Isn't that great, you start by an avalanche of questions, and you'll end up giving an avalanche of great information...Keep on.

@D-H...Yes, i think it is the way to go...bring up definitions, this might be what Statmec expected from the start, or at least it what i came to realize...
Last edited by Balsamo on Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:29 pm

Denying-History wrote:His book Stalin's Genocides is mainly why I know about him. It was quite popular during the time of its release.

I'll be posting Snyder a bit later on.

Cool. And I will post what I learn reading Mann when I'm in Sweden - to the extent I have connectivity. A fair amount of the time I am going to be in a "stuga" in Norrland and I actually never bothered to find out if there's wireless there. A good chance there isn't. I hope to hell there's electricity :)
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20929
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:32 pm

@ Balsamo: yes, exactly, this is the discussion I was after. And not trying to pin it down but keep the discussion open - without anyone having to take a position. To poke holes, find and offer different ideas - and see where we get.

(This reminds me I need to change my signature again . . . )
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests