Adam Jones

Historyczne początki

• Dzieje dyscypliny: 'between the 1940s, when Raphael Lemkin coined the term “genocide” and the UN Convention was propounded, and the early 1980s, when Leo Kuper published his field-defining contribution, Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century (1981).9In the late 1980s and the 1990s, the field blossomed, with the formation of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) in 1994'
• BCE ”means “Before the Common Era,” and replaces the more familiar but ethnocentric “BC”(Before Christ). “CE” replaces “AD” (Anno Domini, Latin for “year of the Lord”). For discussion, see ReligiousTolerance.org, “The Use of ‘CE’ and ‘BCE’ to Identify Dates,” http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm
• Biblia: 'All Midianite men are killed by the Israelites in accordance with God’s command, but his order, transmitted by Moses, to kill all the women as well is not carried out, and God is angry. Moses berates the Israelites, whereupon they go out and kill all the women and all the male children; only virgin girls are left alive, for obvious reasons.'
• oszczędzanie kobiet i dzieci: “Obvious reasons,” in that many genocides in prehistory and antiquity were designed not just to eradicate enemy ethnicities, but to incorporate and exploit some of their members. Usually, it was children (particularly girls) and women who were spared murder. They were simultaneously seen as unable to offer physical resistance, and as sources of future offspring for the dominant group (descent in patrilineal society being traced through the bloodline of the male). We see here the roots of gendercide against adult males and adolescent boys
• antyk: 'Acombination of gender-selective (gendercidal) mass killing and root-and-branch genocide pervades accounts of the wars of antiquity. Chalk and Jonassohn provide a wide-ranging selection of historical events such as the Assyrian Empire’s root-and-branch depredations in the first half of the first millennium BCE,* and the destruction of Melos by Athens during the Peloponnesian War (fifth century BCE), a gendercidal rampage described by Thucydides in his “Melian Dialogue.”'
• oblężenie Kartaginy przez Rzymian
• Shaka Zulu, 1810-1828 - ludobójstwo na terenach obecnej Południowej Afryki i Zimbabwe
• Izwekufa: 'He points out that the term adopted by the Zulus to denote their campaign of expansion and conquest, izwekufa, derives “from Zulu izwe (nation, people, polity), and ukufa (death, dying, to die). The term is thus identical to ‘genocide’ in both meaning and etymology.”'

Rafael Lemkin

• Lemkin twórca pojęcia: 'Raphael Lemkin (1900–59). His personal story is one of the most remarkable of the twentieth century. Lemkin is an exceptional example of a “norm entrepreneur” (see Chapter 12). In four short years, he succeeded in coining a term – genocide – that concisely captured an age-old historical phenomenon. He supported it with a wealth of historical documentation. He published a lengthy book (Axis Rule in Occupied Europe)'
• Lemkin zaczyna od barbaryzmu i wandalizmu: 'Lemkin determined to stage an intellectual and activist intervention in what he at fi rst called “barbarity” and “vandalism.” The former referred to “the premeditated destruction of national, racial, religious and social collectivities,” while the latter he described as the “destruction of works of art and culture, being the expression of the particular genius of these collectivities'
• Lemkin nie dostał wizy: 'At a conference of European legal scholars in Madrid in 1933, Lemkin’s framing was fi rst presented (though not by its author; the Polish government denied him a travel visa)'
• governments and public opinion leaders werestill wedded to the notion that state sovereignty trumped atrocities against a state’s own citizens.
• Etymologia: 'He settled on a neologism with both Greek and Latin roots: the Greek “genos,” meaning race or tribe, and the Latin “cide,” or killing. “'
• Genocide” was the intentional destruction of national groups on the basis of their collective identity.
• Lemkina definicja ludobójstwa: 'By “genocide” we mean the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group (...) Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished bymass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity,but as members of the national group.'
• Dwie fazy ludobójstwa: 'Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain, or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization of the area by the oppressor’s own nationals.32'

Konwencja UN

• Prawna definicja ludobójstwa: 'with the 1948 adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ‘genocide’ had a detailed and quite technical definition as a crime against the law of nations.”36 The “detailed and technical definition” is as follows: Article I. The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. 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:'
• Ludobójstwo bez zabijania: 'One does not need to exterminate or seek to exterminate every last member of a designated group. In fact, one does not need to kill anyone at all to commit genocide!'
• Ludobójstwo bez zabijania: Inflicting “serious bodily or mental harm” qualifies, as does preventing births or transferring children between groups. It is fair to say, however, that from a legal perspective, genocide unaccompanied by mass killing is rare, and has stood little chance of being prosecuted.
• Cele badaczy ludobójstw:
  • First, they attempt to define genocide and bound it conceptually.
  • 'Second, they seek to prevent genocide.'

Definicja ludobójstwa

• definicja, Peter Drost (1959): “Genocide is the deliberate destruction of physical life of individual human beings by reason of their membership of any human collectivity as such.”
• Wybuch zainteresowania ludobójstwami w latach 90.: 'The explosion of public interest in genocide in the 1990s'
• Vahakn Dadrian (1975) “Genocide is the successful attempt by a dominant group, vested with formal authority and/or with preponderant access to the overall resources of power, to reduce by coercion or lethal violence the number of a minority group whose ultimate extermination is held desirable and useful and whose respective vulnerability is a major factor contributing to the decision for genocide.”
• Irving Louis Horowitz (1976) “[Genocide is] a structural and systematic destruction of innocent people by a state bureaucratic apparatus. . . . Genocide represents a systematic effort over time to liquidate a national population, usually a minority . . . [and] functions as a fundamental political policy to assure conformity and participation of the citizenry.”
• Leo Kuper (1981) “I shall follow the definition of genocide given in the [UN] Convention. This is not to say that I agree with the definition. On the contrary, I believe a major omission to be in the exclusion of political groups from the list of groups protected. In the contemporary world, political differences are at the very least as significant a basis for massacre and annihilation as racial, national, ethnic or religious differences. Then too, the genocides against racial, national, ethnic or religious groups are generally a consequence of, or intimately related to, political conflict. However, I do not think it helpful to create new definitions of genocide, when there is an internationally recognized definition and a Genocide Convention which might become the basis for some effective action, however limited the underlying conception. But since it would vitiate the analysis to exclude political groups, I shall refer freely . . . to liquidating or exterminatory actions against them.”
• Yehuda Bauer (1984) N.B. Bauer distinguishes between “genocide” and “holocaust”: “[Genocide is] the planned destruction, since the mid-nineteenth century, of a racial, national, or ethnic group as such, by the following means: (a) selective mass murder of elites or parts of the population; (b) elimination of national (racial, ethnic) culture and religious life with the intent of ‘denationalization’; (c) enslavement, with the same intent; (d) destruction of national (racial, ethnic) economic life, with the same intent; (e) biological decimation through the kidnapping of children, or the prevention of normal family life, with the same intent. . . . [Holocaust is] the planned physical annihilation, for ideological or pseudo-religious reasons, of all the members of a national, ethnic, or racial group.”

Kontrowersje

• Nieostrość pojęcia ludobójstwa: 'With the varied academic definitions of genocide, and the ambiguities surrounding both the Genocide Convention and historical interpretation, it is not surprising that nearly every posited case of genocide will be discounted by someone else'
• Niewolnictwo atlantyckie: 'Atlantic slavery between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries.53 A reasonable estimate of the deaths caused by this institution is fifteen to twenty million people – by any standard, one of the worst holocausts in human history.54'
• argument Ignatieva against slavery-as-genocide: 'that it was in slave owners’ interest to keep slaves alive, not exterminate them'
• niewolnictwo amerykańskie jako ratunek: 'Even some African-American commentators have celebrated their “deliverance” from strife-torn Africa to lands of opportunity in the West.'
• amerykańskie bombardowania miast w Niemczech (600,000 ofiar cywilnych) i Japonii (900,000 ofiar cywilnych)
• Ludobójstwo amerykańskie: 'A single night’s fi re-bombing of Tokyo (March 9–10, 1945) killed between 90,000 and 100,000 people, more than the death-toll in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.'
• Ataki jądrowe nie były konieczne: 'Fewer ambiguities attach to the atomic bombings at war’s end. These were carried out when Japan’s defeat was virtually certain; both Supreme Allied Commanders, General Dwight D. Eisenhower and General Douglas MacArthur, considered them to be “completely unnecessary.”Other options were also available to the US'
• USA w Iraku, ofiary cywline, zwłaszcza wśród dzieci (500 tys. dzieci) wskutek sankcji: 'It rapidly became evident that the sanctions were exacting an enormous human toll on Iraqis, particularly children. (...) extreme economic sanctions and a strict military blockade on the people of Iraq for the purpose of injuring the entire population, killing its weakest members, infants, children, the elderly and the chronically ill, by depriving them of medicines, drinking water, food, and other essentials.'
• Globalizacja jako ludobójstwo : 'the Indian scholar and activist Vandana Shiva has described “the globalization of food and agriculture systems” under neoliberal trade regimes as “equivalent to the ethnic cleansing of the poor, the peasantry, and small farmers of the Third World. . . . Globalization of trade in agriculture implies genocide. ”Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, stated in October 2005: “Every child who dies of hunger in today’s world is the victim of assassination,” and referred to the daily death by starvation of 100,000 people as a “massacre of human beings through malnutrition'
• Kal Holsti rejects global-systemic visions of structural violence, like Galtung’s, as “just too fuzzy,” and evincing a tendency to “place all blame for the ills of the Third World on the first one.” In Holsti’s view, this overlooks the essential role of many Third World leaders and elites in the suffering and violence experienced by their populations. “It also fails to account for many former Third World countries that today have standards of living and welfare higher than those found in many ‘indus-trial’ countries.”
• the most common form of genocide justification and celebration is a utilitarian one, applied most frequently in the case of indigenous peoples. These populations have standardly been accused of failing to exploit the land they inhabit, and its natural resources.8
• C.L.R. James, described in the 1930s “the complete massacre” of Saint-Domingue’s whites: “The population, stirred to fear at the nearness of the counter-revolution, killed all [whites] with every possible brutality.”
• Ludobójstwo podporządkowanych : 'Bolivia, Mexico, and Haiti are all examples of what Nicholas Robins and I call subaltern genocide, or “genocides by the oppressed.”'
• Radość z ludobójstwa : 'Even the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, which could be considered genocidal massacres, secured the equivocal or enthusiastic support of hundreds of millions of people worldwide.'
• Sympathizers of the Nazi regime in Germany sometimes present the invasion of the USSR as a pre-emptive, defensive war against the Bolshevik threat to Western civilization (Box 6a)
• What is the acceptable range of responses to genocide? Can genocidal counter-assault be “proportional” in any meaningful sense?
• Consciously or unconsciously, we distinguish “worthy” from “unworthy” victims.88 And wemay be less ready to label as genocidal the atrocities that our chosen “worthy” commit.
• Churchill distinguishes among “(a) Genocide in the First Degree, which consists of instances in which evidence of premeditated intent to commit genocide is present. (b) Genocide in the Second Degree, which consists of instances in which evidence of premeditation is absent, but in which it can be reasonably argued that the perpetrator(s) acted with reckless disregard for the probability that genocide would result from their actions. (c) Genocide in the Third Degree, which consists of instances in which genocide derives, however unintentionally, from other violations of international law engaged in by the perpetrator(s). (d) Genocide in the Fourth Degree, which consists of instances in which neither evidence of premeditation nor other criminal behavior is present, but in which the perpetrator(s) acted with depraved indifference to the possibility that genocide would result from their actions and therefore [failed] to effect adequate safeguards to prevent it.”
• The terms “worthy” and “unworthy” victims are deployed by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky

Imperialism i kolonializm

• Imperialism is “a policy undertaken by a state to directly control foreign economic, physical, and cultural resources.”
• politico-military form of imperialism known as colonialism.
• Colonialism is “a specif i c form of imperialism involving the establishment and maintenance, for an extended period of time, of rule over an alien people that is separate from and subordinate to the ruling power.”2
• three basic types:
• Trzy typy kolonializmu: 'settler colonialism, internal colonialism, and neo-colonialism.'
  • In settler colonialism, the metropolitan power encourages or dispatches colonists to “settle” the territory. (In the British Empire, this marks the difference between settler colonies such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; and India, where a limited corps of 25,000 British administered a vast realm.)
  • Settler colonialism implies displacement and occupation of the land, and is often linked to genocide against indigenous peoples (and genocidally tinged rebellions against colonialism)
  • Kolonializm wewnętrzny: '5The greatest relevance of the concept is for genocide against indigenous peoples in countries such as Brazil, Paraguay, and Guatemala. There, native people occupy marginal positions both territorially and socially; their territories are coveted by an expanding frontier of state control and settlement from the center. Prof i ts fl ow from periphery to core; the environment is ravaged. The result is the undermining and dissolution, often the destruction, of nativeso cieties, accomplished by massacres, selective killings, expulsions, coerced labor, disease, and alcoholism.'
  • Other examples of internal colonialism that have led, or threatened to lead, to genocide are the Chinese in Tibet (Box 3a); Russia in Chechnya (Box 7a); Indonesia in Aceh; and, arguably, Sudan in the Darfur region (Box 9a).
• Under neo-colonialism, formal political rule is abandoned, and the colonial flag lowered. But underlying structures of control – economic, political, and cultural – remain. The resulting exploitation may have genocidal consequences, but at one remove from formal colonialism. Many commentators consider structural violence – that is, the violence inherent in social and economic structures – to reflect neocolonialism: the former colonial powers have maintained their hegemony over the formerly colonized (“Third”) world, and immense disparities of wealth and well-being remain as a result.

Klęski głodu

• India was largely free of famine under the Mogul emperors, but British colonial administrators refused to follow the Mogul example of laying insufficient emergency stocks of grain. When famine struck, they imposed free-market policies that were nothing more than a “mask for colonial genocide,” according to Davis. They continued ruinous collections of tax arrears, evincing greater concern for India’s balance of payments than for “the holocaust in lives.” When the British did set up relief camps, they took the form of work camps, which “provided less sustenance for hard labor than the infamous Buchenwald concentration camp and less than half of the modern caloric standard recommended for adult males by the Indian government.
• The death-toll in the famine of 1897–98 alone, including associated disease epidemics, may have exceeded eleven million
• Twelve to 16 million was the death toll commonly reported in the world press, which promptly nominated this the ‘famine of the century. ’This dismal title, however, was almost immediately usurped by the even greater drought and deadlier famine of 1899–1902.” In 1901, the leading British medical journal the Lancet suggested that “a conservative estimate of excess mortality in India in the previous decade . . . was 19 million,” a total that “a number of historians . . . have accepted . . . as an order-of-magnitude approximation for the combined mortality of the 1896–1902 crisis.”
• Overall, Davis argues that market mechanisms imposed in colonial (e.g., India) and neo-colonial contexts (e.g., China and Brazil) inflicted massive excess mortality.
• “There is persuasive evidence that peasants and farm laborers became dramatically more pregnable to natural disaster after 1850 as their local economies were violently incorporated into the world market. . . .

Kongo

• 10 milionów ofiar Congo rubber terror: 'during the Leopold period and its immediate aftermath the population of the territory dropped by approximately ten million people.'
• jednocześnie epidemia: 'During this time, the region was also swept by an epidemic of sleeping sickness, “one of the most disastrous plagues recorded in human history.”'
• Józef Conrad, A. Conan Doyle ujawnili ludobójstwo: 'Congo Reform Association, by a small handful of dedicated individuals. They included Joseph Conrad, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle – author of the Sherlock Holmes stories – and Sir Roger Casement, an Irishman who would fall before a British firing squad following the Easter Uprising of 1916. Utilizing modern means of communication, the Association spread across the European continent and to North America, dispatched observers to the Congo and published their findings.'

Azja

• Początek II wojny światowej ludobójstwo w Chinach: 'In 1937, Japan effectively launched the Second World War, mounting a full-scale invasion of China’s eastern seaboard and key interior points. The campaign featured air attacks that killed tens of thousands of civilians, and even more intensive atrocities at ground level. The occupation of the Chinese capital, Nanjing, in December 1937 became a global byword for war crimes. The gendercidal slaughter of as many as 200,000 Chinese men of “battle age” was accompanied by the rape of tens of thousands of children and women (see Chapter 13). Over the course of the Japanese occupation (1937–45), “nearly 2,600,000 unarmed Chinese civilians” were killed, together with half a million to one million prisoners of war.'
• Japończycy używali broni chemicznej i biologicznej: 'In Zhejiang province, biological weapons were used six times between September 18 and October 7, 1940. . . . Around the same time 270 kilograms of typhoid, paratyphoid, cholera, and plague bacteria were sent to Nanjing and central China for use by Japanese battalions on the battlefield.'
• eksperymenty medyczne, "naukowcy" puszczeni wolno za udostępnienie wyników Amerykanom: 'In an ironic outcome from which Nazi scientists also benefited, after the Second World War the participants in Unit 731 atrocities were granted immunity from prosecution – so long as they shared their knowledge of chemical and biological warfare, and the results of their atrocious experiments, with US authorities'
• W Wietnamie Ameryka zrzuca więcej bomb niż wszystkie kraje w czasie całej II wojny światowej: 'About seven million tons of bombs and other munitions were dropped on North and (especially) South Vietnam during the course of the war. This was more than was dropped by all countries in all theaters of the Second World War.'
• USA i rzeź Khmerów: 'In 1970, US President Nixon widened the war, stepping up the “secret” bombing of neighboring Cambodia, where B-52 raids fueled the rise of the genocidal Khmer Rouge'
• Ludobójstwo w Indochinach (2-5 mln) i trwałe skażenie gleb w Wietnamie i : 'The human cost of the war to the United States was some 58,000 soldiers killed, but in Indochina, the toll was catastrophic. Somewhere between two million and five million Indochinese died, mostly at the hands of the US and its allies. In addition, “a historically unprecedented level of chemical warfare,” aimed mostly at defoliating the countryside of forest cover in which guerrilla forces could hide, poisoned the soil and foodchain. “The lingering effects of chemical warfare poisoning continue to plague the health of adult Vietnamese (and ex-GIs) while causing increased birth defects. Samples of soil, water, food and body fat of Vietnamese continue to the present day to reveal dangerously elevated levels of dioxin.” An estimated “3.5 million landmines and 300,000 tons of unexploded ordnance” still litter the countryside, killing “several thousand” Vietnamese every year – at least 40,000 since the war ended in 1975.'
• Rosjanie w Afganistanie: 'Soviets inflicted massive civilian destruction, recalling the worst US actions in Indochina. “The number of dead is extremely hard to determine, but most observers agree that the war took between 1.5 million and 2 million lives, 90 percent of whom were civilians. ”Some five million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran – one of the largest refugee flows in history.'
• ludobójstwa po rozpadach imperiów i wyzwalaniu narodów: 'it is important to note the close correlation between imperial dissolution – generally accompanied and spawned by the rise of movements of national liberation – and outbreaks of mass violence, including genocide.'
  • 'The combination of fear, insecurity, and humiliation (see Chapter 11) that afflicts imperial powers during epochs of decline, set against a backdrop of insurgent peoples and nations seeking to hasten that decline, frequently produces violence comparable to that of empires in their insurgent and expansionist phase'

Wojna i ludobójstwo

• wojna i ludobójstwo to bliźniaki syjamskie: 'If imperialism and genocide are closely related, war and genocide are the Siamese twins of history.'
  • 'All three of the century’s “classic” genocides – against Armenians in Turkey, Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe, and Tutsis in Rwanda – occurred in a context of civil and/or international war.'
  • 'Martin Shaw, considers genocide to be an offshoot of “degenerate” warfare, with its large-scale targeting of civilian populations.'
• What are the points of connection between war and genocide?
  • War accustoms a society to a pervasive climate of violence.
  • War greatly increases the quotient of fear and hatred in a society
  • War eases genocidal logistics.
  • War provides a smokescreen for genocide.
  • War fuels intracommunal solidarity and intercommunal enmity
  • War magnifies humanitarian crisis
  • War stokes grievances and a desire for revenge.
• I wojna: 'As millions of tons of munitions were unleashed, soldiers took refuge in fragile trenches that shook or collapsed from the bombardments, and that between assaults were a surreal wasteland of mud, rats, and corpses. Ten million soldiers died on all sides – a previously unimaginable figure, and one that left a gaping and traumatic hole where a generation of young European men should have been'
• Pretekstem do ludobójstwa jest bezpieczeństwa narodowe: 'Lifton and Markusen compared the mindset of Nazi leaders and technocrats with those managing nuclear armories in the contemporary age. Both cultures reflected deep, sometimes hysterical preoccupations with “national security,” which could be employed to depict one’s own acts of aggression as pre-emptive.'
• ludobójstwo jako ratunek ostateczny przed własną zagładą: 'With [nuclear] deterrence, there is the assumption that we must be prepared to kill hundreds of millions of people in order to prevent large-scale killing, to cure the world of genocide. With the Nazis, the assumption was that killing all Jews was a way of curing not only the Aryan race but all humankind'
• omnicide

Ludobójstwa rdzennych narodów

• Definicja rdzennych Narodów (UN report 1987 by José Martínez Cobo): 'Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the society now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present nondominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.'
• trzy strategie legitymizacji kolonizacji, 'Three major ideological tenets stand out as justifying and facilitating the European conquests.':
  • prawna, terra nullius: 'The first, most prominent in the British realm (especially the United States, Canada, and Australasia), was a legal-utilitarian justification, according to which native peoples had no right to territories they inhabited, owing to their “failure” to exploit them adequately. This translated in Australasia to the fiction of terra nullius, i.e., that the territories in question had no original inhabitants in a legal sense; and, in America, to the similar concept of vacuum domicilium, “empty dwelling.”'
  • religijna, chrześcijaństwo: 'The second tenet, most prominent in Latin America, was a religious ideology that justified invasion and conquest as a means of saving native souls from the fires of hell.'
  • rasowa, cywilizacja: 'The third, more diffuse, underpinning was a racial-eliminationist ideology. Under the influence of the most modern scientific thinking of the age, world history was viewed as revolving around the inevitable, sometimes lamentable supplanting of primitive peoples by more advanced and “civilized” ones.'
• ludobójstwo jako nieunikniony koszt postępu: 'Genocide began to be regarded as the inevitable byproduct of progress.'
• rasizm intelektualistów:
  • Mark Twain, author of Huckleberry Finn, wrote that the North American Indian was “nothing but a poor, filthy, naked scurvy vagabond, whom to exterminate were a charity to the Creator’s worthier insects and reptiles.”
  • Alfred Russel Wallace, 'The red Indian in North America and in Brazil; the Tasmanian, Australian, and New Zealander in the southern hemisphere, die out, not from any one special cause, but from the inevitable effects of an unequal mental and physical struggle. The intellectual and moral, as well as the physical qualities of the European are superior; the same powers and capacities which have made him rise in a few centuries from the condition of the wandering savage . . . to his present state of culture and advancement . . . enable him when in contact with the savage man, to conquer in the struggle for existence, and to increase at the expense of the less adapted varieties in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, – just as the weeds of Europe overrun North America and Australia, extinguishing native productions by the inherent vigor of their organization, and by their greater capacity for existence and multiplication. The reader may ask himself if this is not cruelty and injustice of a kind so terrible that it beggars the imagination, and whether these poor people would not fare far better if they were entrusted to the devils in Hell than they do at the hands of the devils of the New World who masquerade as Christians.'
• Bartolomé de las Casas, Spanish friar, 1542
• holocaust ludów rdzenych Ameryki najszerszy i najbardziej destrukcyjny w historii: 'The European holocaust against indigenous peoples in the Americas was arguably the most extensive and destructive genocide of all time'
  • 'Over nearly five centuries, and perhaps continuing to the present, an impressively wide range of genocidal measures has been imposed upon the aboriginal population of the hemisphere. These include:
  • genocidal massacres;
  • biological warfare, using pathogens (especially smallpox and plague) to which the indigenous peoples had no resistance;14 • spreading of disease via the “reduction” of Indians to densely crowded and unhygienic settlements;
  • slavery and forced/indentured labor, especially though not exclusively in Latin America,15in conditions often rivaling those of Nazi concentration camps;
  • mass population removals to barren “reservations,” sometimes involving death marches en route, and generally leading to widespread mortality and population collapse upon arrival;
  • deliberate starvation and famine, exacerbated by destruction and occupation of the native land base and food resources;
  • forced education of indigenous children in white-run schools, where mortality rates could reach genocidal levels.'
• Bartolomé de las Casas, świadek ludobójstwa: 'Spanish “forced their way into native settlements,” wrote the eyewitness Bartolomé de las Casas, “slaughtering everyone they found there, including small children, old men, [and] pregnant women.” Those men not killed at the outset were worked to death in gold-mines; women survivors were consigned to harsh agricultural labor and sexual servitude.'
• maskara Hispanioli: 'Massacred, sickened, and enslaved, Hispaniola’s native population collapsed, “as would any nation subjected to such appalling treatment” – declining from as many as eight million people at the time of the invasion to a scant 20,000 less than three decades later.'
• W Ameryce północnej wykończono Indiana chorobami przyniesionymi przez Anglików: 'Disease was “without doubt . . . the single most important factor in American Indian population decline,”22which in fi ve centuries reduced the Indian population of present-day Canada and the United States from seven to ten million (though estimates range as high as eighteen million) to 237,000 by the 1890s.'
• Smallpox
• Wybicie bizonów doprowadziło do wyginięcia rdzennych narodów: 'Other factors included “the often deliberate destructions of flora and fauna that American Indians used for food and other purposes,”25whether as a strategy of warfare or simply as part of the rape of the continent’s resources. An example of the latter was the extermination of the great herds of bison, which were hunted into near extinction by the settlers. Perhaps sixty million of them roamed the Great Plains when Europeans arrived on the continent; “by 1895 there were fewer than 1,000 animals left,” and this “had not only driven [the Indians] to starvation and defeat but had destroyed the core of their spiritual and ceremonial world.”'
• podczas przesiedleń ginęło 20-40% przedstawiecieli rdzennych narodów:'Forced relocations of Indian populations often took the form of genocidal death marches, most infamously the “Trails of Tears” of the Cherokee and Navajo nations, which killed between 20 and 40 percent of the targeted populations en route. The barren “tribal reservations” to which survivors were consigned exacted their own grievous toll through malnutrition and disease.'
• Wynarodowienie i przymusowa amerykanizacja rdzennych narodów: 'Then there were the so-called “residential schools,” in which generations of Indian children were incarcerated after being removed from their homes and families.'
• Zamach stanu przez CIA, Gwatemala: 'The result was a CIA-sponsored military coup in 1954 that overthrew Arbenz and installed a series of brutal military rulers.42'
• I jako skutek ludobójstwo: 'Popular mobilizations against military rule, and in defense of native rights, mounted in the 1970s, and also spawned a rebel movement headed by the Guerrilla Army of the Poor (EGP). The Guatemalan regime’s response to the guerrilla threat was massive and annihilatory. A holocaust descended upon the Mayan highlands. In just six years, some 440 Indian villages were obliterated and some 200,000 Indians massacred, often after torture, in scenes fully comparable to the early phase of Spanish colonization half a millennium earlier. The genocide proceeded with the enthusiastic support of the Reagan administration in the US, which reinstated aid to the Guatemalan military and security forces when it took power in 1981.43'
• In 1788, the “First Fleet” of British convicts was dumped on Australian soil. Over the ensuing century-and-a-half, the aboriginal population of the island continent – estimated at about 750,000 when the colonists arrived – was reduced to just 31,000 in 1911.
• Aborygeni nie mogli zeznawać w sądach: 'until the late nineteenth century, no Aborigine was allowed to give testimony in a white man’s court, rendering effective legal redress for dispossession and atrocity a practical impossibility.'
• Anthony Trollope nawołuje do ludobójstwa Aborygenów, 1870s: “doom is to be exterminated; and the sooner that their doom is accomplished, – so that there can be no cruelty [!], – the better will it be for civilization.”
• 'Denial is regularly condemned as the final stage of genocide'
• Christopher Hitchens, ludobójstwo rdzennych ludów ameryki jako cena postępu:'It is sometimes unambiguously the case that a certain coincidence of ideas, technologies, population movements and politico-military victories leaves humanity on a slightly higher plane than it knew before. The transformation of part of the northern part of this continent into “America” inaugurated a nearly boundless epoch of opportunity and innovation, and thus deserves to be celebrated with great vim and gusto, with or without the participation of those who wish they had never been born'
• zawłaszczanie kultury ludów rdzennych Ameryki jako legitymizacja ludobójstwa: 'Note, for example, the practice of adopting ersatz Indian names and motifs for professional sports teams. James Wilson argues that calling a Washington, DC foot-ball franchise the “Redskins” is “roughly the equivalent of calling a team ‘the Buck Niggers’or ‘the Jewboys.’”68Other acts of appropriation include naming gas-guzzling vehicles (the Winnebago, the Jeep Cherokee) after Indian nations, so that peoples famous for their respectful custodianship of the environment are instead associated with technologies that damage it. This is carried to sinister extremes with the grafting of Indian names onto US military weaponry, as with the Apache attack helicopter and the Tomahawk cruise missile. In Madley’s opinion, such nomenclature “casts Indians as threatening and dangerous,” subtly providing “a post-facto justification for the violence committed against them.”

Ludobójstwo Ormian

• Chiny, Wielki Skok, 40 mln ofiar, 1959-1962: 'But China’s Great Leap was an unmitigated failure, as well as a human catastrophe. Deluded by fantasies of agricultural “science” and peasant industrial potential, the communist authori-ties announced massive grain surpluses. The surpluses were a fiction; local authorities told the central authority what it wanted to hear. But as in Stalin’s USSR, they served as the basis for grain seizures that provoked mass famine – the worst in China’s long and famine-plagued history, “result[ing] in the deaths of an estimated 40 million people in the three years between 1959 and 1962.”No group suffered more than ethnic Tibetans; “perhaps one in five died” between 1959 and 1963.'
• ludobójstwo Ormian przed dekady zapomniane: 'The murder of over a million Armenians in Turkey between 1915 and 1923 presaged Adolf Hitler’s even more gargantuan assault on European Jews in the 1940s. However, for decades, the events were almost forgotten.'
• procesy dotyczące zbrodni wojennych zostały wytoczony przez Turkom, ale porzucone wobec oporu: 'War crimes trials – the first in history – were held after the Allied occupation of Turkey, but were abandoned in the face of Turkish resistance. In August 1939, as he prepared to invade western Poland, Hitler mused to his generals that Mongol leader “Genghis Khan had millions of women and men killed by his own will and with a gay heart. History sees in him only a great state builder.”'
• Hitler zauważał, że nikt nie wspomina ludobójstwa Ormian: 'And in noting his instructions to the Death’s Head killing units “to kill without mercy men, women and children of Polish race or language,” Hitler uttered some of the most resonant words in the history of genocide: “Who, after all, talks nowadays of the annihilation of the Armenians?”'
• pierwsze nowoczesne ludobójstwo, choć nie pierwsze w XX wieku, bo Kongo: 'Yet in its scale, central coordination, and systematic implementation, the Armenian holocaust may perhaps be considered the first truly “modern” genocide.'
• ludobójstwo Ormian wywołało alarm na świecie: 'If Hitler’s derisive comment would be out of place today, neither could it have been made at the time of the Armenian genocide itself. The fate of the “starving Armenians” in 1915–17 was the subject of outrage and mass mobilization around the Western world. In the United States, it spawned “the first international human rights movement in American history,” resuscitated for contemporary audiences by Peter Balakian. “It seems that no other international human rights issue has ever pre-occupied the United States for such a duration,” Balakian noted in his account of the genocide and US response, The Burning Tigris.'
• termin 'holocaust' został użyty po raz pierwszy do ludobójstwa Ormian: 'The term “holocaust,” which most people associate with the Jewish genocide at Nazi hands, seems to have been used first in a human-rights context to describe Armenian suffering – by the New York Times in 1895, during a major round of massacres that preceded the full-scale genocide of 1915–17'
• Ormianie jak Żydzi: 'Armenians are an ancient people, having inhabited the southern Caucasus region for perhaps 3,000 years. Christianized early in the first millennium, they took pride in having preserved their faith through centuries of imperial domination, following the crushing of the independent Armenian state by Muslim Mamluks in 1375. By the late nineteenth century, they constituted the largest non-Muslim population in the Anatolian heartland of the Ottoman Empire.4In many respects their position under Ottoman rule may be, and has been, likened to that of European Jews prior to their emancipation (Chapter 6). Isolated from the mainstream by their religious beliefs, marginalized politically and economically, both urban Armenians and Jews nonetheless found niches in the economy and halls of power. Armenian culture, like its Jewish counterpart, placed great emphasis on learning; accordingly, representatives of both groups rose to positions of influence in politics and the professions even when formally disenfranchised. But both groups correspondingly came to be viewed with envy and distaste by many in the wider society.'
• dzień ludobójstwa-elitycydu: 'On April 24, 1915, in a classic act of “eliticide” in Constantinople and other major cities, hundreds of Armenian notables were rounded up and imprisoned. The great majority were subsequently murdered outright, or tortured and worked to death in isolated locales. (Tothe present, April 24 is commemorated by Armenians around the world as “Genocide Memorial Day.”'
• fazy ludobójstwa:
  • 'The opening phase of the assault consisted of a clear-cut gendercide against Armenian males. Like the opening eliticide, this was aimed at stripping the Armenian community of those who might mobilize to defend it. Throughout the Armenian territories, males of “battle age” not already in the Ottoman Army were conscripted.'
  • 'In US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau’s imperishable account, the Armenians “were stripped of all their arms and transformed into workmen,” then worked to death.'
  • 'In other cases, more direct measures were applied: “it now became almost the general practice to shoot them in cold blood.” By July 1915, some 200,000 Armenian men had been exterminated by these methods, reducing the remaining community “to a condition of near-total helplessness, thus an easy prey for destruction.”'
  • The pattern of deportation was consistent throughout the realm, attesting to its central coordination. Armenian populations were called by town criers to assemble in a central location, where they were informed that they would shortly be deported – a day to a week being the time allotted to frantically gather belongings for the journey, and to sell at bargain-basement prices whatever they could. In scenes reminiscent of the Nazi deportation of Jews to concentration camps, local populations were depressingly eager to exploit Armenians’ misery and dispossession. “The scene reminded me of vultures swooping down on their prey,” wrote US Consul Leslie Davis. “It was a veritable Turkish holiday and all the Turks went out in their gala attire to feast and to make merry over the misfortunes of others. . . . [It was] the opportunity of a lifetime to get-rich-quick.”'

Terror Stalina

• In January 1930, his regime “chillingly approved the liquidation of kulaks as a class.”Over the next two years, the Soviet dictatorship forced millions onto collective (state-controlled) farms.16 Resisters and “class enemies,” mostly male heads of family, were shot by the tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands more, perhaps over a million, were sent to concentration camps, often under conditions that killed them before they arrived. Official statistics show the camp system swelling from 212,000 inmates in 1931 to more than 500,000 in 1934 and nearly a million by 1935.
• A recent and credible estimate of excess deaths in the famine, across all regions of the USSR from 1930 to 1933, is 5.7 million22– approximately the number of European Jews killed by the Nazis, including those murdered indirectly by starvation and disease.
• Fałsz kanal białomorski był i jest używany do dziś: 'was diverted to hare-brained schemes such as the White Sea Canal, which claimed thousands of lives but fell into near-disuse after its comple-tion.24'
• Such camps “can only be described as extermination centres,” according to Leo Kuper.26The camp network that came to symbolize the horrors of the Gulag was that of the Kolyma gold-fields, where “outside work for prisoners was compulsory until the temperature reached –50C and the death rate among miners in the gold fields was estimated at about 30 per cent per annum.”
• In just one camp, Serpantinka, “more prisoners were executed . . . in the one year 1938, than the total executions throughout the Russian Empire for the whole of the last
• century of Tsarist rule.”The number of victims claimed by the Kolyma camps alone was between a quarter of a million and over one million; in the lightly populated region today, “skeletons in frozen, shallow mass graves far outnumber the living.”29Other names engraved on Russians’ historical memory include Norilsk, “the centre of a group of camps more deadly than Kolyma”; and Vorkuta, with a regime characterized by “extravagant cold,” “exhaustion,” and a “starvation diet” reminiscent of the Nazi camps.30
• However, unlike the Spanish mines or the Nazi death camps, conditions varied substantially across the vast Gulag system (apart from the worst of the war years, when privation reigned not only in the camps, but across the USSR). Outside the Arctic camps, work regimes were less harsh and death rates far lower. Here, indeed – and even in Siberia after the years of true holocaust, 1938–39 – high mortality rates could be viewed as impeding socialist production. While work regimes in the Nazi death camps were simply intended to inflict mass murder, the function of the Soviet camps was primarily economic and political
• were arrested, 1,345,000 sentenced, and over 681,000 executed (“more than 85 percent of all the death sentences handed down during the entire Stalinist period”).

Holocaust Żydów

• All of this occurred in Europe; yet few Europeans, or others, raised their voices in protest
• The core of the debate over the past two decades has revolved around a scholarly tendency generally termed “intentionalist,” and a contrasting “functionalist” interpretation.
• Intentionalists, as the tag suggests, place primary emphasis on the intention of the Nazis, from the outset, to eliminate European Jews by means that eventually included mass slaughter. Such an approach tends to emphasize the figure of Adolf Hitler and his monomaniacal zeal to eliminate the Jewish “cancer” from Germany and Europe. (“Once I really am in power,” Hitler had told a journalist as far back as 1922, “my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews.”)
• The functionalist critique, on the other hand, downplays the significance of Hitler as an individual. It “depicts the fragmentation of decision-making and the blur-ring of political responsibility,” and emphasizes “the disintegration of traditional bureaucracy into a crooked maze of ill-conceived and uncoordinated task forces,” in Colin Tatz’s summary.38Also stressed is the evolutionary and contingent character of the campaign against the Jews: from legal discrimination, to concentration, to mass murder. In this view, “what happened in Nazi Germany [was] an unplanned ‘cumulative radicalization’ produced by the chaotic decision-making process of a polycratic regime and the ‘negative selection’ of destructive elements from the Nazis’ ideological arsenal

Kambodża

• Certainly, the KR’s emphasis on concentrating power and wielding it in tyrannical fashion was entirely in keeping with Cambodian tradition. “Absolutism . . . is a core element of authority and legitimacy in Cambodia,” writes David Roberts
• By the nineteenth century, Cambodia’s imperial prowess was long dissipated, and the country easily fell under the sway of the French.
• France fueled nationalist aspirations in Cambodia – by economic exploitation and political subordination, but also by the efforts of French scholars, who worked to “‘recover’ a history for Cambodia
• Another crucial French contribution to Khmer nationalism was the awarding of academic scholarships to Cambodians for study in Paris. In the 1950s, the French capital was perhaps the richest environment for revolutionary ferment anywhere in the world. The French Communist Party, which had led the resistance to Nazi occupation, emerged from the war as a powerful presence in mainstream politics.
• Pre-war Paris had nurtured nationalists from the French colonies, including Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh.
• Following the 1954 Vietnamese victory over the French at Dien Bien Phu, and the signing of the Geneva Accords, the Vietnamese withdrew from Cambodia, but split the Cambodian membership by transferring some 1,000 of its cadres to Vietnam, leaving another 1,000 behind in Cambodia – including Pol Pot and the future core leadership of the Khmer Rouge. This would have fateful consequences when returning communist cadres who had spent their formative period in Vietnam were targeted by the KR for extermination, together with all ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia (or within reach on the other side of the border). In the case of Vietnamese remaining in Cambodia, the destruction was total.
• The impact was devastating. Tens or hundreds of thousands of Cambodians were killed. After bombing raids, “villagers who happened to be away from home returned to find nothing but dust and mud mixed with seared and bloody body parts.”16Moreover, the assault effectively destroyed the agricultural base of an agricultural nation – more effectively, in fact, than had Stalin with his collectivization campaign against the Soviet peasantry (Chapter 5). “The amount of acreage cultivated for rice dropped from six million at the beginning of the war to little more than one million at the end of the bombing campaign,” writes Elizabeth Becker. Malnutrition was rampant, and mass starvation was only avoided by food aid from US charitable organizations. (This should be borne in mind when the aftermath of the Khmer Rouge victory is considered, below.)
• Probably genocidal in itself, unquestionably “one of the worst aggressive onslaughts in modern warfare,” the US bombing of a defenseless population was also the most important factor in bringing the genocidal Khmer Rouge to power.
• This is not to say that the Americans are responsible for the genocide in Cambodia,” as Michael Ignatieff notes. “It is to say that a society that has been pulverised by war is a society that is very susceptible to genocide.”
• Khmer Rouge developed the philosophy that would guide their genocidal program. Let us consider the basic elements of this world view, and its consequences from 1975 to 1979:
  • Hatred of “enemies of the people.”
  • Xenophobia and messianic nationalism. As noted, the KR – in tandem with other Cambodian nationalists – harked back to the Angkor Empire
• Peasantism, anti-urbanism, and primitivism. Like the Chinese communists, but unlike the Soviets, the Khmer Rouge gleaned support from rural rather than urban populations. Peasants were the guardians of the true and pure Cambodia against alien, cosmopolitan city-dwellers. However, the Khmer Rouge vision of the peasantry was misguided from the first. As Ben Kiernan pointed out, the DK regime attacked the three foundations of peasant life: religion, land, and family.
  • The KR rejected the peasants’ attachment to Buddhist religion; imputed to peasants a desire for agricultural collectivization that was alien to Cambodia;
  • revived the hated corvée (forced labor); and sought to destabilize and dismantle the family unit.
  • Pol Pot and Ieng Sary . . . claimed later to have been inspired by the spirit of people who had no private property, no markets, and no money. Their way of life and their means of production corresponded to the primitive communist phase of social evolution in Marxist thinking,” and likely influenced the KR decision to abandon the market and the money economy.
  • Purity, discipline, militarism. Like the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge expressed their racism through an obsessive emphasis on racial purity.
  • Like the Soviets and Chinese, purity was also def i ned by class origin, and as an unswerving fealty to revolutionary principle and practice.
  • Despite their idealization of the peasants, no senior Khmer Rouge leader was of peasant origin. Virtually all were city-bred intellectuals. Pol Pot came from the countryside, but from a prosperous family with ties to the Royal Court in Phnom Penh. As noted above, the core group of leaders belonged to the small, privileged intellectual class able to study overseas on government scholarships.
  • urbicide: 'originally coined in the Serbo-Croatian language, by Bosnian architects, to describe the Serb assault on Sarajevo and the Croat attack on Mostar during the Balkan wars of the 1990s, but there are numerous historical precedents. A classical example, one of many, is the Roman siege and obliteration of Carthage'
    • contemporary examples of urbicide include the Nazi assaults on Leningrad and Stalingrad during the Second World War; the Syrian assault on the rebellious city of Hama in 1982; and the Russian obliteration of Grozny in Chechnya (1994–95)
    • The urban environment was associated with corruption, exploitation, and Western decadence.
• subaltern genocide: 'There is a flavor here of subaltern genocide, a “genocide by the oppressed” against those seen as oppressors'
• Bunhaeng Ung, świadek masowych egzekucji przez Czerwonych Khmerów: 'Loudspeakers blared revolutionary songs and music at full volume. A young girl was seized and raped. Others were led to the pits where they were slaughtered like animals by striking the backs of their skulls with hoes or lengths of bamboo. Young children and babies were held by the legs, their heads smashed against palm trees and their broken bodies flung beside their dying mothers in the death pits. Some children were thrown in the air and bayoneted while music drowned their screams. . . . At the place of execution nothing was hidden. The bodies lay in open pits, rotting under the sun and monsoon rains.'
• film “killing fields”, 1985

Timor Wschodni

• East Timor owes its distinctiveness from the rest of the island of Timor, and the Indonesian archipelago as a whole, to its colonization by the Portuguese in the mid-seventeenth century. The division of the island between the Portuguese and Dutch was formalized in 1915.
• When Australia abandoned the territory, the Timorese were left at the mercy of the Japanese, who slaughtered an estimated 60,000 of them – 13 percent of the entire population.
• With Dili and secondary towns under their control, Indonesian forces fanned out across the territory. Massacres occurred almost everywhere they went.
• Families of suspected Fretilin supporters were annihilated along with the suspects themselves. In many cases, entire village populations were targeted for extermination. This strategy reached its apogee in the Aitana region in July 1981, where “a ghastly massacre . . . murdered everyone, from tiny babies to the elderly, unarmed people who were not involved in the fighting but were there simply because they had stayed with Fretilin and wanted to live freely in the mountains.”Perhaps 10,000 Timorese died in this killing spree alone.
• The atrocities continued on a smaller scale throughout the 1980s. At Malim Luro in August 1983, for example, “after plundering the population of all their belongings, [Indonesian troops] firmly tied up men, women and children, numbering more than sixty people. They made them lie on the ground and then drove a bulldozer over them, and then used it to place a few centimetres of earth on top of the totally crushed corpses.”
• According to Timor specialist John Taylor, tens of thousands of Timorese died as a result of this war of “encirclements, bombing, uprooting of the population, malnutrition and generalized brutalities. ”In total, an estimated 170,000 Timorese – “24 to 26 percent of East Timor’s 1975 population” – died between 1975 and 1999.

Bośnia i Kosowo

• State authorities worked hard to defuse ethnic tensions and generate an overarching Yugoslav identity, with some success.
• An in-depth United Nations report subsequently ascribed 90 percent of atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina to Serbs, and just 10 percent to Croatians and Muslims combined.
• In August 1992, Western reporters broke the story of Serb-run concentration camps in Bosnia where Muslim males, and some females, weredetained.9AtOmarska, the grimmest of the camps, “there were routine and constant beatings; in the dormitories, on the way to and from the canteen or the latrines, all the time. The guards used clubs, thick electrical cable, rifle butts, fists, boots, brass knuckle-dusters, iron rods. . . . Every night, after midnight, the guards called out the names of one or more prisoners. These prisoners were taken out and beaten bloody, their bones often broken and their skin punctured.”10Thousands died; of the survivors, Penny Marshall of ITN wrote that they were reduced to “various stages of human decay and affliction;
• the bones of their elbows and wrists protrude like pieces of jagged stone from the pencil thin stalks to which their arms have been reduced.”
• Journalist Mark Danner described the modus operandi of Serb forces as follows:
  1. Concentration. Surround the area to be cleansed and after warning the resident Serbs – often they are urged to leave or are at least told to mark their houses with white flags – intimidate the target population with artillery fire and arbitrary executions and then bring them out into the streets.
  2. Decapitation. Execute political leaders and those capable of taking their places: lawyers, judges, public officials, writers, professors.
  3. Separation. Divide women, children, and old men from men of “fighting age” – sixteen years to sixty years old.
  4. Evacuation.Transport women, children, and old men to the border, expelling them into a neighboring territory or country.
  5. Liquidation. Execute “fighting age” men, dispose of bodies.13 Throughout the Bosnian war, this strategy was implemented in systematic fashion – primarily, but not only, by Serb military and paramilitary forces. The Srebrenica slaughter of July 1995 is by far the most destructive instance of gendercidal killing in the Balkans; but there are dozens of more quotidian examples.
• Six years after the war ended, “of the approximately 18,000 persons registered by the ICRC in Bosnia-Herzegovina as still missing in connection with the armed conflict . . . 92% are men and 8% are women.”15
• gwałty w Bośni: 'Then he ordered me to undress. I was terribly afraid. I took off my clothes, feeling that I was falling apart. The feeling seemed under my skin; I was dying, my entire being was murdered. closed my eyes, I couldn’t look at him. He hit me. I fell. Then he lay on me. He did it to me. I cried, twisted my body convulsively, bled. I had been a virgin. He went out and invited two Chetniks to come in. I cried. The two repeated what the first one had done to me. I felt lost. I didn’t even know when they left. I don’t know how long I stayed there, lying on the floor alone, in a pool of blood. My mother found me. I couldn’t imagine anything worse. I had been raped, destroyed and terribly hurt. But for my mother this was the greatest sorrow of our lives. We both cried and screamed. She dressed me.'
• It was in the Bosnian context that the term “genocidal rape”
• When Srebrenica fell to the Serbs, it was “protected” by fewer than 400 Dutch peacekeepers, mostly lightly armed and under orders not to f i re their weapons except in self-defense. Genocidal massacres were the predictable result.
• quarter of a million people had died in Bosnia-Herzegovina, while an astonishing 1,282,000 were registered as internally displaced.

Bangladesz 1971

• By some estimates, the mass killings in Bangladesh – at the time, East Pakistan – are on a par with the twentieth century’s most destructive genocides. At least one million Bengalis, perhaps as many as three million,1were massacred by the security forces of West Pakistan, assisted by local allies. Yet the genocide remains almost unknown in the West. Only recently has its prominence slightly increased, as a result of a handful of education and memorialization projects.
• After negotiations failed to resolve the impasse, Khan met with four senior generals on February 22, 1971, and issued orders to annihilate the Awami League and its popular base. From the outset, they planned a campaign of genocide. “Kill three million [Bengalis],” said Khan, “and the rest will eat out of our hands.” On March 25, the genocide was launched. In an attempt to decapitate East Pakistan’s political and intellectual leadership, Dhaka University – a center of nationalist agitation – was attacked. Hundreds of students were killed in what was dubbed “Operation Searchlight.” Working from prepared lists, death squads roamed the streets. Perhaps 7,000 people died in a single night, 30,000 over the course of a week.
• To produce the desired number of corpses, the West Pakistanis set up “extermination camps”8and launched a massive round of gendercidal killing:
• The place of execution was the river edge [here, the Buriganga River outside Dhaka], or the shallows near the shore, and the bodies were disposed of by the simple means of permitting them to flow downstream. The killing took place night after night. Usually the prisoners were roped together and made to wade out into the river. They were in batches of six or eight, and in the light of a powerful electric arc lamp, they were easy targets, black against the silvery water. The executioners stood on the pier, shooting down at the compact bunches of prisoners wading in the water. There were screams in the hot night air, and then silence. The prisoners fell on their sides and their bodies lapped against the shore. Then a new bunch of prisoners was brought out, and the process was repeated. In the morning the village boatmen hauled the bodies into midstream and the ropes binding the bodies were cut so that each body drifted separately downstream.9
• The West Pakistani campaign extended to mass rape, aimed at “dishonoring” Bengali women and undermining Bengali society. Between 200,000 and 400,000 women were victimized. “Girls of eight and grandmothers of seventy-f i ve had been sexually assaulted,” wrote feminist author Susan Brownmiller in her book, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape.10An unknown number of women were gang-raped to death, or executed after repeated violations.
• None of the leaders of the genocide has ever been brought to trial; all remain comfortably ensconced in Pakistan (the former West Pakistan) and other countries. In recent years, activists have worked to try those leaders before an international tribunal, so far without success.13

Rwanda

• The genocide that consumed the tiny Central African country of Rwanda from April to July 1994 was in some ways without precedent. In just twelve weeks, at least one million people – overwhelmingly Tutsis, but also tens of thousands of Hutus opposed to the genocidal government – were murdered, primarily by machetes, clubs, and small arms.
• About 80 percent of victims died in a “hurricane of death . . . between the second week of April and the third week of May,” noted Gérard Prunier. “If we consider that probably around 800,000 people were slaughtered during that short period . . . the daily killing rate was at least five times that of the Nazi death camps.”
• Understanding the human catastrophe that consumed Rwanda in 1994 requires attention to a host of complex factors. They include:
• the colonial and post-colonial history of the country, notably the politicization of Hutu and Tutsi ethnicities under Belgian rule and into the independence era that began in 1959;
• • the authoritarian and tightly regulated character of the political system installed by the nation’s post-independence rulers, including the second-class political status it assigned to Tutsis, fueling a Tutsi-led rebel movement based in Uganda;
• • the role of outside actors, especially France, in financing and fueling Hutu extremism;
• • the pervasive economic crisis in Rwanda, one of the world’s poorest and most densely populated countries;
• • the international factors that inhibited and occasionally encouraged humanitarian interventions in the first half of the 1990s.
• Early explorers of Central Africa, notably the Englishman John Hanning Speke, propounded the “Hamitic hypothesis.” This depicted the Hutu as offspring of Ham, the black son of Noah, cursed by God and destined forever to serve as “hewers of wood and drawers of water”;
• and, by noble contrast, the Tutsi caste, descended from the Nilotic civilization of classical Egypt. As was typical of imperial racial theorizing, the mark of civilization was grafted on to physiognomic difference, with the generally taller, supposedly more refined Tutsis destined to rule, and shorter, allegedly less refined Hutus to serve.17 Under Belgian rule and afterwards, Tutsis and Hutus were indoctrinated with this Hamitic hypothesis. The caste character of the designations was gradually transformed into a racial distinction that shaped ethnic identity and fueled Hutu resentment,
• It was under the Belgians, too, that a new, racially segregated state, church, and education system was constructed. Tutsis were assigned a dominant role in each.19 The symbol of the newly bureaucratized system was the distribution of identity cards defining every Rwandan as either Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa – the last of these a Pygmy ethnicity, constituting around 2 percent of the population. The institution of these identity cards was perpetuated by the post-colonial government, and in 1994 proved a key genocidal facilitator.
• After the Second World War, with anti-colonial national liberation movements in ascendance, Belgian authorities performed a dramatic about-face. Pro-independence movements were springing up throughout the colonized world, and in Rwanda the Tutsis, having benefited from their positions of dominance in education and the state bureaucracy, moved to the forefront of the various anti-colonial initiatives. The Belgians, perceiving the threat – and perhaps also influenced by the democratizing tendency unleashed by the Second World War – switched their favor to the less-educated, less-threatening Hutu majority. This unleashed pent-up Hutu frustrations, and led to the first proto-genocidal massacres of Tutsis, claiming several thousand victims. Tens of thousands of Tutsis fled to neighboring Zaire, Tanzania, and especially Uganda, where the exiles formed an armed rebel movement and launched attacks into Rwanda.
• Between 1990 and 1993, “a series of minipogroms against Tutsi [took place] in different parts of the country,” which in retrospect appear to be “rehearsals for the conflagration of 1994.”25Perhaps 2,000 people were murdered
• Exterminationist propaganda against Tutsis became commonplace in Rwanda.
• As early as December 1990, the infamous “Hutu Ten Commandments” were issued by the Hutu extremist paper Kangura; “The Hutu must be fi rm and vigilant against their common Tutsi enemy,” read one of the commandments. In August 1993, the radio station RTLM (Radio-Télévision Libre des Mille Collines) began broadcasting, with funding from the Christian Democratic International.27RTLM transformed the staid Rwandan media, and fueled a hysterical fear of the threat posed by RPF forces and their “f i fth column” inside Rwanda – the Tutsi minority, designated by RTLM as inyenzi, or “cockroaches.” “The cruelty of the inyenzi is incurable,” declared one broadcast; “the[ir] cruelty . . . can only be cured by their total extermination.”28
• At 8:30 p.m. on April 6, 1994, the plane carrying President Habyarimana back from talks in Tanzania was shot down as it neared Kigali airport. By 9:18, the Presidential Guard had begun to erect roadblocks around Kigali.
• The following day, working from carefully prepared lists, soldiers and militias began murdering thousands of Tutsis and oppositionist Hutus. C
• Crucially, ten Belgian peacekeepers protecting the moderate Prime Minister, Agathe Uwimiliyana, were seized, tortured, and murdered, along with Uwimiliyana herself. The murders prompted Belgium to withdraw its remaining forces from Rwanda. Over the heated protests of UNAMIR commander Dallaire, other countries followed suit. Foreign journalists also departed en bloc.
• Army and militia forces went street to street, block by block, and house to house, in Kigali and every other major city save Butare in the south (which resisted the genocidal impetus for two weeks before its prefect was deposed and killed, and replaced by a compliant génocidaire). Tutsis were dragged out of homes and hiding places and murdered, often after torture and rape. At the infamous roadblocks, those carrying Tutsi identity cards – along with some Hutus who were deemed to “look” Tutsi – were shot or hacked to death. Often the killers, whether drunk and willing or conscripted and reluctant, severed the Achilles’ tendon of their victims to immobilize them. They would be left for hours in agony, until the murderers mustered the energy to return and fi nish them off. Numerous accounts exist of Tutsis paying to be killed by rifle bullets, rather than slowly and agonizingly with machetes and hoes.
• As early as April 9, in the church at Gikondo in Kigali, a slaughter occurred that presaged the strategies to be followed in coming weeks – one that was witnessed by Polish nuns, priests, and UN military observers:
• A Presidential Guard officer arrived and told the soldiers not to waste their bullets because the Interahamwe [Hutu Power militia] would soon come with machetes.
• Then the militia came in, one hundred of them, and threatening the [Polish] HOLOCAUST IN RWANDA
• priests they began to kill people, slashing with their machetes and clubs, hacking arms, legs, genitals and the faces of the terrified people who tried to protect the children under the pews. Some people were dragged outside the church and attacked in the courtyard. The killing continued for two hours as the whole compound was searched. Only two people are believed to have survived the killing at the church. Not even babies were spared. That day in Gikondo there was a street littered with corpses the length of a kilometre. . . . The killing in Gikondo was done in broad daylight with no attempt to disguise the identity of the killers, who were convinced that there would be no punishment for their actions.
• Early estimates of the death-toll in the Rwandan genocide were between 500,000 and 800,000, overwhelmingly Tutsis. Subsequent investigations have revised these mind-boggling figures upward. A detailed census in July 2000 cited 951,018 victims, but estimated the total death-toll at over a million. According to a subsequent report, “93.7% of the victims were killed because they were identif i ed as Tutsi; 1% because they were related to, married to or friends with Tutsi; 0.8% because they looked like Tutsi; and 0.8% because they were opponents of the Hutu regime at the time or were hiding people from the killers.”

Perspektywy nauk społecznych

• What motivates génocidaires? Isee four psychological elements as essential: narcissism, greed, fear, and humiliation
• narcissism of minor differences. This refers, in Anton Blok’s summary, to “the fact that the fiercest struggles often take place between individuals, groups and communities that differ very little – or between which the differences have greatly diminished.”3
• Scholars of genocide are often struck by how groups that seem close linguistically, geographically, and/or religiously can succumb to bitter intercommunal conflict: Hutus and Tutsis, Serbs and Croatians, Catholics and Protestants.
• Malignant narcissism and psychopathy are common among génocidaires in modern history.
• Collective pathological narcissism is also a factor in genocide.
• The group as a whole, or members of the group . . . feel grandiose and self-important. . . . [They are] obsessed with group fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance, bodily beauty or performance, or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering ideals or political theories. . . .
• [They] are firmly convinced that the group is unique. . . . [They] require excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wish to be feared and to be notorious. . . . [They] feel entitled. They expect unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. They demand automatic and full com-pliance with expectations. . . . They rarely accept responsibility for their actions . . . [They] are devoid of empathy. They are unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of other groups. . . . [They] are arrogant and sport haughty behaviors or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, punished, limited, or confronted. . . . [All of] this often leads to anti-social behavior, cover-ups, and criminal activities on a mass scale.9
• Great Britain, was probably the world leader in collective pathological narcissism during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
• Generations of schoolchildren grew up imbibing their elders’ conviction that Britain was God’s gift to humankind, particularly to the darker races it was destined to rule. British culture and civilization were supreme, and British men and women were uniquely noble, brave, virtuous, and incorruptible. Traces of this mentality persist even in the post-colonial era, and can resurge with virulent passion in times of crisis, as I observed firsthand on a visit to Britain during the Falklands/ Malvinas War of 1982.10
• In the past century, the societies that have most dramatically evinced a tendency towards collective pathological narcissism are three totalitarian states – Nazi Germany (1933–45), Stalinist Russia (1928–53), and Maoist China (1949–76) – and, since 1945, a democratic one, the United States.
• Greed is “an overriding theme in human affairs,”18and a principal motive of genocidal perpetrators and bystanders alike.
• Fear of the immediate or more distant future is a pivotal element in a number of approaches to ethnic warfare. . . . Fear induces people to support even very costly violence, because the choice seems to be between becoming a victim or becoming a participant. . .
• The Rwandan holocaust of 1994 occurred in the aftermath of a massive blood-letting in neighboring Burundi, where between 50,000 and 100,000 civilians, overwhelmingly Hutus, had been massacred by the Tutsi-dominated military following a failed coup. Some 350,000 Hutus fl ed to Rwanda, bringing firsthand accounts of atrocities; among these refugees were some of the most unrestrained genocidal killers of Tutsis in 1994
• Many Hutu were driven to kill their Tutsi neighbors because they PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
• knew they had no other option; refusal to comply meant that they themselves would be killed the next day.”37
• The Tutsis/ Croatians/Jews/Bolsheviks must be killed because they harbor intentions to kill us, and will do so if they are not stopped/prevented/annihilated. Before they are killed, they are brutalized, debased, and dehumanized – turning them into something resembling “subhumans” or “animals” and, by a circular logic, justifying their extermination.
• Group identity is so supreme a value that many individuals will choose to sacrifice their own lives to defend it. Likewise, people will often choose physical death over existential shame, dishonor, or loss of status and “respect” before one’s peers.
• Humiliation has been defined by Evelin Lindner as “the enforced lowering of a person or group, a process of subjugation that damages or strips away their pride, honor or dignity.”
• Humiliation involves feelings of shame and disgrace, as well as helplessness in the face of abuse at the hands of a stronger party. These are among the most painful and indelible of human emotions. He who has known extreme shame and humiliation may forever struggle to recover a sense of agency and self-respect.”
• Humiliation thus figures prominently in the most extreme manifestations of human aggression: murder, war, genocide.
• In the case of the Armenian genocide, the Young Turk authorities in Constantinople were humiliated by military defeats in the Balkans and northern Africa (1909–13), and by the secession of imperial territories including Serbia, Bulgaria, and Albania. They were humiliated by the presence of a religious and ethnic minority in their midst (Christian Armenians) that included a prosperous “middleman” sector, and was supposedly assisting Russian designs on Turkey at a time of imperial vulnerability (the First World War). Moreover, it appears that PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
• In Rwanda under Belgian colonialism, Tutsis were taught that they were descended from the “civilized” peoples of the Nile region, while Hutus were unrefined bumpkins. Tutsis were depicted (and came to view themselves) as tall, powerful, educated, attractive; Hutus were presented as the humiliating antithesis.
• What America is tasting now is only a copy of what we have tasted,” declaims Osama bin Laden. “Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace.

Bauman o Holocauście i nowoczesności

• Modernity and the Holocaust,sociologist Zygmunt Bauman delivered a resounding “yes” to this question.
• “Modern civilization was not the Holocaust’s suff i cient condition; it was, however, most certainly its necessary condition. Without it, the Holocaust would be unthink-able.”
• His argument revolved around four core features of modernity: nationalism;
• “scientific” racism; technological complexity; and bureaucratic rationalization.
• Modern nationalism divided the world “fully and exhaustively . . . into national domains,” leaving “no space . . . for internationalism” and designating “each scrap of the no-man’s-land . . . [as] a standing invitation to aggression.
• Two main criticisms of this modernity-of-genocide thesis may be advanced. First, the supposed dividing line between historical and modern genocide may be more stylistic than substantive. The root-and-branch extermination of entire populations is entrenched deep in our history as a species. It is simply not the case that “the Holocaust left behind and put to shame all its alleged pre-modern equivalents, exposing them as primitive, wasteful and ineffective by comparison,” as Bauman contended.14
• The second criticism of the modernity-of-genocide thesis may be summarized in one word: Rwanda (see Chapter 9). There, around one million people were hunted, corraled, and exterminated in twelve weeks – a rate of killing exceeding by an order of magnitude that of the “modern” Nazi holocaust. Yet the genocide was carried out by men and women armed with little more than guns and agricultural implements.15
• Anthony Smith cited six foundations of ethnic identity: “1. a collective proper name, 2. a myth of common ancestry, 3. shared historical memories, 4. one or more differentiating elements of common culture, 5. an association with a specific ‘homeland,’ 6. a sense of solidarity for significant sectors of the population.”18
• The relative wealth, industriousness, and educational attainment of the Armenian minority, even under conditions of discrimination and repression in the Ottoman lands, made them an easy target for the fanatical nationalism of the Young Turks (Chapter 4)
• Similar hatred or at least distaste towards Jews in Germany and other European countries contributed to popular support for the Holocaust against them (Chapter 6).
• anthropology was compromised, in the past, by its alliance with European imperialism.Most nineteenth-century anthropologists took for granted European dominance over subject peoples. Their schema of classification tended to revolve around hierarchies of humanity: they sifted and categorized the peoples of the world in a way that bolstered the European claim to supremacy. Modern “scientific” racism was one result. Even the most liberal anthropologists of the pre-First World War period, such as Franz Boas, viewed the disappearance of many primitive civilizations as preordained; “salvage ethnography” was developed in an attempt to describe as much of these civilizations as possible before nature took its supposedly inevitable course.
• Rummel’s book Death by Government (1997) coined the term “democide” to describe “government mass murder” – including but not limited to genocide as def i ned in the UN Convention.
• According to his detailed study, somewhere in the range of 170 million “men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners.”1If combat casualties in war are added to the picture, “Power has killed over 203 million people in [the twentieth] century.”

Nauki polityczne i stosunki międzynarodowe

• Brak USA i Kongo oczywiście: 'Rummel identifies the “most lethal regimes,” in terms of numbers of people exterminated, as the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin (Chapter 5), communist China (Box 3a), Germany under the Nazis (Chapter 6 and Box 6a), and Nationalist China (touched on brief l y in Chapter 2). If the “megamurder” index is recalculated based upon a regime’s time in power (i.e., as deaths per year), then Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge (Chapter 7), Turkey under Kemal Atatürk, and the Nazi puppet state in Croatia (1941–45) top the list.'
• Rummel discerned an underlying “Power Principle” in this human catastrophe, namely that “Power kills; absolute Power kills absolutely”:
• The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked, and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide.3
• Presence or absence of genocidal precedents: “The risks of new [genocidal/ politicidal] episodes were more than three times greater when state failures occurred in countries that had prior geno-/politicides.”
  • Presence or absence of an exclusionary ideology: “Countries in which the ruling elite adhered to an exclusionary ideology were two and a half times as likely to have state failures leading to geno-/politicide as those with no such ideology.”
  • Extent of ethnic “capture” of the state: “The risks of geno-/politicide were two and a half times morelikely in countries wherethe political elite was based mainly or entirely on an ethnic minority.”
  • Extent and depth of democratic institutions: “Once in place, democratic institutions – even partial ones – reduce the likelihood of armed conflict and all but eliminate the risk that it will lead to geno-/politicide.”
  • Degree of international “openness”: “The greater their interdependence with the global economy, the less likely that [national] elites will target minorities and political opponents for destruction.”
• Most wars were now civil wars, pitting armed groups (usually guerrillas) against other armed groups (usually state agents and paramilitaries) within the borders of a single country.
• diamonds, gold, timber, oil, and drugs. These spoils were marketed internationally; the world had truly entered an age of globalized warfare, in which consumer decisions in the First World had a direct impact on the course and outcome of Third World conflicts.16
• It is difficult to say whether the new wars are more likely to produce genocide, but at the very least, they contain a strong genocidal potential.
• Are democracies less likely to wage war and genocide against each other than are non-democracies? Are they less likely in general to wage war and genocide?
• Democracies, it is claimed, do not fight each other, or do so only rarely.
• Things become more complicated, however, when we consider the history of colonizing liberal democracies; the nature of some of the indigenous societies they attacked; the secretive and anti-democratic character of violence by both democratic and authoritarian states; and the latter-day comportment of democracies, including the global superpower and non-Western democracies.
• when genocidal campaigns were waged against these nations, “liberal democ-racies were actually committing genocide against other democracies, repeatedly.” In fact, Mann suggested, “If we counted up separately the cases where ‘the people’ of the United States, Canada and Australia committed mass murder on the individual Indian and aboriginal nations, we could probably tip Rummel’s statistical scales over to the conclusion that democratic regimes were more likely to commit genocide than were authoritarian states
• liberal democracy is no guarantee against domestic killing, as millions of indigenous peoples discovered. Nor, in a world where the greatest perpetrator of international violence is the liberal-democratic superpower, can democracy be seen as a cure-all
• First, Lemkin perceived an important void in existing international law. While legislation and even military intervention were countenanced in cases of interstate violence, states had free rein to inf l ict violence on their own populations. To generate a norm and prohibition regime against such actions, a potent existing norm, and a defining regime of world affairs, had to be eroded. This was the norm of state sovereignty, and the international regime (the Westphalian state system) that it underpinned. As long as states forswore intervention in the “internal” affairs of other states, a principal cause of human suffering could not be confronted.
• Lemkin wrote in the New York Times: “It seems inconsistent with our concepts of civilization that selling a drug to an individual is a matter of worldly concern [i.e., the basis for an international prohibition regime], while gassing millions of human beings might be a problem of internal concern.”
• Lemkin’s greatest achievement was the UN Genocide Convention. “Just four years after Lemkin had introduced ‘genocide’ to the world, the General Assembly had unanimously passed a law banning it.”
• But if a country had committed genocide in the past, as Turkey had done [against the Armenians], Lemkin was willing to keep the country’s atrocities out of the discussion, so as not to scare off a possible signatory” to the convention.39For similar reasons, Lemkin had avoided pushing for the inclusion of political groups in the UN definition of genocide. This, he feared, would provoke resistance among states fearful of having their political persecutions labeled as genocide. (In any case, Lemkin had never cared much about political groups. He did not consider them to be bearers of human culture in the same – archaic? – way that he viewed ethnonational groups.)
• With respect to the norm against genocide and crimes against humanity, we can observe that it has partially, not yet decisively, displaced the norm of state sovereignty.

Gendercyd

• Kenzo Okamoto, a Japanese soldier, recalled: “We were hungry for women!
• 'Officers issued a rough rule: if you mess with a woman, kill her afterwards. ”Another soldier stated: “Perhaps when we were raping [a female victim], we looked at her as a woman, but when we killed her, we just thought of her as something like a pig.”20 A Chinese eyewitness, Li Ke-hen, described “so many bodies on the street, victims of group rape and murder. They were all stripped naked, their breasts cut off, leaving a terrible dark brown hole; some of them were bayoneted in the abdomen, with their intestines spilling out alongside them; some had a roll of paper or a piece of wood stuffed in their vaginas.'
• While estimates of women raped in the Balkans genocides ranged between 20,000 and 50,000, in Rwanda they were ten times higher – between 250,000 and 500,000.
• Argentina. In 1976, against a backdrop of mounting social and economic chaos, a military regime under General Jorge Rafael Videla took power. A state of siege was declared. For the next seven years, Videla and his fellow generals presided over the most brutal of South America’s modern military dictatorships. Between 10,000 and 30,000 people – suspected of involvement with leftist guerrillas, or of vaguer subversions – were “disappeared” by the authorities.
  • 'Generally, they were tortured to death or executed; many of the bodies were dumped out of airplanes and into the Atlantic Ocean off the Argentine coast. Pregnant detainees were often allowed to give birth before being killed; the infants were then turned over to be adopted by military families.'

Pamięć o nazizmie i II wojnie w Niemczech

• ciągłość Niemiec nazistowskich i współczesnych, korporacje: 'German scholars asserted historical continuities between the Nazi and post-Nazi periods, including the role of large corporate enterprises that had managed the transition smoothly from fascism to democracy'
• Czy Niemcy też byli ofiarami?: In academia, the ferment spilled over into the Historikerstreit (historians’ debate) of the 1970s and 1980s, “a scholarly controversy over the place and significance of National Socialism and the Holocaust in the narrative of modern German history. ”An older generation concerned with maintaining, for example, a distinction between Nazi and German army practice, was confronted by mostly younger scholars who challenged the assumptions and evasions of their seniors (see also Chapter 6).
  • Another was the visit of US President Ronald Reagan to the Bitburg military cemetery, where German soldiers, including SS officers, were interred. The German soldiers were “victims of Nazism also,” Reagan proclaimed. “They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps. ”His comments sparked a furor, among US military veterans as well as among Jewish intellectuals and activists. In
  • Germany, they provoked intense public discussion over whether Jewish and German victimization should be mentioned in the same breath.
  • Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners accused “ordinary Germans” of perpetrating many of the genocidal atrocities of the Second World War.
  • Günter Grass’ Im Krebsgang (Crabwalk), meanwhile, described events at the end of the war, when the Wilhelm Gustloff cruise liner was torpedoed by a Soviet submarine, killing thousands of German civilian refugees.
  • Jörg Friedrich’s Brandstätten (Fire Sites) provided grisly photographic evidence of the effects of Allied fire-bombing of German cities.
  • The bombing left an entire generation traumatised. But it was never discussed.
  • There are Germans whose first recollections are of being hidden by their mothers.

Pamięć i wyparcie/wypieranie się/negacja (denial) ludobójstwa

• Anne Applebaum notes the unwillingness of post-Soviet Russians to come to terms with their twentieth-century history.
• Society is indifferent to the crimes of the past because so many people participated in them,” according to Alexander Yakovlev, chair of a commission seeking to rehabilitate those unjustly convicted.
• Denial is viewed increasingly as a final stage of genocide, and an indispensable one from the viewpoint of the génocidaires.“The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses.
• They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims.”19
• Since this resurged in the public consciousness in the early 1960s, a diverse and interlinked network of Holocaust deniers has arisen
• In both “wings” of the denialist movement, however, academic figures – such as Arthur Butz in the US, David Irving in Great Britain, and Robert Faurisson in France – have also sought to provide a veneer of respectability for the enterprise.
• najpopularniejsze dyskursy negacji ludobójstwa
  • Hardly anybody died.: 'Reports of atrocities and mass killings are depicted as exaggerated and self-serving. (The fact that some reports are distorted and self-interested lends credibility to this strategy.' (...) 'Genocides of indigenous peoples are especially subject to this form of denial. In many cases, the groups in question suffered near-total extermination, leaving few descendants and advocates to press the case for truth.'
  • It was self-defense.: 'Murdered civilians – especially adult males (Chapter 13) – are depicted as “rebels,” “brigands,” and “terrorists.”'
  • the violence was mutual.: '”Where genocides occur in a context of civil or international war, they can be depicted as part of generalized warfare, perhaps featuring atrocities on all sides. This strategy is standard among the deniers of genocides by Turks, Japanese, Serbs, Hutus, and West Pakistanis – to name just a few. I' (...) Keith Windschuttle has used killings of whites by Aboriginals to denounce “The Myths of Frontier Massacres in Australian History. (...) CNN International reporter has just referred to the world standing by and “watch[ing] Hutus and Tutsis kill each other” during the Rwanda genocide of 1994.'
  • The deaths weren’t intentional.
  • There was no central direction.: 'Frequently, states and their agents establish a degree of deniability by employing freelance agents such as paramilitaries (as in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Darfur), criminal elements (e.g., the chétésin the Armenian genocide), or members of the targeted groups themselves (Jewish kapos in the Nazi death camps; Mayan peasants conscripted for genocide against Mayan populations of the Guatemalan highlands). (...) Many deniers of the Jewish Holocaust emphasize the lack of a clear order from Hitler or his top associates to exterminate European Jews.'
  • There weren’t that many people to begin with.: ”Where demographic data provide support for claims of genocide, denialists will gravitate towards the lowest available figures for the targeted population, or invent new ones
  • “It wasn’t / isn’t ‘genocide: 'because the victims were not members of one of the Convention’s specified groups; because their deaths were unintended; because they were legitimate targets; because “only” specif i c sectors of the target group were killed; because “war is hell”
  • “We would never do that.”: Collective pathological narcissism (see Chapter 10) occludes the acknowledgment, or even the conscious consideration, of genocide. (...) In Turkey, notes Taner Akçam, anyone “dar[ing] to speak about the Armenian Genocide . . . is aggressively attacked as a traitor, singled out for public condemnation and may even be put in prison. (...) In Australia, “the very mention of an Australian genocide is . . . (...) Comedian Rob Corddry parodied this mindset in the context of US abuses and atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. “There’s no question what took place in that prison was horrible,” Corddry said on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. “But the Arab world has to realize that the US shouldn’t be judged on the actions of a . . . well, we shouldn’t be judged on actions. It’s our principles that matter, our inspiring, abstract notions. Remember: just because torturing prisoners is something we did, doesn’t mean it’s something we would do.”
  • “We are the real victims.”: For deniers, the best defense is often a strong offense. (...) Likewise, the Canadian state that prosecuted Jim Keegstra was the same that shamefully “dodged implementation of the Genocide Convention” by “quietly redefining the crime in the country’s domestic enforcement statute so as to omit any mention of policies and actions in which Canada was and is engaged,” specifically its genocide against native peoples. Quis custodiet custodiens – who will judge the judges?

Sprawiedliwość, prawda, zadośćuczynienie

• The legal strictures against genocide constitute jus cogens: they are among the laws “accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole from which no derogation is permitted.” Jus cogens is associated with the principle of universal jurisdiction (quasi delicta juris gentium)
• After the UN Convention came into force in 1951, genocide was all but ignored in international law. On the international scene, the word was commonly deployed for propaganda purposes.
• At century’s end, Russian Tsar Nicholas convened an international conference on war prevention at the Hague in Holland. This led to two seminal conventions, in 1899 and 1907, that placed limits on “legitimate” methods of warfare, including bans on civilian bombardments and the use of poison gas.
• Nuremberg featured “the first official mention of genocide in an international legal setting,” as all the German defendants were accused of “conduct[ing] deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories.”6Raphael Lemkin’s tire-less lobbying had paid dividends, though, as noted in Chapter 1, “genocide” formed no part of the Nuremberg verdicts.
• Both tribunals were flawed. Leaders were tried only for crimes committed in wartime. Nazi actions against the Jews prior to September 1, 1939, for example, were absent from the Nuremberg indictments. Nazi crimes against Jews, Roma, and other groups were downplayed, while charges of waging aggressive war were emphasized.
• Thus, Japanese scientists associated with the Unit 731 biological experiments – which led, among other things, to the release of live plague bacilli over Chinese cities – were granted immunity from prosecution, in return for sharing their research and expertise with the Americans.
• Soviet occupiers, for instance, incorporated Nazi-era personnel wholesale into the new Stasi security force of East Germany.
• It is one of history’s ironies that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was created to deflect accusations of Western complacency in the face of genocide.In spring 1992, with war raging in Bosnia, voices were raised for the establishment of a UN-sponsored tribunal to try the perpetrators of atrocities.
• In May 1993, the Security Council created the ICTY at The Hague (hence, “the Hague tribunal”). For some time following, this was as far as the West was willing to go. The Balkan wars continued for another three years, with the worst single atrocity occurring near their end (the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995). The tribunal’s creation did not prevent a recrudescence of conflict in Kosovo in 1998–99.
• The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was housed at Arusha, Tanzania, where the abortive 1993 peace agreements had been signed (Chapter 9). The ICTR’s gears ground painfully slowly, however. Understaffed and underfunded, it remains prone to allegations that it focuses exclusively on Hutu killers of Tutsis, with no consideration of Tutsi reprisal killings of Hutus.
• Many have criticized the UN Genocide Convention’s exclusion of political and other potential victim groups. Moreover, the four core groups that the Convention does recognize – “national, ethnical, racial, and religious” – are notoriously difficult to define.
• Proceedings against thousands of accused war criminals in Germany after World War Two, following on the Nuremberg tribunal but conducted by German courts. Result: minimal “denazification,” with most former Nazi functionaries left unprosecuted.
  • Israel’s abduction and trial of leading Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann (1960–61). Result: Eichmann’s conviction and execution (1962).31 • Argentina’s prosecution and incarceration, in the mid-1980s, of leaders of the former military junta (see Chapter 14). Result: fi ve leaders convicted and jailed, but pardoned several years later.
  • Trials of accused génocidaires in Rwanda. Result: some trials and executions, general chaos, and the introduction of less formal gacaca proceedings (see below).
  • A renewed round of trials in Germany in the 1990s, this time of former communist functionaries in the East German government. Result: a handful of convictions of low-level border guards; general impunity for higher-ups, sometimes on health grounds.
• Press reports had alerted Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón to Pinochet’s presence in Britain. In October 1998, Garzón procured a warrant for Pinochet’s extradition. when police detained him. He would remain under house arrest while the British considered Garzón’s extradition request.
• Not even leaders of the self-proclaimed “world’s greatest democracy” were safe. In late 2004, a Canadian group, Lawyers Against the War, sought unsuccessfully to have US President George W. Bush declared persona non grata prior to a state visit to Canada, on the basis of his alleged “grave crimes against humanity and war crimes” in Iraq.52
• In Germany soon afterwards, the Center for Constitutional Rights, based in New York, “filed a complaint . . . with the Federal German Prosecutor’s Office against [US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld accusing him of war crimes and torture in connection with detainee abuses at Iraq’s
• Abu Ghraib prison. ”As a result, Rumsfeld hedged on attending a conference in Germany in February 2005, until the German government guaranteed that he would not face arrest.54
• The concept of a permanent international tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity is a venerable one. According to legal scholar William Schabas, Gustav Moynier of the Red Cross outlined an early plan in the 1870s.55But for most of the twentieth century, the one court with a claim to global jurisdiction – the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague, also known as the World Court – was limited mostly to territorial claims and resource disputes.
• Crimes against humanity comprise any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
• (a) Murder; (b) Extermination; (c) Enslavement; (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (f) Torture; (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender . . . or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law . . . (i) Enforced disappearance of persons; (j) The crime of apartheid; (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
• Like gacaca in Rwanda, truth and reconciliation commissions are driven by a vision of restorative justice that “seeks repair of social connections and peace rather than retribution against the offenders.”
• The commission obtained extensive documentation of the US role in overthrowing a democratic government in Guatemala (1954), then installing and sustaining the military dictators who eventually turned to full-scale genocide against Mayan Indians and domestic dissenters.
• One balks at assessing the international dimension of the Congo conflict, for example, if a truth commission is ever struck with this mandate.
• Hayner has vividly described the treatment accorded to leaders and high-profile agents of the former junta in Argentina. Many were never formally tried; some were jailed but released under an amnesty. Nevertheless, the revelation of their deeds, primarily through the Argentine truth commission and its Nunca Más report, carried lasting consequences for these individuals
• A question remains: Is the truth always desirable? In personal terms, truth-telling about atrocity is often deeply traumatizing for the teller. Yael Fischman and Jaime Ross describe the “recurring themes” of torture survivors in therapy:
• fear of destroying others, such as relatives and therapists, by relating the trauma; fear of loss of control over feelings of rage, violence, and anxiety; shame and rage over the vulnerability and helplessness evoked by torture; rage and grief at the sudden and arbitrary disruption of individual, social, and political projects, and at the violation of rights; guilt and shame over surviving and being unable to save others; guilt over bringing distress on self and family and over not protecting them . . . fear and rage at the unpredictability of and lack of control over events; grief over the loss of significant others, through both death and exile; and loss of aspects of the self, such as trust and innocence.
• Truth-divulging may also be “dangerous and destabilizing” on a national level, according to Hayner, “disrupt[ing] fragile relationships in local communities recently returned to peace.”
• She cites Mozambique, where “people across the political spectrum, including victims, academics, government officials and others . . . said, ‘No, we do not want to reenter into this morass of conflict, hatred, and pain. We want to focus on the future. . . . We prefer silence over confrontation, over renewed pain. While we cannot forget, we would like to pretend that we can.’”
• Durban, South Africa, September 2002.The UN-sponsored World Conference against Racism issued a final declaration calling for redress for the damage inflicted on African peoples by the scourge of slavery, together with other “historical injustices [that] have undeniably contributed to poverty, underdevelopment, marginalisation, social exclusion, [and] economic disparities.” Proposed “in a spirit of solidarity” were measures including “debt relief, “promotion of foreign direct investment,” “market access,” “infrastructure development,” “human resource development,” and “education, training and cultural development. ”In the same year, the Apartheid Debt and Reparations Campaign in the US launched a lawsuit in New York targeting “banks and other companies in six Western countries, seeking redress for ‘aiding and abetting a crime against humanity.’”84 The city of Liverpool in the United Kingdom issued “an unreserved apology for the city’s involvement in the slave trade,” recognizing its “untold misery” and its destructive impact on “Black people in Liverpool today.”85
• Bringing Them Home, the report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (Chapter 3). This popular form of apology contrasted sharply with the government’s reaction to the report, which expressed only “regret” for past treatment of Aborigines.
  • President Bill Clinton’s 1998 apology at Kigali airport for Western inaction during the genocide in Rwanda.92
  • The 2004 apology by Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Germany’s development aid minister, to Namibian Hereros for “atrocities . . . [that] would have been termed genocide” (Chapter 3).
  • In Canada, a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples acknowledged in 1996 that “great wrongs have been done” to Native Indians. This half-apology was followed by the allotting of hundreds of millions of dollars “to community-based healing initiatives for victims” of the residential school system
• Notorious non-apologies of recent times include Turkey’s for the genocide against Armenians; nations of the Americas for the crimes of Atlantic slavery; and Central European countries for the mass expulsion of ethnic Germans at the end of the Second World War and after. Nonetheless, the apologetic trend prevails, suggesting a strengthing of the humanitarian regime first forged in the mid-nineteenth century.

Prewencja, znaki ostrzegawcze

• What are the most reliable indicators that genocide might be in the offing?
  • A history of genocide and intercommunal conflict.
  • Severe economic crisis. 'When the material basis of people’s lives is thrown into question, they are depressingly prone to seek scapegoats among minorities (or majorities); to heed an extremist political message; and to be lured by opportunities to loot and pillage.'
  • Mobilization along lines of communal cleavage
  • Hate propaganda.
  • Unjust discriminatory legislation and related measures.
  • Another kind of discriminatory legislation deserves attention: that aimed at restricting possession of firearms.
  • Severe and systematic state repression
• vulnerability of adult males, notably men of “battle age” (roughly 15–55). As I argued in Chapter 13, there are grounds for claiming that this group, usually described as the least vulnerable, is in fact most vulnerable to genocide and the repression that routinely precedes it – if by “most vulnerable” we mean most liable to be targeted for mass killing and other violent atrocities.
• Israel Charny proposed the creation of an International Peace Army as a “standing machinery . . . for responding to eruptions of genocide, at any time or place in the world.(...) international legion of volunteers,”
• Witnessing and transmitting are central to genocide prevention and intervention.
  • The key is honest, accurate witnessing, combined with the capacity to communicate what one has witnessed. The “relentless keepers of the truth,” as Russian intellectual Nadezhda Mandelstam called them, are genocide’s most powerful opponents, and “the best proof that good, not evil, will prevail in the end.”37Conversely, those who fail to witness honestly – who turn away, distort, and deny – are reliable allies of the génocidaires.
  • A fascinating contrast in honest versus dishonest witnessing is provided by the terror-famine in Ukraine (1932–33). At the height of the famine, with millions dying throughout the countryside, British socialists Sidney and Beatrice Webb traveled to the USSR. They kept well away from the starving rural areas, and subsequently wrote “a glowing account” of their visit (Soviet Communism – A New Civilisation, published in 1935).
  • The witnessing of British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge was radically different. Arriving in the Soviet Union in 1933, Muggeridge took the simple expedient of buying a train ticket to journey through the heartland of Ukraine and the North Caucasus. En route, he witnessed some of the horrific scenes of famine described in Chapter 5. “Whatever else I may do or think in the future, I must never pretend that I haven’t seen this,” Muggeridge wrote in his diary.39He returned to publish an account of “millions of starving peasants, their bodies often swollen from lack of food,” struggling with “soldier members of the GPU [secret police] carrying out the instructions of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” The Stalinist forces, Muggeridge wrote, “had gone over the country like a swarm of locusts and taken away every-thing edible . . . [and] had reduced some of the most fertile land in the world to a melancholy desert.”
• Often, honest witnessing must be carried out at great risk of capture, torture, and death. At such times it inspires real awe. A dramatic example is Jan Karski, a Polish diplomat in his late twenties, who sought to bring the truth of the Jewish Holocaust to the outside world. Operating throughout Nazi-occupied Poland, Karski “disguised himself as a Jew, donning an armband with the Star of David, and smuggled himself through a tunnel into the Warsaw ghetto. Posing as a Ukrainian militiaman, he also infiltrated Belzec, a Nazi death camp near the border between Poland and Ukraine.” (...) At the end of 1942, Karski escaped to London “carrying hundreds of documents on miniature microfilm contained in the shaft of a key.” He immediately sought a meeting with representatives of the Jewish community. Passing on Karski’s reports to the World Jewish Congress in New York, Ignacy Schwartzbart, a prominent London Jew, urged his audience to “BELIEVE THE UNBELIEVABLE.” Even many Jews, however, found the information too unbelievable to be credited. This serves as a painful reminder that no link need exist between honest witnessing and genocide prevention. A host of unpredictable factors – above all, public attention and political will – must come into play if information is to translate into action.'
• Las Casas supported the importation of African slaves to reduce the burden on indigenous peoples).
• Post-genocide Rwanda witnessed a surge of converts to Islam, since the country’s Muslim minority, by contrast with its Catholic Church, had saved Tutsis rather than standing by as they were massacred – or joining in. Surely, the humane and cosmopolitan vision guiding much religious belief and practice is to be acknowledged and admired.
• As the Argentine revolutionary Ché Guevara wrote in a 1966 letter to his children: “Above all, be capable always of feeling to your very depths any injustice committed against anyone in any part of the world.”
• Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin famously commented, “One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”

Bibliografia

1. Taner Akçam, From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide. London: Zed Books, 2004. The first book in English by the dissident Turkish scholar.
2. Alex Alvarez, Governments, Citizens, and Genocide: A Comparative and Interdisciplinary Approach (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001).
3. Roy F. Baumeister, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty. New York: W.H. Freeman, 1999. Involving inquiry into the nature of evil.
4. Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000. Inf l uential sociological interpretation of the Jewish Holocaust.
5. Jasper Becker, Hungry Ghosts: Mao’s Secret Famine. New York: Henry Holt, 1998. Describes the catastrophe of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward,” with particular attention to ethnic Tibetan suffering.
6. Patrick Brantlinger, Dark Vanishings: Discourse on the Extinction of Primitive Races, 1800–1930. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003. Examines European attitudes towards “primitive” races and their extinction.
7. Paul R. Brass, ed., Riots and Pogroms. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Vigorous edited volume on the dynamics of ethnic violenc.
8. Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. New York: Owl Books, 2001. First published in 1971, and still the classic introduction to the native North American experience.
9. Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: Harper Perennial, 1998. How a group of middle-aged German reservists was conscripted into genocidal killing.
10. Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990); Samuel Totten, William S. Parsons and Israel Charny, eds, Century of Genocide: Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views (New York: Routledge, 2004) (2nd edn).
11. Israel Charny, Encyclopedia of Genocide (1999)
12. Ken S. Coates, A Global History of Indigenous Peoples: Struggle and Survival. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. A solid introduction, especially good on the Second World War and the postwar era.
13. Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Updated version of Conquest’s seminal 1960s study.
14. Vahakn Dadrian, “A Typology of Genocide” 1975
15. Miron Dolot, Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust. New York: W.W. Norton, 1985. Memoir of the Ukrainian famine.
16. John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide
17. Irving Louis Horowitz, Genocide: State Power and Mass Murder (1976)
18. Thomas Hylland Eriksen, Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology (London: Pluto Press, 2001)
19. Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin. New York: Viking, 1994. Taut work on history and memory.
20. Kurt Jonassohn, Karin Solveig Björnson, Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations in Comparative Perspective (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998),
21. Adam Jones, Genocide. A Comprehensive Introduction, Routledge: London 2006.
22. Thomas Kenneally, Schindler’s List. New York: Touchstone, 1993. Fact-based novel about the famous rescuer of Jews; basis for the fi lm.
23. Leo Kuper, Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981).
24. Leo Kuper, The Prevention of Genocide. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985.
25. Alexander Laban Hinton, ed., Genocide: An Anthropological Reader (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002);
26. Alexander Laban Hinton, ed., Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002).
27. Robert J. Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. New York: Basic Books, 1986. Analyzes the complex psychology of medical workers/murderers at Auschwitz.
28. Sven Lindqvist, “Exterminate All the Brutes”: One Man’s Odyssey into the Heart of Darkness and the Origins of European Genocide. New York: The New Press, 1996. Epigrammatic meditation on the links between colonialism and Nazi genocide.
29. Rigoberta Menchú with Elisabeth Burgos-Débray, I, Rigoberta Menchú: An Indian Woman in Guatemala. New York: Verso, 1987. Memoir, by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner, of her family’s experience in the genocide against Mayan Indians.
30. Samantha Power, “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Basic Books, 2002).
31. PreventGenocide.org. http://www.preventgenocide.org. Indispensable resources and prevention strategies.
32. Jean-Paul Sartre and Arlette El Kaïm-Sartre, On Genocide. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1968. Sartre’s controversial essay, set alongside evidence of US crimes in Vietnam.
33. Martin Shaw, War and Genocide: Organized Killing in Modern Society. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003. The best introduction to the subject.
34. Anthony D. Smith, National Identity. London: Penguin, 1991. Fine primer on the ethnic and cultural roots of nationalism.
35. David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Perhaps the most enduring of the works published for the Columbus quincentenary.
36. Ervin Staub, Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
37. Christopher C. Taylor, Sacrifice as Terror: The Rwandan Genocide of 1994. Oxford: Berg, 1999. Valuable anthropological insights into the Rwandan holocaust
38. Terrence Des Pres, The Survivor: An Anatomy of Life in the Death Camps(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976)
39. James Waller, Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)

Filmy

1. The Killing Fields, 1984
2. Schindler’s List
3. Hotel Rwanda
4. Im Labyrinth des Schweigens 2014