4 ms·

Why are most of the recognized genocides these days committed by Germans? (at least according to my perception) Do they commit more (relatively) or "recognize"

Why are most of the recognized genocides these days committed by Germans? (at least according to my perception) Do they commit more (relatively) or "recognize" (~ admit) (relatively) more? Why?

Synaesthesia 11y ago
It was a relatively minor genocide. Of course it was horrific and notable, but in terms of numbers not that huge. It was dwarfed for instance by the genocidal actions of Leopoldt in Belgium. Most of the genocides of the 20th century were actually not by Germans, although many are not recognised. Why? Well they were official enemies! The truth is a lot of history is still pretty unknown generally. Consider the mass murder in Indonesia in 1965, where at least a million were killed, or the genocide of East Timor, which killed a third of the population. Not very well known. Those were under the auspices of the USA and west in general. There are more, like the Mayans of Guatemala ... I learned about lot of these only recently Really this was just a precursor to a century of genocide globally. And then the original forgotten genocide, and one of the biggest: the genocide of the native americans. The book American Holocaust was a real eye-opener for me. http://www.amazon.com/American-Holocaust-The-Conquest-World/dp/0195085574 http://www.amazon.com/American-Holocaust-The-Conquest-World/...
leaveyou 11y ago
Probably because "recognition" of genocides is mostly a political instrument rather than a correction of historical record based on new proofs. The recognition depends mostly on the political relationship between the "recognizer" and the perpetrator. For example: The Armenian genocide: As long as Turkey is an ally of US, US fails to recognize any wrong doings and takes no action. The holocaust: Germany was not an ally of US at the time; US recognizes the genocide and takes action. The various french "activities" in algeria and africa in general: US fails to recognize anything. France is an sovereign (=they have nukes) ally. Al-Anfal "campaign" in Iraq: US fails to recognize the actions of Iraq (unofficial US ally against Iran at the time) but remembers a decade later when Saddam falls into disgrace and action is taken in 2003. Second Chechen war: Russia is not ally of US but it is too "sovereign" for any action to be taken.
- darkhorn 11y ago
  Prof Justin McCarthy, Melbourne Symposium: "What Happened During 1915-1919?" https://youtu.be/TPcNuu3jJWk https://youtu.be/TPcNuu3jJWk
  - leaveyou 11y ago
    Thanks but I'm fine with wikipedia. wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
eveningcoffee 11y ago
I think that this is because most other nations do not recognize the genocide they self committed (disclaimer: I am not German). Here is incomplete list of other nations who have committed genocide recently: Japanese, Chinese, Turks, Russians, Pakistanis, Khmers, Hutus, British, Americans...
Spooky23 11y ago
The Germans didn't really embrace subtlety. The British did similar things, including innovations like the concentration camp, but used more intermediaries. They didn't give speeches about extermination.
PMan74 11y ago
Your perception I think (I'd say largely because of the focus from the silver screen) https://i.imgur.com/eyUnc.jpg https://i.imgur.com/eyUnc.jpg Adolf only in third place, almost pipped by Leopold (also colonial as it happens) but no where near Mao.
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  There's a difference between responsibility for death and genocide. Mao looked to uplift his country, but through horrendously bad policy caused a famine that took the lives of tens of millions of Chinese. Partly that was due to ignorance, and yes partly due to willingly sacrificing lives of people for a 'greater good' by shifting resources away from agriculture towards industrialisation knowing it would lead to starvation, that leans towards genocide heavily but is not the same. It's different from planning and executing, deliberately, to kill large groups of people for the sake of removing them from the planet, or ethnic cleansing, doing the same but to a particular ethnic group. I'm not saying Mao's consequences are any less bad or deserve less attention, not at all, but generally Mao's actions aren't considered genocide. That's purely a semantical argument, not a moral one. Mao reduced resources going towards the affected population, shifting the resources to a different economic priority, leading to a man made catastrophe and loss of life. Hitler expanded resources to the affected population to exterminate them specifically. The results are not much different but the definition is. If OP had asked about responsibility for death rather than genocides, your post would be quite fitting. Other terms have been thought up since the Armenian genocide like democide (probably most fitting for Mao's famine) and mortacide.
  - Synaesthesia 11y ago
    Right. And many other deaths are overlooked. For example millions of Indians died in horrible famines which happened regularly under British rule. That stopped after Indian independence.

Why are most of the recognized genocides these days committed by Germans? (at least according to my perception) Do they commit more (relatively) or "recognize" (~ admit) (relatively) more? Why?

Synaesthesia 11y ago

It was a relatively minor genocide. Of course it was horrific and notable, but in terms of numbers not that huge. It was dwarfed for instance by the genocidal actions of Leopoldt in Belgium. Most of the genocides of the 20th century were actually not by Germans, although many are not recognised. Why? Well they were official enemies! The truth is a lot of history is still pretty unknown generally. Consider the mass murder in Indonesia in 1965, where at least a million were killed, or the genocide of East Timor, which killed a third of the population. Not very well known. Those were under the auspices of the USA and west in general. There are more, like the Mayans of Guatemala ... I learned about lot of these only recently Really this was just a precursor to a century of genocide globally. And then the original forgotten genocide, and one of the biggest: the genocide of the native americans. The book American Holocaust was a real eye-opener for me. http://www.amazon.com/American-Holocaust-The-Conquest-World/dp/0195085574 http://www.amazon.com/American-Holocaust-The-Conquest-World/...

leaveyou 11y ago

Probably because "recognition" of genocides is mostly a political instrument rather than a correction of historical record based on new proofs. The recognition depends mostly on the political relationship between the "recognizer" and the perpetrator. For example: The Armenian genocide: As long as Turkey is an ally of US, US fails to recognize any wrong doings and takes no action. The holocaust: Germany was not an ally of US at the time; US recognizes the genocide and takes action. The various french "activities" in algeria and africa in general: US fails to recognize anything. France is an sovereign (=they have nukes) ally. Al-Anfal "campaign" in Iraq: US fails to recognize the actions of Iraq (unofficial US ally against Iran at the time) but remembers a decade later when Saddam falls into disgrace and action is taken in 2003. Second Chechen war: Russia is not ally of US but it is too "sovereign" for any action to be taken.

darkhorn 11y ago
Prof Justin McCarthy, Melbourne Symposium: "What Happened During 1915-1919?" https://youtu.be/TPcNuu3jJWk https://youtu.be/TPcNuu3jJWk
- leaveyou 11y ago
  Thanks but I'm fine with wikipedia. wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

eveningcoffee 11y ago

I think that this is because most other nations do not recognize the genocide they self committed (disclaimer: I am not German). Here is incomplete list of other nations who have committed genocide recently: Japanese, Chinese, Turks, Russians, Pakistanis, Khmers, Hutus, British, Americans...

Spooky23 11y ago

The Germans didn't really embrace subtlety. The British did similar things, including innovations like the concentration camp, but used more intermediaries. They didn't give speeches about extermination.

PMan74 11y ago

Your perception I think (I'd say largely because of the focus from the silver screen) https://i.imgur.com/eyUnc.jpg https://i.imgur.com/eyUnc.jpg Adolf only in third place, almost pipped by Leopold (also colonial as it happens) but no where near Mao.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago
There's a difference between responsibility for death and genocide. Mao looked to uplift his country, but through horrendously bad policy caused a famine that took the lives of tens of millions of Chinese. Partly that was due to ignorance, and yes partly due to willingly sacrificing lives of people for a 'greater good' by shifting resources away from agriculture towards industrialisation knowing it would lead to starvation, that leans towards genocide heavily but is not the same. It's different from planning and executing, deliberately, to kill large groups of people for the sake of removing them from the planet, or ethnic cleansing, doing the same but to a particular ethnic group. I'm not saying Mao's consequences are any less bad or deserve less attention, not at all, but generally Mao's actions aren't considered genocide. That's purely a semantical argument, not a moral one. Mao reduced resources going towards the affected population, shifting the resources to a different economic priority, leading to a man made catastrophe and loss of life. Hitler expanded resources to the affected population to exterminate them specifically. The results are not much different but the definition is. If OP had asked about responsibility for death rather than genocides, your post would be quite fitting. Other terms have been thought up since the Armenian genocide like democide (probably most fitting for Mao's famine) and mortacide.
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  Right. And many other deaths are overlooked. For example millions of Indians died in horrible famines which happened regularly under British rule. That stopped after Indian independence.