Posted on 12/29/2024 11:37:48 AM PST by DallasBiff
Historian Norman Naimark argues that today's narrow definition of genocide is Stalin's lasting legacy
Murder on a national scale, yes – but is it genocide? “The word carries a powerful punch,” said Stanford history Professor Norman Naimark. “In international courts, it’s considered the crime of crimes.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.stanford.edu ...
Genghis Khan became bloodthirsty because he was fighting Islam. He simply copied their tactics against them. The Irony is that his hordes ended up being converted to Islam !
The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution.
Hitler hated Marxists, because they were his main adversaries in his rise to power. That made it OK to hate Hitler (and yes, he deserved every bit of it), which kept the schlubs occupied enough to not be bothered by Stalin and Mao.
If the church had evangelized the Mongols using the same tactics they did with the Vikings/Normans, the Mongol Empire would have been primarily Christian, complete with Mongol knights and Mongol monasteries. History would have been very very different.
"The Irony is that his hordes ended up being converted to Islam !" Yes, IIRC I think it was his sons who were Generals who fought Islam that allowed his soldiers marry women from the conquered Islamic territories. They were available, and it was not as if they would be going back to central Asia to get their wives. Not sure if there was much "Marriage" involved, but the women raised their issue Islamic.
What a wonderful article!
A skeptic might believe it was written by Historian Norman Naimark so that he, and the astute Stanford University, could make all the Rules about, and control the discussion of, Murder and the suggested punishment (or reward) for it.
Screw Stanford, and the Virtue Signal for more Donations and DEI Payola.
That's the problem with the question. Part or all? Does genocide mean exterminating or intending to exterminate a whole people, or does it mean killing people based on race, religion or ethnicity?
To the extent that Stalin's killings were directed against specific groups or affected specific groups more than others, they were genocidal, but for some people they weren't truly genocide, because groups weren't entirely or substantially eliminated. Another question is whether genocide is worse than other forms of mass murder.
Thanks for the better perspective, Pete.
Some of it, yep. Historically Russia killed off a lot of indigenous peoples during its expansions.
He tried to destroy Ukrainians. That's a national or ethnic group. By your definition, Stalin committed genocide.
Hitler deserves the hate ... he doesn't deserve to be treated as the greatest government monster ever in the history of mankind ... because Stalin and Mao have him beat on raw numbers and Pol Pot has him beat on percentages.
The hypocrisy of Bezos is stunning.
But then when your business depends on the good relationship with actual murderous government rather than one that hasn’t existed in over a 170 years
Amazing book. I’ve read it twice. Had to take a break about half way through each time. The numbers killed are very hard to truly grasp.
The populations of Central and Eastern Europe have endured wave after wave of despots trying to erase them from humanity.
It reads like both the author od the book and the review believe Stalin was at least Hitler’s equal. There is no iota of forgiveness here. There’s no Walter Duranty.
“Professor” definition:
Many modern professors fulfill the definition of “What are clueless individuals?”
But it wasn’t the way that Hitler went after the Jews. They were in his way, & he did what communists do.
It’s quibbling over terminology. I don’t know that it gets us anywhere.
The real problem with that period in history is that Hitler gets all the hate, while Stalin and Mao and others get all the excuses. Even worse, Hitler gets hate only for killing Jews; his industrialized mass murder had many more victims than them.
I annoy people by arguing that if Hitler had not existed, Europe would still have had a bloodbath, from the USSR conquering it without real opposition. The demographics of the dead would have changed, but the total would likely be higher.
Another Standford professor of greater renown - Robert Conquest - wrote the definitive book on Stalin’s genocide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.