Writing Worth Reading
Writing Worth Reading
The word "genocide" is often bandied around or used imprecisely. Remind us what the most correct definition is?
I don't think there is a "correct" definition of genocide. At the same time, the most useful way to think about it is to start with the December 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In article two, genocide is defined as "acts intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial, ethnical, national, or religious group, as such". That definition has been amplified by the decisions of international courts over the past decade and a half. Historians and social scientists have also refined it. In my recent book Stalin's Genocides I argue, for example, that social and political groups should be included in the definition.
So is the definition contested? When does something stop being a mass killing and become a genocide?
This and other definitions are indeed contested in the academic literature, though less so in international jurisprudence. Genocide, in my view, is a type of mass killing, the worst one – the "crime of crimes" in international law. As the UN definition indicates, it is the intentional and planned elimination of a substantial group of people, with the idea of destroying that group "as such". There are of course massacres, pogroms, suicide bombings, cases of murderous ethnic cleansing and other horrific forms for mass killing that often fit the legal definition of "crimes against humanity". But these are not the same as genocide.
Is there such a thing as cultural genocide?
"Cultural genocide" was initially included in some of the proposals for the genocide convention, but was eliminated as part of the compromise language that was finally adopted. My own view is that the way we use the term "genocide" should be about mass murder. But of course it is an awful crime forcibly to deprive a people of its culture, language, monuments and distinctive qualities. It happens far too often and is too little taken note of. Tibet is a case in point. And in many episodes of genocide, this kind of cultural attack accompanies mass killing of the people.
Please tell us about Christopher Browning's book, what it investigates and what its conclusions are.
Ordinary Men is a real classic of Holocaust and genocide studies. Christopher Browning is a professor of history at the University of North Carolina. He examines the history of the Hamburg Reserve Police Battalion 101 – as reconstructed primarily from the later trial materials of its members – and demonstrates that these individuals who committed mass murder were not necessarily vicious racists or active Nazis. They were mostly apolitical, middle-aged men of working class background who, on the whole, were not heavily influenced by Nazi propaganda. On the eastern front, a small minority even chose not to kill Jews and suffered no punishment as a result. But the overwhelming majority gradually became accustomed to their tasks of conducting mass murder and participating in the Holocaust.
What is the wider lesson about human psychology here?
The essential lesson of Ordinary Men is that genocide is not the exclusive preserve of fanatics, racist thugs and homicidal maniacs. It is part of the human condition, especially of humans living in society. It is far too easy to go along with authority and social norms, even when undertaking morally reprehensible deeds, rather than to refuse to participate – despite the fact that, as in the case of Reserve Police Battalion 101, it was unlikely that punishment would accompany a refusal to comply. This kind of conclusion is backed up by earlier social-psychological studies, like the Milgram experiment at Yale and the Zimbardo experiment at Stanford. The sheer power of authority figures and the need for social conformity among humans can turn otherwise peaceful and humane individuals into aggressive criminals.
And what of those who give the orders to exterminate a population? Is it valid to think of Hitler as "evil"?
I have no problem with thinking about Hitler and his chief helpmates as evil men. Their ideology was morally reprehensible and was used to justify their application of German state power to destroy the Jewish people – a criminal act of unprecedented proportions, for which they were responsible.
What do we learn about the Holocaust from Saul Friedländer's book, and what is his personal experience of it?
Friedländer, a professor of history at UCLA, was born in Prague and his family moved to France in 1940. He himself survived the war in a Catholic monastery, even converting temporarily to Catholicism. But his parents were caught and eventually killed by the Nazis. His experiences surely influence the way he writes about the Holocaust. The Years of Extermination is a book of enormous erudition, brilliant exposition and emotional sensitivity. It weaves an analysis of the Nazi campaign to eliminate the Jews with the story of the life and death of the Jews themselves. The voices of the victims are unforgettable as they are crushed by the racism of German society and overwhelmed by the power and determination of the Nazi racial state, both of which were determined to be rid of them. You feel the hopelessness of the persecuted Jews, and shudder with terror at the Nazi assault.
The Holocaust is so central to any discussion of genocide. When does it help, and when does it not, to draw comparisons to it?
I think about the Holocaust as the most extreme case of genocide. After all, it gave rise to the concept of genocide in the work of Raphael Lemkin and the international law against genocide, passed unanimously by the UN. But other cases of genocide were also relevant both to the thinking of Lemkin and to the framers of the convention. In order to understand the origins, processes and effects of genocide, the Holocaust needs to be compared with other episodes over time and space. I do not think the Holocaust is "unique", as some scholars do, or that comparing it with other cases diminishes its impact or importance. Comparison – including identifying dissimilarities – is at the core of explanation.
Why does Holocaust denial still exist? What should our reaction to it be?
It seems that every case of genocide contains within itself the sources of denial. Perpetrators immediately try to hide the enormity of their crime and deny its existence. At the same time, there is no one explanation for Holocaust denial. There is a kind of perverse pleasure that some writers take in denial. There are also those in both victim and perpetrator communities who simply cannot abide Jewish claims to special victimhood in the Holocaust. There are anti-semites and anti-Zionists who shroud their hatred of the Jews in Holocaust denial, and so on. I personally don’t think that Holocaust denial should be against the law. Of course I'm not happy about it, and I think deniers should, depending on the circumstances, be criticised, vilified, ignored or marginalised. But I don’t think, for example, that it was a good thing for David Irving to be convicted of breaking the law and sent to jail in Austria for Holocaust denial.
Norman Naimark is an American historian and author who specialises in modern Eastern European history, genocide and ethnic cleansing. He is a professor in the history department at Stanford University, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Naimark has been awarded the Officers Cross of the Order of Merit by Germany. His most recent book is Stalin's Genocides
Is it wise to try Mladic for genocide as well as war crimes? Sparkling mini-essay suggests not. "Ethnic cleansing, though reprehensible, is not the same as genocide. And loose definitions will encourage more military interventions"
Lithuania tries to obscure role in Holocaust by arguing for "double genocide": Nazis killed Jews, communists killed Lithuanians. Some Holocaust survivors prosecuted as Soviet agents
Interview with Musa Hilal, Janjaweed leader with the blood of genocide on his hands, who lives comfortably in Khartoum claiming to be a peacemaker.
