Home > Arts & Humanities > History > History (Other)
Results so far:
| Disagree | 36% | 328 votes | Total: 909 votes | |
| Agree | 64% | 581 votes |
Disagree
Created on: January 09, 2008
In taking the position of disagreement, I suppose that I am in general in accord with Robert Grason who wrote the opening article here: the planning and systems used by the Nazis involved makes their crime unique to the best of my knowledge. Its uniqueness, I stress, is not related to the staggering scale of the killing it is certain that the great cynics Stalin and Mao tse Tung were responsible, each of them, for more murders and misery than were the Nazis. No, it is I repeat, in the intense and detailed planning and logistics and as Grason points out, the enormous resources used in the programme, ironically to the detriment of the war effort.
Consider the infamous top-secret Wannsee conference of January 1942, held under the chairmanship of Himmler to discuss the "Final Solution (Endlsung) of the Jewish Problem". I doubt that at any recent time in any country has such a conference taken place. Remember that the Third Reich had an elaborate and well-organised civil service; complex orders and instructions on a vast scale were well within the capacity of the relevant institutions to carry out. I cannot imagine that such a situation pertains today in the Sudan, where the murder and brutality appear to be carried out more or less by state-licensed bandits whilst the appalling Sudanese government no doubt funds and equips these vermin and indeed its members probably discuss the "progress". I should add in the interests of balance, that a UN panel has ruled that the Sudanese Government is not guilty of genocide in Darfur but mysteriously goes on to add that "[] there was the deliberate targeting of civilians in Darfur using murder, torture and sexual violence []" One is tempted to add "So that's all right then."
This is not to suggest, however that the machinery of state has not been involved in mass-murder elsewhere. A good example is the disgusting message sent to a USSR regional governor in 1937 by Nikolai Yezhov, head of the dreadful NKVD (forerunner of the KGB). The message ran: "liquidate 10,000 enemies of the state report results by telegram." This was of course driven by Stalin's paranoia*. Needless to add that the victims were probably selected largely by means of denunciations from jealous neighbours and other such wickedness the inevitable result of a society governed by fear. I doubt anyone will ever know how many deaths may be attributed to Mao, I have heard up to 60 million, presumably for "re-education" reasons. Equally, one might consider the misery and murder that prevailed in former Yugoslavia in the early-to-mid 1990s; there was arguably a racial basis, but it appears largely to have had mostly cultural or religious origins unfortunately with a very long history; Northern Ireland is another example.
It is my opinion that the killings in Darfur follow an age-old problematic tradition in Africa: that of tribal conflict, following on from previous horrors in Angola, Uganda and Rwanda for example. Indeed just recently, another tribal conflict has erupted in Kenya, until recently perceived as one of the more stable of the African nations.
The idea of one tribe endeavouring to destroy another is certainly genocide, but it is in no way the "Holocaust" and neither can it be likened to it.
*Stalin famously once remarked: "Ideas are much more dangerous than guns; we don't let them have guns, so why should we let them have ideas?"
Source: BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3853157.stm
Learn more about this author, Paul Leclercq.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Agree
Created on: September 22, 2009 Last Updated: September 25, 2009
The aftermath of the Tsunami tragedy touched the very depths of the human soul, and the generosity of the British public was overwhelming. The kindness of warm-hearted citizens should be acknowledged, for it proved that it is possible to make a difference in the lives of people less fortunate.
It is probably near unthinkable for anyone in the civilised world not to be aware of the Tsunami. It went from television footage, to website links, to information "pop-ups" on your desktop. Eventually, anyone with any form of compassion felt compelled to donate to the catastrophe, and as a result, Britain donated more than 200 million. The donation campaign was even downscaled Britain due to the amount of money that was raised.
While browsing through a business magazine around April 2004, I came across a picture of what appeared to be a war stricken African country.
As tear dropping as the picture seemed, it was not surprising to me. As far back as I can recollect, I have been exposed to pictures of a starving Africa, an Africa of famine, poverty, and death.
The article went on to describe a situation related to "ethnic cleansing", where the dark-skinned peoples of Sudan were being driven off their land, and being raped and killed in the process.
Assuming that these events were relatively recent, it shocked me to discover that fighting in Sudan had been ongoing since February 2003, and was only a spark from the flame of a 21-year civil war.
It seems that Sudan has always had political problems regarding Islamic rule, and the forcing of the doctrine upon non-Muslims. During this civil war, more that 2 million people have been killed, and over 4 million displaced.
The information of the situation in Sudan soon became widely distributed, and the public, as well as government officials were bombarded with images and footage of the horrendous acts of inhumanities done to the Sudanese people. It reminded me of a grisly historic film, or one of those biblical stories telling of entire nations being invaded, and the people either enslaved or killed.
Yet despite all this media attention, the quantity of aid being donated to Sudan remained unreported. What did make the news was the fact that the E.U had been finally trying to unlock approximately 400 million Euros, which was caught up in a 14-year development aid freeze, and the UK's plan to sort out Sudan's $26 billion US debt had somehow been delayed.
Being the largest country in Africa, Sudan is slightly more than a quarter the size of the United States, its boundaries determined by Britain who ruled Sudan until its independence in 1956.
Sudan can boast of possessing vast natural resources such as petroleum, iron ore, copper, silver, gold, and hydropower. Its geography indicates, that the river Nile runs through Sudan, and separates into the White and Blue Nile. It is both popular scientific and religious belief that the birthplace of civilisation is located somewhere along this river, which also runs through Egypt and Ethiopia.
Yet a nation with such immense potential has been subjected to the worst types of torture from Islamic leaders who have also been linked to Osama Bin Laden, and the Al Qaeda. In 2004, news reports stated that a peace treaty was signed between the opposing sides in Sudan, but Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that the fighting was far from over. The U.S proposed that the UN designate 10,000 troops to make sure the terms of the treaty were implemented. However, the U.N denied this request, claiming that the situation in Sudan was not genocide. This decision came only days after the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz.
So what really is genocide? Apparently, according to Article 2 of the 1948 genocide convention, genocide is described as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group".
All in all, due to technicalities and a lack of enthusiasm, the Sudanese people were still being slaughtered by the thousands. The situation in Sudan didn't get nearly as much media attention as the Tsunami tragedy, which took primetime spotlight for several months. As was the case with the coverage of the Iraq war, it didn't mean that the people weren't still suffering and dying on mass; it was just the end of one series and the beginning of another; after all, it is television.
Learn more about this author, Keiron Audain.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.