![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
The NDH in WWII did not only rule in Croatia, they ruled in Bosnia as well. To exclude this in your article is irresponsible, as many people from Bosnia (Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats) were members of the Ustashe and actively participated in the genocide. According to the wikipedia page on the Ustashe, 12 % of the members of the Ustashe were Bosniaks. In any event, the NDH and the genocide they enacted did not happen only in Croatia, it happened in Bosnia as well. As someone has pointed out, mass killings does not constitute genocide. Although the NDH and their policies were ruled in the Nuremberg trials to have constituted genocide, the same cannot be said of the Chetniks. Even in the partisan, Communist courts, Chetniks and their leaders were not tried for genocide, they were tried for war crimes. Point out to me a single LEGAL case in which the Chetniks of WWII were found to have committed genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 ( talk) 03:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_War_persecution_and_genocide_of_Serbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 ( talk) 03:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
One of the sources shows no article, the other source is by Dr. Marko Hoare, a very biased source. Crimes do not constitute genocide. That is why I asked for one LEGAL source or LEGAL ruling/precedent in which the crimes of the Chetniks in WWII have constituted genocide. No such one exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 ( talk) 04:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not up to individuals to determine whether something constitutes genocide or not, it is up to the courts. As someone above has said mass killings, persecution, targeting of civilians, and other crimes of war do not necessarily equate to genocide. That is why (at least for Modern genocides) courts are established who are to study the evidence and make the decision. Not individuals who may or may not have a bias or nationalistic institutes. Again, provide one LEGAL source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 ( talk) 04:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I have hence added "though there is no legal basis for these claims" because, again, there is not a single legal source to substantiate such claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 ( talk) 20:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I cannot find a source to say a trial which never happened never happened. I also cannot find a source which points to the Chetniks of WWII as having legally committed genocide. That is because no such source exists, since no court has ever made such a conclusion. Further, I strongly believe the source of Dr. Marko Hoare to be biased and unreliable. His blog, greatersurbition, reveals his bias. He is of Croatian origin whose mother was Bosnian. Although this alone does not make him biased, his work on his blog greatersurbition reveals a bias. The same goes for the the source, "The Genocide Institute", an institute founded by Bosniaks. The third source I believe is reliable. I urge you to validate the reliability of the sources I have expressed concern with.
The focus on Hoare's mother (who he falsely claims was Bosnian) and ethnic origins by 99.88.140.98 simply shows the nastiness of his style of discussion, and indeed the nastiness of the cause he champions. It's almost always a sign of a bad scholar if they simply try to dismiss someone as 'biased', without actually addressing any of their arguments or points. Everyone has a bias, when one accuses another of 'bias', what they really are saying is that 'their views aren't the same as mine'. Hoare's book is published in Oxford University Press, is widely cited, and was generally well reviewed, so I daresay his interpertation carry's more weight that yours.
Leaving aside the fact that the Chetniks were charged with 'extermination of the Muslim population', and that other sources (such as Jozo Tomasevic) have effectively accused the Chetniks of genocide the fact remains that many examples of genocide here were never validated by a legal ruling. It's not really disputable that the Chetniks intended to "cleanse" vast sections of Bosnia-Hercegovina, the Sandzak and Dalmatia through a system of extermination and expulsion (much as the Ustashe tried to do the same to the Serbs), and that this programme was not simply spontanious acts of 'revenge' by local commanders, but was centrally organised and sanctioned by the high command of the JVO. I think thus, that they at least warrent a mention in this article. Ana Radic ( talk) 09:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
"So I daresay his interpretation carry's more weight than yours". Correct spelling would be "carries". "Spontanious acts of revenge" should be "spontaneous". "Warrent" should be "warrant". Calling into question someone's academic background can only be successful if the questioner knows how to spell or use the language in question. Clearly, you do not. I have a BA in English Language and Literature and a BA in History from Ohio State University, and am currently working on an JD in Law from Ohio State University. I call into question Dr. Hoare's source because a review of his blog, "Greatersurbition" reveals someone who is indisputably biased and someone who can clearly be regarded as a Bosniak nationalist. Similarly, I would call into question such sources as Ina Vukic on the Croatian side and Karl Savich on the Serbian side, both of which are highly educated with books published on the subject as well. To even attempt to compare the genocide committed by the Ustashe and their sympathizers with the Chetnik crimes is an exercise in futility and self-assuring nationalism. As far as Holocaust Museums go, Yad Vashem, Simon Wiesenthal, and the US Holocaust Museum all have displays for ethnic Serbian victims of genocide during WWII, a genocide that resulted in anywhere from 320,000-340,000 (US Holocaust Museum), to 500,000 (Yad Vashem, Simon Wiesenthal Center) victims. The same cannot be said to victims of the so-called genocide against Bosniaks in WWII. Likewise, the Nuremberg Trials concluded that the crimes of the Ustashe against the Serbs, Roma, and Jews constituted acts of genocide. Again, the same cannot be said of the Chetnik crimes, although of course many were tried and convicted in Tito's Communist court for war crimes, war crimes, not genocide. There is a large difference between war crimes, persecutions, mass killings, etc... and genocide, a distinction that you and many others seem to not understand. Having studied the region and the language, it seems to be a political tool used by each side respectively, but especially Bosniaks, to equate any type of persecution or war crime with genocide. It is a propaganda tool and one that has rarely held up in court. To date, the only genocides in the former Yugoslavia to take place in the last 70 years were the WWII genocide of ethnic Serbs and the 1995 genocide of Bosniak males of military age at Srebrenica. Plain and simple. To compare Bosniak suffering during WWII to ethnic Serbian suffering of WWII is callous, without factual basis, and nationalistic at its very core. It simply cannot (and should not) be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 ( talk) 21:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"To date, the only genocides in the former Yugoslavia to take place in the last 70 years were the WWII genocide of ethnic Serbs and the 1995 genocide of Bosniak males of military age at Srebrenica."
It is pointless arguing with nationalists of the Balkans, so I will refrain from doing so. Also, I refuse to talk to anybody who can honestly compare the war crimes of some members of the Chetniks with the cold-blooded slaughter of 300,000-500,000 civilians, many of whom died in organized, systematic death camps. The Ustashe are an embarrassment not only to the region, but to the world at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.128 ( talk) 03:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
"Though I would argue they were essentially equivalent". Disgusting and perverse nationalism. Discussion closed. http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205930.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005449 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.128 ( talk) 20:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The attempts of Communist Tito and his allies to equate the criminal actions of their opponents follows one simple trend- they all opposed Communism. As such, it was necessary in his mind to divide political and military groups into two categories- with him, or against him. For those that were against him, they were all equally evil and all equally guilty. In this regard, it made it that much easier for the Communists to do what they did best- execute non-Communists. It is simply insane to try to compare the systematic murder of 500,000 people who were killed in DEATH camps to the murders of a maximum of some 65,000 people. Maximum. While Titoists and Yugo-nostalgics and Communists have found it easy to discuss the crimes of the Chetniks, Ustashe, and SS Divisions, they have ironically bottled up any discussion on their own crimes. This bottling up of Partizan war crimes continues to this day. What about the executions of POW's by the Partizans? Of women, men, and children who were sympathetic to opponents of Communism or who simply were not Communist in ideology? What about the class warfare and executions of members of the upper class? Execution and purging of Germans, Italians, and non-Communists of Yugoslavia? I suppose this is victor's justice but in my mind there is no apologizing for Communism. I certainly am not a Chetnik apologist, I simply find it absurd to compare the crimes of the Ustashe to the crimes of the Chetniks. Likewise, although all three ethnic groups committed crimes in the 1990's, I also do not equate Croat or Bosniak crimes with those of the Bosnian Serbs and Croatian Serbs, although (as I said), all three certainly did commit crimes. The scale of the crimes of the Ustashe is simply unmatched in the HISTORY of the region, and certainly the Chetniks of WWII do not even come close. You claim that I deny the genocide that Chetniks committed, however, please name me a single court case outside of the region (even Tito's Communist mock-court did not charge them with genocide) that established that those crimes equated to genocide. In terms of these sources, 3 out of 4 come from the region or have ties to the region, so, quite simply, they are unreliable. Further, name me a single holocaust or genocide museum, again, outside of the region, that honors victims of this so-called Chetnik "genocide". I invite you to tour the websites of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the US Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum and Research Center, the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, or any other INTERNATIONAL, reputable holocaust museum or research center. You will find that these reputable, professional museums are also "genocide-deniers", omitting any mention of a so-called Chetnik genocide against Muslims. Here is an article about the Chetniks from Yad Vashem. http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/microsoft%20word%20-%20160.pdf. I certainly do not deny that Chetniks committed crimes (as it seems every military formation in Yugoslavia did, does, and will do), but I do contest biased sources coming from the region, all of whom have political or nationalist propaganda to instill, none more so than glorious Tito himself. To be honest, I do not know I would I consider as worse, the Chetniks or the Partizans. I can see both sides, but personally, I would say the Partizans were worse. If you would like personal examples of Partizan crimes, ask me. I have several stories and have met dozens of refugees here in Columbus that fled from the glorious Communists in fear of their lives. Do not mistake me for a Chetnik sympathizer, for I am very much split on them. I understand that many of these groups (remember they were never homogeneous) committed various crimes.
There are many Serbs who would claim that they had genocide committed against them during the 1990's, especially by Croats during Operation Storm. I dismiss these views not because I am "racist", but because genocide (especially in the Balkans) is used as a propaganda tool, a word that is used like a weapon of war in order to draw attention and support to the side that accuses the other of genocide, and unfortunately in some cases, to create hatred or revulsion towards the so-called perpetrators of genocide. These holocaust museums also include the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian Genocide at Srebrenica, both of which have no association with the holocaust, not to mention the Armenian genocide. As educated as Dr. Hoare is, he is no expert on genocide, does not work for one of these professional genocide museums, and certainly has no expertise in legal matters. Although there are reputable sources which claim a so-called Chetnik "genocide", the omission by these four most respected sources on the subject and the amount of fishing that is required to obtain a source that claims genocide (especially an international, non-regional one) is testimony to the fact that most people, museums, associations, courts, etc... do not view Chetnik crimes as genocidal in nature. Chetniks also were not charged with "extermination of the Muslim population", they were charged with treason and war crimes. However, Tito's Communist court is far from a trust-worthy source. In any regard, I agree that there are reputable sources which contend that Chetnik crimes equated to genocide, however, these sources are few and far between and are far outnumbered by reputable sources which omit a so-called Chetnik genocide. I disagree that Chetnik crimes come anywhere even in remote proximity to the Ustahse genocide, and I disagree that I am racist. I love all peoples of the former Yugoslavia, I just wish you all could love each other a little more.
You are more stubborn than me even, Ana. The source of Herbert Prokle's book is originally the University of Michigan Press, reprinted by Danubian Society or what you have. Originally printed by University of Michigan Press though. I advise you to re-check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.128 ( talk) 00:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Ana, send me a link to evidence that Mihailovic was charged with "giving orders to his commanders to exterminate the Muslims and Croats". Literally every source I have found confirms what I have believed to be the charges against him, namely treason and war crimes. The wikipedia page itself mentions only treason and war crimes for Mihailovic. Here is a link to Brittanica Encyclopedia. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/381916/Dragoljub-Mihailovic Not that Tito's court was the highest tribute to fairness and justice anyways, but I have never heard he was charged with "extermination of the Muslims and Croats" before in Tito's court.
The reliability of Tito's court is not the issue here (and if you are going to dismiss the charges against Mihailovic on these grounds, you have to do the same for many Ustashe war criminals). See Zecevic (ed.) (2001) Dokumenti sa su djenja Ravnogorskom pokretu 10 juni–15 juli 1946. god., vol. 1 (Belgrade, SUBNOR Jugoslavije). for the charges against him. He was charged with (my translation):
1. High Treason. 2. For having "incited national and religious hatred and discord among the peoples of Yugoslavia, as a result of which his Chetnik bands carried out mass massacres of Croats and Muslims as well as of the Serb population that did not accept the occupation" 3. For having "given orders to his commanders to exterminate the Muslims and the Croats, whom he called Turks and Ustashe respectively"
Ana Radic ( talk) 13:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Send me a link. All I can find is war crimes and treason. Not that Tito's Communist court is reliable, but if he was charged with "extermination" I would like to see it. Again, all I can find is treason and war crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.128 ( talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Check the source I stated (I'm not sure if it's on the internet). The translation may vary between "extermination", "annihilation" or "destruction". Ana Radic ( talk) 00:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I note above this was removed and discussed before, as it is being removed again would the user doing the removal please explain his reasons here. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
“ | Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter. In nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. The following list of genocides and alleged genocides should be understood in this context and cannot be regarded as the final word on these subjects. | ” |
I removed the section named Deportations of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians as totally unsourced. It was however restored half-an-hour later by Darkness Shines. Of the five references in the section two are dead links used to source the fact that deportations took place. (Not genocide.) Two of the links refer to the prosecution and death before trial of Arnold Meri (Never convicted of anything.) The only relevant reference is a link to the web site of the Lithuanian Museum of Genocide Victims. The fact that a museum exists does not a genocide make.
For Wikipedia to state allegations of genocide as fact, we need high quality scholarly sources. So far none have been provided. Unless sources are provided, I will remove the section in about 24 hours. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 22:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Some clown appears to have removed the Rwandan genocide from the list, though it is mentioned in passing twice in the article. Also, the "Alternative meanings of genocide" section is full of original research and personal opinion, as well as written in a non-encyclopedic tone that veers between news style and elementary school textbook style (cf. use of "you", etc.) 24.23.163.55 ( talk) 09:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The page does not yet include the transatlantic slave trade and American slavery nor the genocide against the Congolese people perpetrated by King Leopold II of Belgium (10 million deaths - see http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/belgian_congo/). These should be included in the '1490 to 1914' section, under a subsection '2.2.9 Africa'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.227.129 ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 17 June 2013
I wonder who was the idiot who deleted the Congo Free State Genocide from this article. Is this a sign that Western "intellectual" establishment is growing increasingly intolerant of any legitimate criticism directed at the horrific crimes commited in the name of Western and White supremacism, crimes which are beyond any parallel in recorded history? RaduFlorian ( talk) 12:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
What about actions of the Romans against Carthage ( http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/485/), or even Dacia (present-day Romania) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqxiMUhxoLI)? I feel these incidents should be looked into as examples of genocide in antiquity as the intent of the aggressor was to eradicate the opposing cultures completely. WiebeTokkel ( talk) 13:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for heads up, the article used to be horrible, now is less but still would use of copy edit. Anyway, it's a different article. -- Niemti ( talk) 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Theres a section on the article about "doubts" on the Aboriginal stolen genocide. Why is this given equal weight to the actual claim? The idea that it didn't happened rates alongside holocaust denialism or "9/11 didnt happen" type theories and has no credibility in academia (Its almost the sole domain of a single cranky failed academic) and its patently offensive to the many numerous survivors of the stolen generation who witnessed the events first hands and are still well and truly alive and with us now to recount the events. I'm not a wikipedia guru, but don't we have a rule to filter out the tin-foil hate denialist garbage? 203.59.221.6 ( talk) 09:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It's very modern to define a term, apply it to the present and future. Then try to apply it to a time when it wasn't understood. We may believe that Manifest destiny is a bad idea now, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. Like widespread abortion today. How will future generations perceive that? Pointing fingers at some past people and labeling them seems preposterous. Great to document them in a single article, but to label them "genocide" is just moral posturing. Most of the deaths prior to (say) 1900 should not be in any article with "genocide" at the top of it. It just isn't credible. I'm sure this has been brought up before. Editors are sometimes just too media-oriented (pov) to be editing an encyclopedia. Student7 ( talk) 00:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
A statement reads, "American writer David Quammen has likened the colonial American policies and practices toward Native Americans with those of Australia toward its aboriginal populations, calling them "brutal, hypocritical, opportunistic, and even genocidal in the fullest sense of the word."
The problem here, IMO, is that Quammen is described in his article as a American science, nature and travel writer. IMO, this is not the type of scholarly author that we would want here. There has to be hundreds, if not thousands, of scholarly books and articles on this topic, many of which are fair game.
Chavez is a separate topic. 1) He wasn't WP:NPOV about anything at all that I know of. 2) Try and place material that he said on his article. There is (or was, prior to his death) a significant claque that edited out Chavez' favorable comments and correspondence with Carlos the Jackal; also his statements that were known to be false, that his dismayed his supporters, but he reiterated anyway. If editors have to resort to Chavez as WP:RS, said editors have a serious problem presenting an npov case. Student7 ( talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Quammen is an expert on subjects related to the American west. Student7, are you the former user anon IP beginning with 88? Montanabw (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Osborn_2002
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
The NDH in WWII did not only rule in Croatia, they ruled in Bosnia as well. To exclude this in your article is irresponsible, as many people from Bosnia (Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats) were members of the Ustashe and actively participated in the genocide. According to the wikipedia page on the Ustashe, 12 % of the members of the Ustashe were Bosniaks. In any event, the NDH and the genocide they enacted did not happen only in Croatia, it happened in Bosnia as well. As someone has pointed out, mass killings does not constitute genocide. Although the NDH and their policies were ruled in the Nuremberg trials to have constituted genocide, the same cannot be said of the Chetniks. Even in the partisan, Communist courts, Chetniks and their leaders were not tried for genocide, they were tried for war crimes. Point out to me a single LEGAL case in which the Chetniks of WWII were found to have committed genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 ( talk) 03:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_War_persecution_and_genocide_of_Serbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 ( talk) 03:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
One of the sources shows no article, the other source is by Dr. Marko Hoare, a very biased source. Crimes do not constitute genocide. That is why I asked for one LEGAL source or LEGAL ruling/precedent in which the crimes of the Chetniks in WWII have constituted genocide. No such one exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 ( talk) 04:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not up to individuals to determine whether something constitutes genocide or not, it is up to the courts. As someone above has said mass killings, persecution, targeting of civilians, and other crimes of war do not necessarily equate to genocide. That is why (at least for Modern genocides) courts are established who are to study the evidence and make the decision. Not individuals who may or may not have a bias or nationalistic institutes. Again, provide one LEGAL source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 ( talk) 04:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I have hence added "though there is no legal basis for these claims" because, again, there is not a single legal source to substantiate such claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 ( talk) 20:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I cannot find a source to say a trial which never happened never happened. I also cannot find a source which points to the Chetniks of WWII as having legally committed genocide. That is because no such source exists, since no court has ever made such a conclusion. Further, I strongly believe the source of Dr. Marko Hoare to be biased and unreliable. His blog, greatersurbition, reveals his bias. He is of Croatian origin whose mother was Bosnian. Although this alone does not make him biased, his work on his blog greatersurbition reveals a bias. The same goes for the the source, "The Genocide Institute", an institute founded by Bosniaks. The third source I believe is reliable. I urge you to validate the reliability of the sources I have expressed concern with.
The focus on Hoare's mother (who he falsely claims was Bosnian) and ethnic origins by 99.88.140.98 simply shows the nastiness of his style of discussion, and indeed the nastiness of the cause he champions. It's almost always a sign of a bad scholar if they simply try to dismiss someone as 'biased', without actually addressing any of their arguments or points. Everyone has a bias, when one accuses another of 'bias', what they really are saying is that 'their views aren't the same as mine'. Hoare's book is published in Oxford University Press, is widely cited, and was generally well reviewed, so I daresay his interpertation carry's more weight that yours.
Leaving aside the fact that the Chetniks were charged with 'extermination of the Muslim population', and that other sources (such as Jozo Tomasevic) have effectively accused the Chetniks of genocide the fact remains that many examples of genocide here were never validated by a legal ruling. It's not really disputable that the Chetniks intended to "cleanse" vast sections of Bosnia-Hercegovina, the Sandzak and Dalmatia through a system of extermination and expulsion (much as the Ustashe tried to do the same to the Serbs), and that this programme was not simply spontanious acts of 'revenge' by local commanders, but was centrally organised and sanctioned by the high command of the JVO. I think thus, that they at least warrent a mention in this article. Ana Radic ( talk) 09:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
"So I daresay his interpretation carry's more weight than yours". Correct spelling would be "carries". "Spontanious acts of revenge" should be "spontaneous". "Warrent" should be "warrant". Calling into question someone's academic background can only be successful if the questioner knows how to spell or use the language in question. Clearly, you do not. I have a BA in English Language and Literature and a BA in History from Ohio State University, and am currently working on an JD in Law from Ohio State University. I call into question Dr. Hoare's source because a review of his blog, "Greatersurbition" reveals someone who is indisputably biased and someone who can clearly be regarded as a Bosniak nationalist. Similarly, I would call into question such sources as Ina Vukic on the Croatian side and Karl Savich on the Serbian side, both of which are highly educated with books published on the subject as well. To even attempt to compare the genocide committed by the Ustashe and their sympathizers with the Chetnik crimes is an exercise in futility and self-assuring nationalism. As far as Holocaust Museums go, Yad Vashem, Simon Wiesenthal, and the US Holocaust Museum all have displays for ethnic Serbian victims of genocide during WWII, a genocide that resulted in anywhere from 320,000-340,000 (US Holocaust Museum), to 500,000 (Yad Vashem, Simon Wiesenthal Center) victims. The same cannot be said to victims of the so-called genocide against Bosniaks in WWII. Likewise, the Nuremberg Trials concluded that the crimes of the Ustashe against the Serbs, Roma, and Jews constituted acts of genocide. Again, the same cannot be said of the Chetnik crimes, although of course many were tried and convicted in Tito's Communist court for war crimes, war crimes, not genocide. There is a large difference between war crimes, persecutions, mass killings, etc... and genocide, a distinction that you and many others seem to not understand. Having studied the region and the language, it seems to be a political tool used by each side respectively, but especially Bosniaks, to equate any type of persecution or war crime with genocide. It is a propaganda tool and one that has rarely held up in court. To date, the only genocides in the former Yugoslavia to take place in the last 70 years were the WWII genocide of ethnic Serbs and the 1995 genocide of Bosniak males of military age at Srebrenica. Plain and simple. To compare Bosniak suffering during WWII to ethnic Serbian suffering of WWII is callous, without factual basis, and nationalistic at its very core. It simply cannot (and should not) be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 ( talk) 21:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"To date, the only genocides in the former Yugoslavia to take place in the last 70 years were the WWII genocide of ethnic Serbs and the 1995 genocide of Bosniak males of military age at Srebrenica."
It is pointless arguing with nationalists of the Balkans, so I will refrain from doing so. Also, I refuse to talk to anybody who can honestly compare the war crimes of some members of the Chetniks with the cold-blooded slaughter of 300,000-500,000 civilians, many of whom died in organized, systematic death camps. The Ustashe are an embarrassment not only to the region, but to the world at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.128 ( talk) 03:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
"Though I would argue they were essentially equivalent". Disgusting and perverse nationalism. Discussion closed. http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205930.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005449 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.128 ( talk) 20:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The attempts of Communist Tito and his allies to equate the criminal actions of their opponents follows one simple trend- they all opposed Communism. As such, it was necessary in his mind to divide political and military groups into two categories- with him, or against him. For those that were against him, they were all equally evil and all equally guilty. In this regard, it made it that much easier for the Communists to do what they did best- execute non-Communists. It is simply insane to try to compare the systematic murder of 500,000 people who were killed in DEATH camps to the murders of a maximum of some 65,000 people. Maximum. While Titoists and Yugo-nostalgics and Communists have found it easy to discuss the crimes of the Chetniks, Ustashe, and SS Divisions, they have ironically bottled up any discussion on their own crimes. This bottling up of Partizan war crimes continues to this day. What about the executions of POW's by the Partizans? Of women, men, and children who were sympathetic to opponents of Communism or who simply were not Communist in ideology? What about the class warfare and executions of members of the upper class? Execution and purging of Germans, Italians, and non-Communists of Yugoslavia? I suppose this is victor's justice but in my mind there is no apologizing for Communism. I certainly am not a Chetnik apologist, I simply find it absurd to compare the crimes of the Ustashe to the crimes of the Chetniks. Likewise, although all three ethnic groups committed crimes in the 1990's, I also do not equate Croat or Bosniak crimes with those of the Bosnian Serbs and Croatian Serbs, although (as I said), all three certainly did commit crimes. The scale of the crimes of the Ustashe is simply unmatched in the HISTORY of the region, and certainly the Chetniks of WWII do not even come close. You claim that I deny the genocide that Chetniks committed, however, please name me a single court case outside of the region (even Tito's Communist mock-court did not charge them with genocide) that established that those crimes equated to genocide. In terms of these sources, 3 out of 4 come from the region or have ties to the region, so, quite simply, they are unreliable. Further, name me a single holocaust or genocide museum, again, outside of the region, that honors victims of this so-called Chetnik "genocide". I invite you to tour the websites of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the US Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum and Research Center, the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, or any other INTERNATIONAL, reputable holocaust museum or research center. You will find that these reputable, professional museums are also "genocide-deniers", omitting any mention of a so-called Chetnik genocide against Muslims. Here is an article about the Chetniks from Yad Vashem. http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/microsoft%20word%20-%20160.pdf. I certainly do not deny that Chetniks committed crimes (as it seems every military formation in Yugoslavia did, does, and will do), but I do contest biased sources coming from the region, all of whom have political or nationalist propaganda to instill, none more so than glorious Tito himself. To be honest, I do not know I would I consider as worse, the Chetniks or the Partizans. I can see both sides, but personally, I would say the Partizans were worse. If you would like personal examples of Partizan crimes, ask me. I have several stories and have met dozens of refugees here in Columbus that fled from the glorious Communists in fear of their lives. Do not mistake me for a Chetnik sympathizer, for I am very much split on them. I understand that many of these groups (remember they were never homogeneous) committed various crimes.
There are many Serbs who would claim that they had genocide committed against them during the 1990's, especially by Croats during Operation Storm. I dismiss these views not because I am "racist", but because genocide (especially in the Balkans) is used as a propaganda tool, a word that is used like a weapon of war in order to draw attention and support to the side that accuses the other of genocide, and unfortunately in some cases, to create hatred or revulsion towards the so-called perpetrators of genocide. These holocaust museums also include the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian Genocide at Srebrenica, both of which have no association with the holocaust, not to mention the Armenian genocide. As educated as Dr. Hoare is, he is no expert on genocide, does not work for one of these professional genocide museums, and certainly has no expertise in legal matters. Although there are reputable sources which claim a so-called Chetnik "genocide", the omission by these four most respected sources on the subject and the amount of fishing that is required to obtain a source that claims genocide (especially an international, non-regional one) is testimony to the fact that most people, museums, associations, courts, etc... do not view Chetnik crimes as genocidal in nature. Chetniks also were not charged with "extermination of the Muslim population", they were charged with treason and war crimes. However, Tito's Communist court is far from a trust-worthy source. In any regard, I agree that there are reputable sources which contend that Chetnik crimes equated to genocide, however, these sources are few and far between and are far outnumbered by reputable sources which omit a so-called Chetnik genocide. I disagree that Chetnik crimes come anywhere even in remote proximity to the Ustahse genocide, and I disagree that I am racist. I love all peoples of the former Yugoslavia, I just wish you all could love each other a little more.
You are more stubborn than me even, Ana. The source of Herbert Prokle's book is originally the University of Michigan Press, reprinted by Danubian Society or what you have. Originally printed by University of Michigan Press though. I advise you to re-check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.128 ( talk) 00:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Ana, send me a link to evidence that Mihailovic was charged with "giving orders to his commanders to exterminate the Muslims and Croats". Literally every source I have found confirms what I have believed to be the charges against him, namely treason and war crimes. The wikipedia page itself mentions only treason and war crimes for Mihailovic. Here is a link to Brittanica Encyclopedia. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/381916/Dragoljub-Mihailovic Not that Tito's court was the highest tribute to fairness and justice anyways, but I have never heard he was charged with "extermination of the Muslims and Croats" before in Tito's court.
The reliability of Tito's court is not the issue here (and if you are going to dismiss the charges against Mihailovic on these grounds, you have to do the same for many Ustashe war criminals). See Zecevic (ed.) (2001) Dokumenti sa su djenja Ravnogorskom pokretu 10 juni–15 juli 1946. god., vol. 1 (Belgrade, SUBNOR Jugoslavije). for the charges against him. He was charged with (my translation):
1. High Treason. 2. For having "incited national and religious hatred and discord among the peoples of Yugoslavia, as a result of which his Chetnik bands carried out mass massacres of Croats and Muslims as well as of the Serb population that did not accept the occupation" 3. For having "given orders to his commanders to exterminate the Muslims and the Croats, whom he called Turks and Ustashe respectively"
Ana Radic ( talk) 13:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Send me a link. All I can find is war crimes and treason. Not that Tito's Communist court is reliable, but if he was charged with "extermination" I would like to see it. Again, all I can find is treason and war crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.128 ( talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Check the source I stated (I'm not sure if it's on the internet). The translation may vary between "extermination", "annihilation" or "destruction". Ana Radic ( talk) 00:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I note above this was removed and discussed before, as it is being removed again would the user doing the removal please explain his reasons here. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
“ | Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter. In nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. The following list of genocides and alleged genocides should be understood in this context and cannot be regarded as the final word on these subjects. | ” |
I removed the section named Deportations of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians as totally unsourced. It was however restored half-an-hour later by Darkness Shines. Of the five references in the section two are dead links used to source the fact that deportations took place. (Not genocide.) Two of the links refer to the prosecution and death before trial of Arnold Meri (Never convicted of anything.) The only relevant reference is a link to the web site of the Lithuanian Museum of Genocide Victims. The fact that a museum exists does not a genocide make.
For Wikipedia to state allegations of genocide as fact, we need high quality scholarly sources. So far none have been provided. Unless sources are provided, I will remove the section in about 24 hours. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 22:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Some clown appears to have removed the Rwandan genocide from the list, though it is mentioned in passing twice in the article. Also, the "Alternative meanings of genocide" section is full of original research and personal opinion, as well as written in a non-encyclopedic tone that veers between news style and elementary school textbook style (cf. use of "you", etc.) 24.23.163.55 ( talk) 09:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The page does not yet include the transatlantic slave trade and American slavery nor the genocide against the Congolese people perpetrated by King Leopold II of Belgium (10 million deaths - see http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/belgian_congo/). These should be included in the '1490 to 1914' section, under a subsection '2.2.9 Africa'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.227.129 ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 17 June 2013
I wonder who was the idiot who deleted the Congo Free State Genocide from this article. Is this a sign that Western "intellectual" establishment is growing increasingly intolerant of any legitimate criticism directed at the horrific crimes commited in the name of Western and White supremacism, crimes which are beyond any parallel in recorded history? RaduFlorian ( talk) 12:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
What about actions of the Romans against Carthage ( http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/485/), or even Dacia (present-day Romania) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqxiMUhxoLI)? I feel these incidents should be looked into as examples of genocide in antiquity as the intent of the aggressor was to eradicate the opposing cultures completely. WiebeTokkel ( talk) 13:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for heads up, the article used to be horrible, now is less but still would use of copy edit. Anyway, it's a different article. -- Niemti ( talk) 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Theres a section on the article about "doubts" on the Aboriginal stolen genocide. Why is this given equal weight to the actual claim? The idea that it didn't happened rates alongside holocaust denialism or "9/11 didnt happen" type theories and has no credibility in academia (Its almost the sole domain of a single cranky failed academic) and its patently offensive to the many numerous survivors of the stolen generation who witnessed the events first hands and are still well and truly alive and with us now to recount the events. I'm not a wikipedia guru, but don't we have a rule to filter out the tin-foil hate denialist garbage? 203.59.221.6 ( talk) 09:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It's very modern to define a term, apply it to the present and future. Then try to apply it to a time when it wasn't understood. We may believe that Manifest destiny is a bad idea now, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. Like widespread abortion today. How will future generations perceive that? Pointing fingers at some past people and labeling them seems preposterous. Great to document them in a single article, but to label them "genocide" is just moral posturing. Most of the deaths prior to (say) 1900 should not be in any article with "genocide" at the top of it. It just isn't credible. I'm sure this has been brought up before. Editors are sometimes just too media-oriented (pov) to be editing an encyclopedia. Student7 ( talk) 00:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
A statement reads, "American writer David Quammen has likened the colonial American policies and practices toward Native Americans with those of Australia toward its aboriginal populations, calling them "brutal, hypocritical, opportunistic, and even genocidal in the fullest sense of the word."
The problem here, IMO, is that Quammen is described in his article as a American science, nature and travel writer. IMO, this is not the type of scholarly author that we would want here. There has to be hundreds, if not thousands, of scholarly books and articles on this topic, many of which are fair game.
Chavez is a separate topic. 1) He wasn't WP:NPOV about anything at all that I know of. 2) Try and place material that he said on his article. There is (or was, prior to his death) a significant claque that edited out Chavez' favorable comments and correspondence with Carlos the Jackal; also his statements that were known to be false, that his dismayed his supporters, but he reiterated anyway. If editors have to resort to Chavez as WP:RS, said editors have a serious problem presenting an npov case. Student7 ( talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Quammen is an expert on subjects related to the American west. Student7, are you the former user anon IP beginning with 88? Montanabw (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Osborn_2002
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).