What is the greatest atrocity that has ever been Commited?

[The Last Conformist]

Yes, the Terror Famine

From a quick skimming of that link, it's just another name of Collectivization?

 

[luiz]

From a quick skimming of that link, it's just another name of Collectivization?

No, it´s a particular case of Collectivization that happened in Ukraine. Alongside what usually happens in collectivization, in this case there was also the deliberate goal to punish the ukranian peasantry and completely destroy their national identity. You should read the whole text, it´s definately worthy.

 

[IglooDame]

No, it´s a particular case of Collectivization that happened in Ukraine. Alongside what usually happens in collectivization, in this case there was also the deliberate goal to punish the ukranian peasantry and completely destroy their national identity. You should read the whole text, it´s definately worthy.

I just did, and indeed it is both beyond "traditional" collectivization to the point of deliberate starvation of the area, and worth reading.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I don't really see how it makes sense to separate what happened in the Ukraine from the rest of Collectivization. The Ukrainians wasn't even the worst hit - the Kazakhs lost 25% of their population, and had the economical basis for their culture eliminated.

 

[luiz]

I don't really see how it makes sense to separate what happened in the Ukraine from the rest of Collectivization. The Ukrainians wasn't even the worst hit - the Kazakhs lost 25% of their population, and had the economical basis for their culture eliminated.

The difference between what happened in Ukraine and what happened on other collectivization proccesses is that in Ukraine there was a deliberate goal to harm the people. Not only they were implementing socialism(that is already harmful), they were also using scorched-earth tactic to create an artificial starvation.

I agree that all other collectivization experiences were also criminal, but Ukraine is perhaps the worst case.

 

[HannibalBarka]

1. The worst, in the meaning of killing some one for no other reason than "killing him", no political, economical or whatever gain: in that case I see the Holocaust. That crime was committed for "free", just for the sake of killing, and that's what makes it Unique. All other crimes had a reason: econimical reason (Triangular Trade), territory reason (Crusades, Native Indian Massacres), religious reason (The Crusades, the Inquisition, The Jihad), political reason (Cultural Revolution, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Staline)
2. The one crime that had the major effect on the world today: killing the Native Americain, imagine how the world would look like if the europeans didn't took the place of the natives in the Americas.

 

[The Last Conformist]

You might argue that Collectivization was at its worst in the Ukraine (I'm disinclined to agree), but I still don't see why it should be separated.

Artificial starvation was standard practice during Collectivization - outside the Ukraine, it was particularly deadly in southern Russia and in Kazakhstan. And while I just could see an argument that what happened in Kazakhstan was not genocide, it was a clear-cut case of ethnocide (they deliberate wiping out of a culture or way of life) with a deathrate to make many genocides look benign.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

I have a particular disgust towards the Conquista. But as it has been said before at the level of human atrocities there is no "greater than" sign.

 

[HannibalBarka]

The Crusades are used as a reason for the jihad. Compared to the slaughter of muslim troops in the 7th century in Persia, Northern Africa, Spain, Southern France and the byzantine border - and again in the 11th century after the battle of Mantzikert in what is today Turkey - and again in 1453 when they conquered constantinopel and - and - and...
...the Crusades weren't worse than that.

Yes they were. Muslim troops made very few massacres of civilians when they conquered Persia, North Africa, Spain, etc. The Crusaders committed countless atricities and killed civilians, Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians included.

The Holocaust and the Crusades are not linked. The Crusades were done because of economical reasons. Europe wanted a trade route to India which wasn't controlled of arabs. The byzantines lost palestine in 1071 and the pope called for crusaders in 1095. It's like someone rallied troops to help Nazi-Germany in 1969 - a little late..."religion" was just a nice way of gathering people from many nations.

The Holocaust happened because of pure racism. Hitler wanted to annihilate the jews while the pope wanted to control land.

I do agree that the Holocaust and the Crusades have no link, and that The Crusades were done for economical reason, even though economy is not the only reason. And Byzantine lost Palestine at least 4 centuries before 1071, I think it was around 630AD.

 

[Perfection]

Godfather Part 3

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Comparing atrocities is a completely pointless, and actually dangerous business, since the evilness or scale of any particular atrocity doesn't in the slightest excuse or diminish the evilness of another. Which is usually what you get in these debates: 'It was alright for Pinochet to murder 3,000 people and torture thousands more because Allende might have killed more'.

An atrocity is an atrocity, and we should condemn them all.

Closed. I believe there're more worthwhile topics to debate about.