Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Afganistan Controversies

Soviet invasion, you mean intervention.

RfC on proposed edit of term "Genocide"

The current article has a short description of "Genocide." An editor has proposed a substantially longer exposition. Is the proposed edit superior to the existing wording? 21:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Current wording:

Genocide Under the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states, including Stalin's USSR, anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances.

Proposed wording:

The term Genocide had been initially coined by Raphael Lemkin in the work "Axis rule of occupied Europe". This term had been formalized by the UN Genocide Convention, which defined it as an act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, etnical, racial or religious group; genocide defined in such a way is a crime punishable according to international laws, thus applying limitations on the sovereignty of governments that destroy their own peoples. The legal definition of genocide has several limitations that made it inapplicable to many mass killing and mass mortality events in XX century. These limitations are as follows:

1. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution, because many Eastern Bloc, Latin American, and some other governments anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal rebellions.
2. The highest level of specific intent needs to be established for conviction of genocide.
3. The intent to destroy some group in part may fit the genocide definition only if the perpetrators view the part of the group they wish to destroy as a distinct entity which must be eliminated as such.

As a result, most some the most deadly instances of mass killing and mass mortality cases in Communist led countries do not fit the legal definition of genocide as the acts against political groups (such as Great Purge, Cultural Revolution), or the cases with not established intentionality, or as the acts affecting just small part of some group (Soviet Famine of 1932-33, Great Leap Forward famine).
Some modern scholars proposed that the term "genocide" should be defined more widely that would allow expansion of protection of Genocide Convention on political groups, inclusion of both specific and constructive intent (i.e., the cases when perpetrator should realise that his behaviour makes the harm likely), and bringing the term "in part" in accordance with lay people's understanding. If this definition will be commonly accepted, it can be applied to most cases of violence in Communist led countries. However, such an approach has been accepted with skepticism by other scholars, who argued that loose definition would make genocide not a uniquely horrible and rare event, and large number of cases, starting from colonization of America and ending with the economic sanctions against Iraq would fit such a definition.
Nevertheless, many authors use the term "genocide" as metaphors for various forms of lethal and non-lethal violence, including the violence under Communist regimes. Limitations of the term "genocide" prompted scholars to propose alternative terms describing lethal forms of mass violence, which are being discussed below.

Note: The "proposed wording" has been altered since the RfC was started. See [1] for version at start. The term Genocide had been initially coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe Nazi policy in occupied Europe, and The Holocaust in particular. Collect (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect, please stop this ridiculous wikilawyering. You took my version (with which you strongly disagree) and started the RfC without attempting to discuss it with me. Of course, I have a right, as a proposer of this text, to modify it to take into account some reasonable concerns that have been raised during the previous discussion. If you want others to assume your good faith, please, behave accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I used the version existing at the time the RfC was started - well after you posted at the Consensus talk page positing a hypothetical edit of:

I propose to add the following sentence to the article:

"The rain in Spain stays only in the plains"

Which I considered as being a teensy bit far from the actual edit you sought. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

???--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This new text presents more problems than it solves, for example this statement "As a result, most mass killing and mass mortality cases in Communist led countries do not fit the legal definition of genocide as the acts against political groups (Great Purge, Cultural Revolution), or the cases with not established intentionality, or as the acts affecting just small part of some group (Soviet Famine of 1932-33, Great Leap Forward famine)." appears to be pure synthesis not attributable to any source. --Nug (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to correctly identify one more issue. Whereas many sources state that the term is not applicable to separate major instances of MKuCR, it would be not correct to make a general claim. I changed the text accordingly to take into account your second concrete objection. What other concrete issues do you see with the text?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The edit is not an improvement. It is lengthy, makes legal arguments, and is not a furtherance of the topic of the article. It may also contain OR/SYNTH, and evince a POV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is already an article on genocide. The purpose of the article here is not to discuss who invented the word "genocide" or all the different ways in which genocide is not technically, legally speaking, genocide. Far from clarifying, this just injects content which detracts from the topic at hand. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Though the proposal is well sourced and written it is overly long when an article on genocide already exists, the current wording is ample so long as there are a link to the genocide article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment here by the RfC robot. In light of the framing of the question, I would have to oppose this proposal for reasons that have already been stated. However, I will add the caveat that I think there is room for improvement to the definition of genocide provided (this may even mean incorporating some of the proposed elements above, if it can be shortened considerably). Namely, the current phrasing seems concerned only with explaining what genocide is not, thereby providing a segue into politicide and democide. A very basic affirmative definition would also be appropriate, given that there are some elements of campaigns under communism that arguably do satisfy the conventional definition of genocide (eg. the persecution of Tibetans from the 1950s onward). Homunculus (duihua) 14:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah because the anti-communist KMT regime and Ma clique totally have no plans to annex Tibet and reclaim lost territory including Outer Mongolia, and totally didn't launch the Sino-Tibetan War against the 13th Dalai Lama. LMAO--PCPP (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• RfC Comment

Oppose:, for the following reasons: (i)As mentioned by several others, the topic here is not 'genocide'. (ii) The poorly constructed alternative text (iii) The Genocide Convention does not provide a legal definition of the term. And thus, to paraphrase Collect, the proposed wording may contain OR/SYNTH, and evince a POV.--Misha Atreides (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(i) The topic is "application of the term "genocide" to MKuCR", so it has a direct relation to genocide.

(ii) What concretely is poorly constructed?

(iii) That is simply untrue. The Convention defines genocide as a crime, and provides a legal definition of this crime [2]. Based on this legal definition, a number of international tribunals took place; obviously that would not be possible in the absence of legal definition.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(i) It still does not make 'genocide' the topic of this page, unfortunately. Further, arbitrarily re/defining and expanding the term as a sub-topic, when it already has a page of its own, is rather superfluous.

(ii) The odd use of past perfect continuous tenses (had been), spelling (etnical), poor construction (many Eastern Bloc, Latin American, and some other governments and the whole third paragraph) and the use of both British and American spellings in the text .

(iii) Actually, it is. You're confusing definition with 'legal definition'. To this day, jurists continue to struggle to legally define genocide - to distinguish it from war crimes and crimes against humanity, questions on the exclusion of certain socio-political-cultural group from its ambit of protection and perhaps most importantly, whether deaths are even required in a genocide prosecution. A couple of reading materials: 1 2 --Misha Atreides (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, as a proposer of the text I need to explain the following. I was not an initiator of this RfC. I posted this text just to initiate a discussion about improvement of the existing text. Instead of that, Collect started the RfC, and the goal, obviously, was to preserve the existing version. In contrast, I am open to any discussion about improvement of the proposed text (or of the existing version).

Secondly, you are obviously not right. There is a profound difference between word "genocide" an all other "cides": whereas the latter are just scholarly terms, "genocide" (as it was defihed by the UNO Convention) is a crime, and an accusations of genocide sensu stricto have concrete and severe legal consequences. That would be impossible if the Convention contained no legal definition of genocide, so the Convention provides a legal definition of this crime. For sources of this my claim, see, for example, Hagnn et al, Criminology of genocide: the death and rape in Darfur. Criminology Volume 43, Issue 3, 18 AUG 2005. However, many authors, including Lemkin himself, started to expand the meaning of this term, so it became a generic category that is evoked to describe various forms of lethal and non-lethal mass violence. The latter meaning makes it applicable to most events described in this article, so that does make it the topic of this article. However, such an interpretation of the word "genocide" has no legal consequences, and it is not a mainstream view (although it is a significant minority view). For sources, see Ellman (op. cit), Weiss-Wendt (op. cit).

The present version is totally unsatisfactory: it just tells that the Convention is not applicable to the MKuCR, and, as a result, the first question upon reading this paragraph is: if this term is not applicable, why do we need to mention it at all?

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul, it seems that the primary objection that has been raised to the wording proposed in this RfC is that it is excessively long (such is my reading, anyway). Do you have other proposals on what the phrasing could look like? I think there is a legitimate need (if we can call it that) to improve this definition, and your comment above demonstrates why. Another RfC is probably not necessary; a collaborate process, perhaps involving more voices, might yield better results. Homunculus (duihua) 15:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to do that. Do you have any concrete ideas on that subject? I can try to take them into account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I would (very humbly) submit the following for consideration. Note that I have likely lost some important layer of nuance or sophistication, and am not at all attached to this wording. I am just trying to be helpful in whatever minor way I can be.

The term Genocide is defined under the UN Genocide Convention as an act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. It is a crime punishable according to international laws, thus applying limitations on the sovereignty of governments to destroy their own peoples. The legal definition of genocide has several limitations that make it inapplicable to many mass killing and mass mortality events; notably, protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution because many states, including Stalin's USSR, anticipated that clause would limit their right to suppress political opponents. Consequently, some the most deadly instances of mass killing and mass mortality in Communist-led countries do not fit the legal definition of genocide as the acts targeted political groups (such as Great Purge, Cultural Revolution), or did not involve explicit intent (Soviet Famine of 1932-33, Great Leap Forward famine). Some modern scholars proposed that the term "genocide" should be defined more widely, including expanding protection to political groups. Limitations of the term "genocide" prompted scholars to propose alternative terms for lethal forms of mass violence, which are discussed below.

I will defer to the judgement of other editors on how this might be improved further. My one additional suggestion is that it might be worth noting that some events under Communism do more clearly satisfy the conventional definition (though when it comes to genocide, there is rarely a consensus). Homunculus (duihua) 00:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I like this text, although I have some comments. Firstly, my idea was to discuss each term according to the following general scheme: (i) who proposed the term and why; (ii) how the term is defined; (iii) to which instances of MKuCR it was applied and by whom; (iv) what are the limitations of this term. If you agree with that, then we need to explain the limitations of the term "genocide", and the problems with its usage. The main problem is that the term is being very frequently used by various writers to describe a wide range of the events in Communist states, so we in actuality have two totally different terms: "genocide" in its strict legal definition, which is applied to a very limited range of very rare events, and "genocide" as a term used to discredit political adversaries. In addition, the word "genocide" is frequently being used by scholars as a synonym of mass killings. Thus, Straus in his article "Second-Generation Comparative Research on Genocide" World Politics, Volume 59, Number 3, April 2007, pp. 476-501, discusses the works of six authors, Levene, Mann, Semelin, Midlarsky, Valentino, Semelin and Weitz, almost each of whom proposed or used their own terminology to describe mass killing events, and he speaks about them as "genocide scholars", despite the fact that those authors did not see majority of the events they study as "genocides", and used "mass killings", "politicide", "classicide", etc, instead. Obviously, Straus uses "genocide" as an umbrella term, and that "genocide" has little in common with the internationally punishable crime described by the UNO convention.

Regarding you notion that "some events under Communism do more clearly satisfy the conventional definition", to my big surprise, even Kampuchean Genocide, which was the purest example of Communism related genocidal event (especially taking into account extreme Khmer nationalism and racism), is not described as genocide by some authors. They prefer to use "classicide" or similar terms instead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Hmm. Could we not simply add a sentence to the proposed definition to note that the term is often used loosely (ie. not necessarily in according with the strict legal definition) to described MKuCR? I think it may be beyond the scope of the 'terminology' section to include the more detailed etymology and history of the term and its specific applications. I might suggest that, where specific events have been described as genocides, that debate be described in the relevant sections. Thoughts?Homunculus (duihua) 17:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

References

In the news

[3] Washington Post:

The European Court of Human Rights said Monday it cannot rule on whether or not Russia properly investigated a World War II massacre of thousands of Polish officers because it has not received vital documents from Moscow to properly judge the case. The court found Russia in violation of its commitments to the European Convention on Human Rights.Fifteen Poles have complained that Russia failed to hold a proper investigation into the 1940 killing by the Soviet secret police of some 22,000 Polish officers and intellectuals in the Katyn forest and other places.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you think we should put in? The Katyn massacre is already in the article and Russia is not a Communist regime. TFD (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

First - I only noted the current court result. Second, I had thought Russia during WW II was indeed Communist, but if you say it was not Communist during WW II, then I assume you know the "truth." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Russia was founded in 1991, long after the conclusion of the Second World War. TFD (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, commonly called Russia antedated 1991. Is that what is important here? Any real reason for the factoid about the Russian Federation? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The RSFSR was not a a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore did not come under its jurisdiction. Furthermore, it was not a sovereign state but a republic within the USSR. TFD (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm, constitutionally the RSFSR was sovereign. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And since the Russian Federation possesses continuity of sovereignty (with the RSFSR and Soviet Union), having ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in May 1998, it would be subject to judgements not limited by statutes of limitations and associated with its free choice of its past. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, remember that this page is not a forum. What concrete edits are you discussing in this thread? The right of the relatives of Polish officers to get needed information has no relation to the events the article discusses (1940 mass killing). Had the ECHR make a decision that the investigation of the Katyn mass killing has to be renewed because of insufficient information provided by Russia in past, we would have to include this information in the article, because that would imply that we may expect to get some new facts soon. However, afaik, the ECHR did not make such a decision, therefore, the present decision sheds no additional light on the factual side of the 1940 events. Therefore, the ECHR's decision may be relevant just to the Katyn massacre article at best.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The news article makes clear that such mass killings are in current news, and that the current Russian government appears to want it to "go away." I did not raise the interesting claim that "Russia is not a Communist regime." Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is neither a newspaper nor educational portal. If you propose no concrete changes to the article, do not spam the talk page, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A single note about a court case which might well be mentioned in the article is not "spamming the talk page", Paul. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You proposed no concrete edits. In addition, I doubt the decision contains anything that deserves mention in this concrete article. Again, had the court decided that additional investigation is needed, we could discuss inclusion of that fact into the article. However, as far as I know, the court abstained from making such a decision thereby supporting the status quo. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Really, the court is complaining about Russia not being forthcoming with information concerning an atrocity by its chosen sovereign predecessor. That is notable. The content (i.e., how to incorporate/represent the newspaper account) is what is being discussed. I don't see what "status quo" you are contending is being "supported," there is no "status quo." You are contending the court is validating Russia's poor conduct? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We discuss the mass killing article, not the Russia's poor conduct towards several descendants of Communist victims. This material belongs to the article that discuss all aspects to this mass killing (i.e. to the Katyn massacre article). The only information relevant to this particular article is whether Russia concealed any key information that may require to speak about renewal of the investogation of this crime. The ECHR decision contained no such statement, so I don't think we have anything to discuss on this talk page. By writing that, I do not claim this info is irrelevant to the Katyn massacre article: it is relevant, and, if noone has added it there yet, it should be added.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless I am misinterpreting your logic, your argument that the ECHR did not state that Russia was concealing information crucial to investigation of this event appears to be specious. To rule on knowing concealment, the ECHR would need to know what is being concealed. The ECHR clearly does not know. Therefore they can only rule they cannot rule because information is not forthcoming. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether Russia concealed some crucial information or there is no ground for such a statement. Had ECHR decided that some important information about this mass killings had been concealed, and that its publication may significantly change our understanding of that tragedy, we could discuss addition of this this ECHR statement to the article. However, no such decision has been made, so I simply do not understand what we are discussing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Many people think Russia is still communist. I don't think Collect is to be blamed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect should have understanding of the type of government Russia has before involving lots of editors in a discussion thread. TFD (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely did know the type of government Russia has - it was you who appeared desirous of making it appear you knew more than I - your aside here is of nil value. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It is important in this article to know which states were communist regimes. The Union of Soviet Soviet Socialist Republics, which was headed by Mikhail Gorbachev, was a communist regime, but ceased to exist in 1991. Mass killings following that date should not be included in the article. TFD (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And how in the name of anything can you interpret the news article as saying anything remotely akin to what you appear to accuse me of saying? Does the news article say the mass killings just occurred? Sheesh! Collect (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(od)@Paul, we can discuss further at Katyn, however, your entire construct of:

"The question is whether Russia concealed some crucial information or there is no ground for such a statement. Had ECHR decided that some important information about this mass killings had been concealed, and that its publication may significantly change our understanding of that tragedy, we could discuss addition of this this ECHR statement to the article. However, no such decision has been made, so I simply do not understand what we are discussing."

postulates an impossibility. How can the ECHR decide that important information has been concealed? The ECHR cannot know what it does not know. All the ECHR knows, and explicitly indicated, was that Russia did not cooperate and provide information. That most certainly does not engender trust. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the article - neither Russia nor Europe are communist regimes. TFD (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, since we are already discussing something irrelevant I will point out a similar bit of news [4]. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization in title

Is there any reason why 'Communist' is capitalised in the page title? The MOS specifies that titles should not be capitalised unless it's a proper noun, 'communist' is an adjective and shoud not be capitalised. IMO, the page should be moved to Mass killings under communist regimes. Has there been a previous discussion? LK (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to look at the artile history - back to when "genocide" was in the title. The capitalization appears to have been done by consensus, and used in the common (capitalized) sense of "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-whateverist regimes". Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Big "C" Communism refers to the ruling parties of the countries mentioned in the article. Presumably small-"c" "communist regime" would be an oxymoron, because once communism was achieved the state would have "withered away". TFD (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Other communist regimes

In the "Anti-communist mass killings" page the deaths of regimes such as 60's Iraq, Pinochet and the White Terror in Hungary where the number of deaths is listed in the thousands, I think their needs to be mentions of mass killing committed by Castro (10's of thousands suspected of being murdered), the Sadanista's (Thousand's suspected of being murdered), the MPLA (10's of thousands suspected of being murdered) and Cold war era Poland. I think reliable sources could be found for these 4 regimes (especially Cuba) and their degree of mass killing is certainly comparable if not much higher than Pinochet's Chile and Arif's Iraq. Even if their is ambiguity over these mass killings they could be placed under the "Controversies" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussions about other articles should take place on their own talk pages. I was not aware by the way that Castro, the Sandinistas, the MPLA, and Polish Communists were anti-Communists, let alone responsible for anti-Communist mass killings. TFD (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I too am confused. Editor, can you clarify whether your recommendation relates to anti-Communist mass killings, or if you were just invoking that page as an example? Homunculus (duihua) 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)