The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Turkey Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Interesting point of discussion regarding Turkey's repression of Armenia
Jeff_F_F    6/10/2008 7:08:32 PM
I stumbled across the fact that there is some debate as to whether the French repression of the Vendee region during the Reign of Terror should be considered genocide. The consensus opinion among the international historical community is that it should not. The situation is almost identical to that between Turkey and Armenia, including nearly all details of the internal political and external military situation. Both involve actions by a transient government rising to power during a time of external military crisis violently suppressing an internal revolt. What is most interesting is that the arguments advanced by the international historical community against its classification as genocide are nearly exactly the arguments made against Turkey's repression of the Armenians being considered genocide.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
VelocityVector       6/11/2008 1:07:44 AM

Consensus opinion among the international historical community is that the Mongol drive westward did not constitute genocide.  Despite the fact that all non-threatening yet volitionally independent life in the Mongol path was killed upon such selection.  PRC is dealing with the remnants, and this is treated how?  Consider.

v^2
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       6/11/2008 1:36:13 AM

 Perhaps it should but it is to late to worry about it. In any case throwing around the word genocide with regards to a counterinsurgency is a tricky thing under the circumstances, given that it is so hard to tell civilians from soldiers and that partisans usually take advantage of that.
One reason it should not be classed as a genocide is the fact that one mustn't dilute the word. So many nasty things are done in war that if one has a special word it should be for a specially nasty thing. Is the bombing or sacking of a city genocide? Is unrestricted submarine warfare genocide?


 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       6/11/2008 1:53:27 AM


 Perhaps it should but it is to late to worry about it. In any case throwing around the word genocide with regards to a counterinsurgency is a tricky thing under the circumstances, given that it is so hard to tell civilians from soldiers and that partisans usually take advantage of that.
One reason it should not be classed as a genocide is the fact that one mustn't dilute the word. So many nasty things are done in war that if one has a special word it should be for a specially nasty thing. Is the bombing or sacking of a city genocide? Is unrestricted submarine warfare genocide?


Please list those events, with appropriate rationales, the term "genocide" properly applies to in your opinion.  I would like to better appreciate your definition of the term.

v^2
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       6/11/2008 3:14:00 PM




 Perhaps it should but it is to late to worry about it. In any case throwing around the word genocide with regards to a counterinsurgency is a tricky thing under the circumstances, given that it is so hard to tell civilians from soldiers and that partisans usually take advantage of that.
One reason it should not be classed as a genocide is the fact that one mustn't dilute the word. So many nasty things are done in war that if one has a special word it should be for a specially nasty thing. Is the bombing or sacking of a city genocide? Is unrestricted submarine warfare genocide?



Please list those events, with appropriate rationales, the term "genocide"
properly applies to in your opinion.  I
would like to better appreciate your definition of the term.


v^2




The Holocaust was a deliberate attempt to kill every member of a given ethnic group. It therefore fulfills the literal
definition. It also was done to people who were of absoulutely no threat to Germany(yes the Nazis irrationally thought the Jews were a conspiracy to harm Germany-for what that was worth. Even they did not think that about Gypsies). If you count the peasants of the Vendee as an ethnic group I suppose, in the literal sense you can call it genocide.
I dislike the word genocide because it is used frivolously and has become just another propaganda tool. The point of words like that is to shock and if used to often they will no longer shock. Also I dislike it because it's pseudoscientific format implies that there is an exact way to measure atrocity which there is certainly not-that is more an off the cuff kind of thing which is one reason it is argued about. And it has a tendency to have widely differing events classified together in a way that both lowers the meaning of the original word, and raises all atrocities to the same level lowering ones condemnation of the greatest and withholding mercy from the least. Some atrocities do have "mitigating circumstances" for lack of a better word. Soldiers who lose control and kill innocents have done an awful thing. But it is not as awful as killing people in cold blood when one has time to consider. As was the case in the Holocaust which was done on an industrial level, was carefully considered before hand, and was done to people who were obviously helpless-in fact often it was done because they were helpless(and therefore an "impurity")..
Also becoming angry over past atrocities is simply a wasted effort. There have been to many atrocities, for history is a register of crimes, vices, and follies. Indignation over the past distorts your perspective, and if perpetuated, makes you a very unpleasant person. You at least(as far as I know) are not guilty of any atrocities and have no need to punish yourself. Your neighbors(as far as I know) are not guilty either and so do not deserve to have your indignation inflicted on them. Therefore do not become indignant.  You need to do so sometime, but sooner or later it becomes  counterproductive.
I say this cavilierly. First because I am a historian and need to be somewhat callous. Second, because I am religious and have faith that such crimes will sooner or later be punished.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy