Direct and Indirect Effects of WWI on 20th Century Genocide. <Need your opinion...>

[BeEgEe]

To: Director
From: Brian Greb
Date: December 1st 2006
Subj: Direct & Indirect effects of WWI on 20th century genocides

Every 20th century genocide finds its roots in WWI. The total nature of that war and its millions of casualties, many non-combatant, fostered a culture of violence that made concurrent (e.g., the Armenian) and later genocides (including the Holocaust) feasible, applicable, and acceptable. The WWI-induced culture of violence would even spread outside of Europe through the various imperial systems to virtually every corner of the world. World War I was therefore both a model and a tutorial for mass, government-led violence.
The genocide perpetrated against the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire was timed and conducted under the guise of the total war. The Ottoman policy to expel and exterminate non-Muslims from the crumbling empire could not come to fruition during peace time. Ordered and spontaneous massacres of Armenian populations were met with resistance (however minute) and fell short of the empires’ genocidal aspirations. Armenian resistance came in the form of its prominent leaders, quantity of men of fighting age, and access to weapons. These massacres (test genocides) conducted prior to the onset of World War I were limited in success and scope because of such obstacles. When the Ottoman Empire entered the war it was enabled to swiftly eliminate all barriers preventing it from thoroughly carrying out the extermination of its Armenian population. The first step undertaken was the arrest of 250 of Armenia’s most prominent leaders and intelligentsia in April of 1915. This coupled with the Ottoman parliament passing a law that required the disarming of all non-Muslims within the empire proved to break the back of the Armenian people and their resistance. By May of 1915 an order came down that required all the men of fighting age that had been drafted into the Ottoman army to be disarmed and assigned to labor units. That very same month the Ottoman Empire passed a temporary law of deportation which sealed the fate of the Armenian population and accelerated the genocide.
The results of WWI left Germany and much of Eastern Europe spellbound and immersed in a culture of violence. This atmosphere of total war acclimatized all of Eastern Europe (especially Germany) for the Holocaust which was to follow. The thoughtless Treaty of Versailles failed addressing anything but blame, and in doing so, catalyzed the region toward a second world war. Provisions of the treaty cast an already crippled German economy into unrecoverable debt. This was exacerbated by the Great Depression which hit Germany especially hard due to the astronomical amounts of currency it had to borrow to pay down reparations levied against it by the treaty. The Nazi party appealed to the overwhelming German displeasure toward the treaty provisions and the broad economic hardships that reparations brought. The shame the Treaty of Versailles intended to bring to the German population metastasized into ardent nationalism which provided an avenue for the eventual authors of the Holocaust. At ground level, German society and the region had become acquainted with this concept of wholesale death on a grand scale. WWI industrialized death and literally dehumanized war. Entire societies were numbed by the millions of dead which made extermination of entire populations (viewed as enemies and non-human) not such a radical conception. Hitler used WWI and its results to mobilize a population (not an army) to approve, champion, and carry out genocides upon multiple ethnic groups.
The former state of Yugoslavia rose from the ashes of WWI. Site to some of the most violent and deadly conflicts of the war; Yugoslavia was born with the collapse of the multi-national Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. Little to no consideration was given to the many ethnic groups within the region. Its borders would be drawn irrespective of the contents of its interior. This would guarantee future conflict and give rise to nationalism in places it was virtually alien. The genocide that would take place in this region during the 1990’s was a direct consequence of its leaders focused polarization of such nationalism. The ill conceived state served as a battlefield for both world wars and its people would witness the atrocities of the Holocaust first hand. Over the next 70 years Yugoslavia would be torn by ceaseless conflict, extreme poverty, and race down the crisis spiral toward end game.
Rwanda’s genocide in 1994 is also inexorably linked to the outcome of WWI. The Tutsi ruled over the Hutu in a semi-feudal system that in most respects worked. Rwanda accepted Germany as a colonial power in the late 1800’s. Germany chose to rule indirectly and did very little to change the system in place. Rwanda became a spoil of WWI that was handed over to the Belgians by the League of Nations. The Belgians altered the working system and placed the Tutsi upper class on a pedestal which only served to antagonize the inter-ethnic animosity. Belgian direct rule over the country was brutal and openly racist. Rampant zealous discrimination would become engrained in Rwandan society and result in numerous massacres, population purges, and eventual genocide.
The direct and indirect effects of WWI guided each of these states toward genocide. Barriers were brought down, lessons were learned, problems were solved, and methods fine tuned. The numbing effect total war has on society’s conditions them to concepts like wholesale industrialized death. The populations’ willingness to perpetrate the genocide is what gives these regimes annihilative power. Aspiring authors then need only compose a diagnosis, formulate a plan, and use external or create internal crisis to expedite the genocidal process. The fog of WWI still lingers and it won’t be long before we add other cases to future briefs.


Was it convincing?
Enough evidence?
A good read?


let a brotha knoe.

[BeEgEe]

the more critical the better.

[Ghet for Prez]

There is one genocide that goes on today that has a direct impact on not only today... but on every future generation of man henceforce.

The genocide against the unborn.

[BeEgEe]

Originally Posted by Ghet for Prez

There is one genocide that goes on today that has a direct impact on not only today... but on every future generation of man henceforce.

The genocide against the unborn.

abortion is not genocide.


and neither is state sponsered abortion.

[Ghet for Prez]

bwahahaha

Never before has any liberal dared to say that "Our government is in dire need of •••s" or Armaniens or Blacks or Indians or any other culturally-exterminated people.

Abortion kills 50 million a year.

How the fuck is that not genocide? It is individually targeting people based on age. They are killed *BECAUSE* they are young. You've just convinced yourself some cock-eyed half-assed argument that the first choice of females freshly liberated from the tribal era was to intentionally slaughter their own children in the name of "rights".

And now what does Italy say? What does Japan say?
"Our government is in dire need of workers!"

What do the rebels say? What do the dissenters say?
"Our movement is in dire need of soldiers!"

How the fuck are you going to do any of that... if the pool you need to draw from are KILLED BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN BORN?

[BeEgEe]

abortion is not genocide


state sponsered abortion is not genocide.




ghet your argument would hold water if all females in a specfic group (national, ethnic, racial or religious) were REQUIRED to have abortions.

even in the case of china where you are allowed to have one child, preferably a boy and the girls are either killed or placed in orpanages...... its still not genocide.

gendercide, Infanticide maybe but not GENOCIDE.


your definition of genocide is skewed. sir

[BeEgEe]

bwhhahahahaha

someone write a critique to my briefing memo

[Ghet for Prez]

Originally Posted by BeEgEe

abortion is not genocide


state sponsered abortion is not genocide.

ghet your argument would hold water if all females in a specfic group (national, ethnic, racial or religious) were REQUIRED to have abortions.

even in the case of china where you are allowed to have one child, preferably a boy and the girls are either killed or placed in orpanages...... its still not genocide.

gendercide, Infanticide maybe but not GENOCIDE.


your definition of genocide is skewed. sir

Stop clinging to the intentionally confined definition of genocide.

By your argument, slavery wasn't slavery since 1.) the slaves weren't considered human by the sciences of the day and 2.) No one was forced to own slaves.

[BeEgEe]

Originally Posted by Ghet for Prez

Stop clinging to the intentionally confined definition of genocide.

lol

i'll try

By your argument, slavery wasn't slavery since 1.) the slaves weren't considered human by the sciences of the day and 2.) No one was forced to own slaves.


I made no argument

I just tried to string along the weak argument you made erroneously equating abortion to genocide based on your misunderstanding of the term genocide.

your wrong, get over it.

and critque the paper

[Ghet for Prez]

No, I'm not wrong.

You're dense.

If genocide is the slaughtering of a people because of things that are not plastic, then abortion easily qualifies as one of them. Why are you so afraid to make the distinction?

Here's a critique for you:

Stop regurgitating everyones favorite slaughterfest with the same connotations and pointless ritualizing people have been doing for the past 60 years. The Soveits slaughtered many more than the Nazis. Liberal women have killed more people than Cancer, AIDS, WW1 and WW2 combined. Since your eyes are only limited to a specific frame of time, you have no important insight on what genocide means, and therefore, you are simply following rules and guidelines laid down by people before you instead of thinking for yourself.

[BeEgEe]

Originally Posted by Ghet for Prez

No, I'm not wrong.

You're dense.

If genocide is the slaughtering of a people because of things that are not plastic, then abortion easily qualifies as one of them. Why are you so afraid to make the distinction?




Here's a critique for you:

Stop regurgitating everyones favorite slaughterfest with the same connotations and pointless ritualizing people have been doing for the past 60 years. The Soveits slaughtered many more than the Nazis. Liberal women have killed more people than Cancer, AIDS, WW1 and WW2 combined. Since your eyes are only limited to a specific frame of time, you have no important insight on what genocide means, and therefore, you are simply following rules and guidelines laid down by people before you instead of thinking for yourself.

lol.

Ghet Your Wrong........ how does it feel?

This was a briefing memo connecting 20th century genocides to WWI
I was focused on these 4 genocides because who I'm briefing is only interested in them.
My eyes aren't limited fool.......the memo is.
However passionate YOUR argument may be it is erroneous


Genocide is a very specific term.

and like I said earlier you definition is skewed.

Evidence of..........
slaughter
mass murder
infanticide
politicide
gendercide
vaginacide
is not Evidence of genocide...............

Academia does not recognize abortion as genocide because it isn't

You can't make abortion a form of genocide because you believe it is.

And don't tell me to think for myself. lol
Please motherfucker I'm well versed in area of genocide.

you however, are not.

ya i have to agree with beegee here...

genocide and abortion are completely different...Abortion as we know it is individual decision...abortion is about choice...so if a woman has an abortion and is not being forced you can make the arguement that she is a murderer but you cannot compare it to genocide at all man....

now if it was killing the first born son's or any ethnic group of women who were pregnant to prevent that ethnicity from reproducing or basically ridding the world of a certain group that would be genocide....

I also belive its the intention behind the actions.

and Ghet lets be honest now what do you have to say about Armenians?



"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: 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; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

[Ghet for Prez]

Let's look, and destroy, one by one, your reasoning.

1.) ITS NOT GENOCIDE SINCE WOMEN AREN'T FORCED TO HAVE ABORTIONS
Who the fuck cares about the woman? The unborn person is being executed without a trial, without an opinion on the matter, and without consent. Every definition of murder in the world qualifies as that. This has nothing to do with emotion. This is logic.

2.) ACADEMIA DOESN'T APPROVE
Who the fuck cares about a bunch of Ivory tower elitists? Not so long ago, Academia used to allow Eugenics as a major. A mere 100 years ago, they used to teach Slave Management. The hell does Academia have anything to do with this?

3.) Genocide is any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
And abortion is genocide committed with hte intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an entire generation. GENocide. GENeration. Look up the etyomology. They both comes from the same Greek root genos. Family, tribe, or race. How is the systematic slaughter of a GENeration -NOT- GENocide?! This is not emotion. This is logic.

4.) Voluntary Abortions Make It Ok
Does the comfort in knowing that owning a slave was completely voluntary change your repulsion against slavery? So why do you expect the voluntary murdering of those who can't fight back any better? This is not emotion. This is logic.

Oh, oh, I think I know what the problem is...

You think abortion is this one, hyper-focused, super secret, one-time deal only.

Let's quote from the most Neo-Conservative source on the entire Internet about how many abortions take place every year... feminist.org.. the most conservative, religious, and fundamentalist website -EVER-

http://www.feminist.org/rrights/reprodhealth_links.html

What's this? They link to the Alan Guttmacher Institute? And then they say "This site provides research on sexual health care and reproduction in the U.S. and around the world. With strong research, public analysis, and public education components, this site is easily searchable and has extensive links. " about them? I wonder what this Alan guy is doing to get that sort of response!

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_0599.html

In developed countries (where average desired family size is small), of the 28 million pregnancies occurring every year, an estimated 49% are unplanned, and 36% end in abortion. (10,080,000 million dead)

In developing countries (where average desired family size is larger), of the 182 million pregnancies occurring every year, an estimated 36% are unplanned, and 20% end in abortion. (36,400,000 million dead)

46,480,000 million killed... not just this year

Not just last year.

Not just the last 10 years.

But for the past 33 years.

I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that for hte last 32 years, only 1% of 46million were killed by abortion. And on that last, fateful 33rd year, abortions shot up to 46 million.

This would mean that 61,818,400 million people were killed in the span of 30 years.

How

the

fuck

is

that

not

genocide

?

Oh no, I've learned a valuable lesson from abortion. If I want to kill alot of people, wipe out entire generations of workers, soldiers, and citizens before a population even has a chance to resist.. *and* have the world clap along while I do it, I know *EXACTLY* who to go to. Who needs Hitler when we got Women?

[BeEgEe]

lol.

like I said......


no matter how passionate your argument is....it is erroneous


as logical as YOU may think it is, it isn't.

[BeEgEe]

Originally Posted by Ghet for Prez

This would mean that 61,818,400 million people were killed in the span of 30 years.

How

the

fuck

is

that

not

genocide

?

now that I've cut the crap from your argument......


the number of dead does not make an event a genocide.
it has absolutely no bearing at all......


YOUR DEFINITION of a GENOCIDE is SKEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!