2 ms·

I think mass murder of civilians on the basis of socioeconomic class is pretty damn close to a genocide, and definitely different than the Civil War, even thoug

by ksdale 8y ago

I think mass murder of civilians on the basis of socioeconomic class is pretty damn close to a genocide, and definitely different than the Civil War, even though a lot of civilians died in the Civil War.

noobermin 8y ago
Words have meanings, and just because masses of people are murdered doesn't mean its genocide just like the Civil War or any war. The reason I've stated elsewhere in this thread is that people want to use genocide with regards to authoritarian left states is a tactic by fascists to soften the horrors of the Nazism. The Stalinist regime was plenty violent and systematically kills millions of people, but calling it genocide doesn't make sense because that wasn't what it was by definition unless you want to compare it to Nazi germany which killed millions more.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Stalinist regime did plenty of outright genocides even by the most rigid definition of the word, even if you insist that it's not any mass murder, but one carried out on the basis of ethnicity. Technically, most of those were designates as "population transfer" (i.e. deportations) - but they were often carried out in a way that either deliberately caused casualties, or knowingly did nothing about the ones that were the inevitable byproduct of the implementation. For example, the mortality rate for Chechen and Ingush deportees was around 25% - that's literally hundreds of thousands of people; and in some cases, entire villages were massacred outright because deporting them was not deemed logistically viable. All those people suffered for their ethnicity and no other reason. If that's not a genocide, what is? But anyway, originally we were talking about "the worst atrocities in the history of the world", not genocide specifically. So it's reasonable to assume that genocide in this context is used in a colloquial meaning - i.e. any kind of intentional mass murder by some group metric, not necessarily ethnicity.

by ksdale 8y ago

noobermin 8y ago

Words have meanings, and just because masses of people are murdered doesn't mean its genocide just like the Civil War or any war. The reason I've stated elsewhere in this thread is that people want to use genocide with regards to authoritarian left states is a tactic by fascists to soften the horrors of the Nazism. The Stalinist regime was plenty violent and systematically kills millions of people, but calling it genocide doesn't make sense because that wasn't what it was by definition unless you want to compare it to Nazi germany which killed millions more.

int_19h 8y ago
Stalinist regime did plenty of outright genocides even by the most rigid definition of the word, even if you insist that it's not any mass murder, but one carried out on the basis of ethnicity. Technically, most of those were designates as "population transfer" (i.e. deportations) - but they were often carried out in a way that either deliberately caused casualties, or knowingly did nothing about the ones that were the inevitable byproduct of the implementation. For example, the mortality rate for Chechen and Ingush deportees was around 25% - that's literally hundreds of thousands of people; and in some cases, entire villages were massacred outright because deporting them was not deemed logistically viable. All those people suffered for their ethnicity and no other reason. If that's not a genocide, what is? But anyway, originally we were talking about "the worst atrocities in the history of the world", not genocide specifically. So it's reasonable to assume that genocide in this context is used in a colloquial meaning - i.e. any kind of intentional mass murder by some group metric, not necessarily ethnicity.