1914-18 : The Great Slaughter - Challenging A Year Of Myth Making.

[frogwoman]

By that definition, not even the Jewish Holocaust would be genocide.

Yes it would, I said the attempt, they tried to kill every jew in europe

they didn't do it though thank fuck!

 

[phildwyer]

sorry if this post is in bad taste, but if the government started killing all romanians and bulgarians living in the country, that would be genocide. According to your definition if they were doing that, and also dropped a nuclear bomb on romania and bulgaria in order to try and kill everyone it still wouldn't be genocide because they didn't want to kill all the romanians in say Texas

but it obviously would be

No it would not.

On what grounds do you limit your understanding of genocide to a particular geographical region?

Furthermore you neglect the question of motive, which is an important element in defining genocide.

Remember that I said genocide was the attempt to exterminate an ethnic or racial group of people, not for any practical advantage (as for instance to steal their land), not to avenge any wrong (as for instance in warfare) but simply because they belong to that particular group.

There has only been one genocide.

 

[frogwoman]

No it would not.

On what grounds do you limit your understanding of genocide to a particular geographical region?

Furthermore you neglect the question of motive, which is an important element in defining genocide.

Remember that I said genocide was the attempt to exterminate a group of people, not for any practical advantage (as for instance to steal their land), but simply because they belong to that particular group.

There has only been one genocide.

i dunno, lots of fash thought there was good reasons for murdering the jews. there's loads of articles where they try and refute the idea they hate jews for no reason, listing all of our supposed crimes etc

 

[frogwoman]

No it would not.

On what grounds do you limit your understanding of genocide to a particular geographical region?

Furthermore you neglect the question of motive, which is an important element in defining genocide.

Remember that I said genocide was the attempt to exterminate an ethnic or racial group of people, not for any practical advantage (as for instance to steal their land), not to avenge any wrong (as for instance in warfare) but simply because they belong to that particular group.

There has only been one genocide.

what about the tutsis?

 

[frogwoman]

No it would not.

On what grounds do you limit your understanding of genocide to a particular geographical region?

Furthermore you neglect the question of motive, which is an important element in defining genocide.

Remember that I said genocide was the attempt to exterminate an ethnic or racial group of people, not for any practical advantage (as for instance to steal their land), not to avenge any wrong (as for instance in warfare) but simply because they belong to that particular group.

There has only been one genocide.

under that defnition the holocaust wasn't a genocide then, remember the "stab in the back" and the "november criminals", the idea that jewish financiers did well out of the economic crisis, the Protocols of the elders of zion etc

 

[phildwyer]

i dunno, lots of fash thought there was good reasons for murdering the jews. there's loads of articles where they try and refute the idea they hate jews for no reason, listing all of our supposed crimes etc

Yes but they are wrong.

You do not have to believe it just because they believe it.

Rather you ought to consider such claims on their merits, accepting those that you deem legitimate, and rejecting those you consider fallacious.

Would I be correct is assuming you think the "fash" were wrong when they thought they had good reason for murdering Jews? I would, wouldn't I? So why do you cite such claims--which you know to be false--in your argument?

 

[frogwoman]

Yes but they are wrong.

You do not have to believe it just because they believed it.

Rather you ought to consider such claims on their merits, accepting those that you deem legitimate, and rejecting those you consider fallacious.

Would I be correct is assuming you think the "fash" were wrong when they thought they had good reason for murdering Jews? I would, wouldn't I? So why do you cite such claims--which you know to be false--in your argument?

But I dont believe it It was all bollocks. The same as other claims made by people who want to commit genocide are bollocks.

It was all bollocks, that's my point and other claims by genocidal regime like that the tutsis are cockroaches stealing our women (which was one of the claims made about them) that they control too much of the country, are bollocks as well

 

[phildwyer]

under that defnition the holocaust wasn't a genocide then, remember the "stab in the back" and the "november criminals", the idea that jewish financiers did well out of the economic crisis, the Protocols of the elders of zion etc

Yes, I remember them.

They are myths, fakes and forgeries.

They are not good reasons for massacre.

Nor do you believe they are.

So why do you mention them?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No it would not.

On what grounds do you limit your understanding of genocide to a particular geographical region?

Furthermore you neglect the question of motive, which is an important element in defining genocide.

Remember that I said genocide was the attempt to exterminate an ethnic or racial group of people, not for any practical advantage (as for instance to steal their land), not to avenge any wrong (as for instance in warfare) but simply because they belong to that particular group.

There has only been one genocide.

What an incredibly bizarre obfuscation.

 

[frogwoman]

because you're saying that it's only genocide if it happens for no reason, they thought they had a good reason

 

[stowpirate]

At the end of WWII I have a feeling that Stalin if unchecked by other members of the Allies Big Three, there would have been another genocide? There was a right bloody mess in Eastern Europe in aftermath of WWII. Even Winston Churchill did not engage brain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–50)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#Murders_of_civilians

Most Germans who were not evacuated during the war were expelled from East Prussia and the other former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line in the years immediately after the end of World War II, as agreed to by the Allies at the Potsdam conference, because in the words of Winston Churchill:[41]

“ Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble. A clean sweep will be made.
”
After World War II, as also agreed at the Potsdam Conference (which met from 17 July until 2 August 1945), all of the area east of the Oder-Neisse line, whether recognized by the international community as part of Germany before 1933 or occupied by Germany during World War II, was placed under the jurisdiction of other countries. The relevant paragraph regarding East Prussia in the Potsdam Agreement is:[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuation_of_East_Prussia#Aftermath

 

[frogwoman]

At the end of WWII I have a feeling that Stalin if unchecked by other members of the Allies Big Three, there would have been another genocide? There was a right bloody mess in Eastern Europe in aftermath of WWII. Even Winston Churchill did not engage brain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–50)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#Murders_of_civilians



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuation_of_East_Prussia#Aftermath

dunno about another genocide but he certainly engaged in ethnic cleansing, look what happened to the crimean tartars, he also thought of sending the jews to birobidjan as well

 

[phildwyer]

But I dont believe it It was all bollocks. The same as other claims made by people who want to commit genocide are bollocks.

No, listen.

Genocide is the attempt to exterminate all members of a racial or ethnic group, for no other reason than that they belong to that group.

That obviously (I would have thought) does not exclude the possibility that the perpetrators will attempt to rationalize their actions by giving spurious reasons for them.

 

[phildwyer]

At the end of WWII I have a feeling that Stalin if unchecked by other members of the Allies Big Three, there would have been another genocide?

It's bloody genocide mania round here today.

 

[co-op]

I think phil, your distinction is an interesting one but it doesn't really stand up. Not legally, see below,

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the"intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
​

​

 

[cesare]

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the"intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elementsto be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.

 

[cesare]

co-op snap!

 

[co-op]

co-op snap!

Heh! Only took 24 pages before we got to a legal definition.

 

[phildwyer]

What an incredibly bizarre obfuscation.

You need to say why, Johnny.

You also need to offer your alternative definition, if you think you have a better one.

Otherwise I'm going to call Game Over on this one.

 

[co-op]

Genocide is the attempt to exterminate all members of a racial or ethnic group, for no other reason than that they belong to that group.

That obviously (I would have thought) does not exclude the possibility that the perpetrators will attempt to rationalize their actions by giving spurious reasons for them.

The rationalisations are surely inseparable from the desire to exterminate. For your definition to work, we have to be able to separate them.

Actually the "real" reason will often be pretty grubby - theft or whatever - but we don't expect people to admit this.

 

[phildwyer]

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the"intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elementsto be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.

Don't you think that's so broad a definition as to be meaningless?

It can include "intent" to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members.

Right? Or am I missing something here?

 

[cesare]

Don't you think that's so broad a definition as to be meaningless?

It can include intending to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members.

Right? Or am I missing something here?

No. No. Yes.

 

[phildwyer]

No. No. Yes.

Explain.

Why can't the legal definition, given in full in post 705, include "intent" to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members?

 

[co-op]

Don't you think that's so broad a definition as to be meaningless?

It can include "intent" to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members.

It is broad - it allowed Milosevic to be charged with genocide over his conduct of the Bosnian War. But what's the alternative? Your version means that we have to believe that the perpetrators of a genocide must constantly hold in mind a desire to exterminate every member of a group everywhere and that they must have only (consciously) false beliefs about that group as their basis for doing so.

It'd be tricky to run a prosecution on that basis - you might even struggle to nail the nazis. They surely believed that the jews were evil and were out to do them down.

 

[Favelado]

Phil, could you just run past me how Rwanda wasn't genocide again?

 

[co-op]

No. No. Yes.

I'd say, No. Yes. Not sure.

 

[stowpirate]

dunno about another genocide but he certainly engaged in ethnic cleansing, look what happened to the crimean tartars, he also thought of sending the jews to birobidjan as well

Another interesting link to WW1 is the Cossacks part in WW11 and later repatriation to certain death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Cossacks_after_World_War_II

 

[cesare]

Explain.

Why can't the legal definition, given in full in post 705, include "intent" to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members?

It does.

Here's the text in full: http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm#II

 

[phildwyer]

It does.

Just as I said.

So that's a completely stupid definition of genocide then.

It means--doesn't it--that if (for example) Pickman's Model intended to destroy part of the Sioux nation by breaking the leg of a passing member, he would be guilty of genocide.

Appealing as the idea may be, I can't regard it as a practical or useful definition of genocide. Can you?

 

[phildwyer]

Your version means that we have to believe that the perpetrators of a genocide must constantly hold in mind a desire to exterminate every member of a group everywhere and that they must have only (consciously) false beliefs about that group as their basis for doing so.

It is impossible to have a consciously false belief.

But removing the word "consciously," you describe my position correctly.

It'd be tricky to run a prosecution on that basis - you might even struggle to nail the nazis. They surely believed that the jews were evil and were out to do them down.

Yes. They believed that wrongly, and demonstrably so.

Thus my definition would have no difficulty in securing a conviction of genocide against the Nazis.

It is true that by my definition no-one but the Nazis could be convicted of genocide.

That is precisely my point.