Eyes on the World Explore the complicated and colorful world with me!

A 30-year-long war raged in Vietnam between 1945 and 1975. It was the longest and one of the most brutal military conflicts of the 20th century. In the period from 1966 to 1968 alone, the USA and its allies dropped almost 2,900,000 tonnes of explosives on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia – this was 800,000 more than total tonnage dropped during the Second World War. The suffering of the civilian population defies imagination. Over half of the rural population was driven out of its villages in the 1960s and forced to live in urban slums or refugee camps. The most conservative estimates work on the assumption that almost 630,000 civilians were killed in North and South Vietnam between 1965 and the end of 1974. As opposed to this, many historians refer to over two million deaths and over four million wounded – in a country with a population at the time of about 35 million inhabitants. In any case, the proportion of civilians among the war victims was far in excess of 40 percent and therefore exceeded the corresponding quota for the Second World War.

A – Context

Very few would have deemed such an escalation of events possible in 1945. Although France had rejected the independence of its colony as proclaimed by the Viet Minh (League for the Independence of Vietnam) and sent troops to the region which engaged in battle with the Viet Minh throughout the country from the end of 1946, for financial reasons alone, Paris could not afford a long-drawn-out war. And the idea that other major powers would join in was more or less out of the question. Meanwhile, however, the context was altered fundamentally as a result of the seizure of power by the Chinese Communists in autumn 1949, not to speak of the invasion of South Korea by North-Korean troops in June 1950. Seen through the lens of the Cold War and regarded as part of a world-wide struggle between «good and evil», post-colonial conflicts experienced an unexpected boost, and the victory of the Viet Minh over the French armed forces in Dien Bien Phu in early May 1954 was interpreted as an event of seismic political significance and a test case for the future world order. Following the division of the country along the 17th parallel in accordance with a resolution of the Geneva Conference on Indochina of summer 1954, the USA declared itself France's substitute as the guarantor of an anti-communist South Vietnam, while the Viet Minh in the north could rely on the patronage of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China for support in the establishment of a communist social order.

The way for the big war was paved first by a year-long civil war. Or, to be more precise: by the policies of the «small actors» in Hanoi and Saigon. In an effort to consolidate their rule on each side of the demarcation line, Ho Chi Minh and Ngo Dinh Diem had tens of thousands detained or deported to re-education camps. Approximately 15,000 real or imagined opponents of the respective regimes are reputed to have been killed on both sides by the end of 1957. Diem, who was unpopular among all sectors of the population, ultimately became the fire-raiser. His campaign of terror had not only driven the disenfranchised farmers to fight back but also prompted the leadership in Hanoi to embark on a momentous change of course in January 1959. From then on, the communists in the South were provided with support in the form of weapons and experienced guerrillas. When the National Liberation Front (NLF) was finally established in 1960 and the Southern insurgents had a political umbrella organization, the «big actors» in Washington, Moscow, and Peking found themselves caught in a solidarity trap. The failure to honour the fervent promise of support made earlier would have damaged their credibility – an inconceivable option, in particular in the Cold War era.

It is contested whether Nurettin Paşa (Bursa, 1873 - Istanbul, 1932) graduated from the War Academy or not. He joined the Turco-Greek War of 1897 as a volunteer. In the Balkan War and the First World War, he excelled in the military hierarchy and became one of the key commanders of the Ottoman Army. In 1919, he was briefly assigned as the Vice-Governor of Izmir and Aydın. Paşa tried to act as a mediator between Istanbul and Ankara. The Ottoman government removed him from office, since he attempted to resist the Greek occupation. He joined the War of Independence in 1920 and became a close collaborator with Mustafa Kemal. He was appointed as the Commander of the newly formed Central Army and ordered to repress the uprisings (especially the Pontus revolts after 1920 and the Koçgiri revolt in 1921). His violent methods condemned, he was removed from his position in November 1921. However, Nurettin Paşa was appointed as the Commander of the First Army in 1922 and became an MP for Bursa in 1925.

Nuri Dersimi (Dersim, 1893? – Aleppo, 1973) was the son of a teacher, poet and musician from Dersim, related to the family of Seyyit Rıza. He studied veterinary medicine in Istanbul where he came into contact with newly formed Kurdish nationalist organizations. In 1912 he became the general secretary of the Kurdish students' association Kürdistan Muhibban Cemiyeti . During WWI he was sent as a military vet to Eastern Anatolia. Back in Istanbul, he became a member of the Society for the Rise of Kurdistan (Kürdistan Teali Cemiyeti ). Then he was sent to Sivas as a vet and contributed to the organization of the Koçgiri revolt and especially to the coordination with Dersim tribes. Being considered as one of the main instigators of the uprising, he was condemned to death and took refuge in Dersim. He took an active part in the Dersim revolt (1937-1938). During its repression in 1937, he took refuge in Syria, where he lived until the end of his life and wrote two books relating his memories and the struggle for Kurdish nationalism.

Seyyit Rıza (Dersim, 1862? - 1937) was a member of the Abbasan branch of the Sheikh Hasanan tribe in Dersim. He was the son of Seyid Ibrahim Agha, from an Alevi sacred family descended from Sheikh Ahmed Dede. Despite being his youngest son, Seyyit Rıza was designed to succeed his father as a religious leader. He enjoyed religious, tribal and juridical authority. He also married the daughter of an important landowner and Dersim MP, Diyab Agha. He probably participated to the armed struggle against the Russians and Armenians during WWI around Erzincan. Although he reportedly participated in some meetings of the rebels, he probably did not participate directly in the Koçgiri uprising. On the other hand, he played an important role in the 1937-1938 revolt in Dersim, especially in opposing the growing penetration and assimilation of Kurds by the State and in rallying the different tribes. He was arrested, condemned to death and hung in November 1937; most members of his family were killed by the Army.

The son of a merchant from Giresun, Ağa (1884-1923) was a militia commander. He participated as a volunteer in the Balkan Wars and in WWI – for which he gathered a troop – especially on the eastern front. He participated in the massacres of Armenians as an inductee of the «special organization» of the Union and Progress Committee. He proclaimed himself Mayor of Giresun in 1918. In 1919 he was pursued for his participation in the massacres of Armenians and went underground for a while. With his associates, he ferociously repressed the Pontus uprisings led by Greek militias, began to organize the local resistance movement and later got in touch with Mustafa Kemal. He participated in the Erzurum Congress. In 1920 he founded and headed a voluntary battalion from Giresun that served as the armed guard of Mustafa Kemal in Ankara. He also initiated the creation of the other voluntary battalions; he was appointed as a battalion commander in the repression of the Koçgiri rebellion. He then served as a commander in the Sakarya battle. He was held responsible for the murder of an oppositional Trabzon MP in 1922 and died in 1923 while fighting against a detachment sent to arrest him.

A – Context

The Koçgiri rebellion took place in a time of extreme political uncertainty. It began shortly after the end of the First World War, a few months after the armistice was signed between the Allies and the Ottomans on October 31, 1918. Between the first initiatives and the resulting repression of the rebellion the political context changed a lot: the Sivas Congress, an Assembly of the Turkish resistance movement organized by Mustafa Kemal, took place (September, 1919); Istanbul was occupied by the Allies and the Ottoman Assembly was dissolved (March 16, 1920); the Sèvres Treaty was concluded (August 10, 1920); and the first Grand National Assembly of Turkey was launched in Ankara (April 23, 1920). Therefore, the Koçgiri events took place when there were competing political centers of power: the first signs of unrest appeared when the Istanbul government was still in place, and the uprising grew during the consolidation of the resistance movement. Istanbul was very quickly replaced by Ankara as the centre of power and the addressee of the rebels' claims, and finally the repression was organized from Ankara.

Political change and unrest was linked to international developments. President Woodrow Wilson's 14 points in 1918 gave recognition to the idea of a new international order based on the principle of self-determination. Point 12 stated that «the Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development». This statement had serious consequences for the Eastern provinces of the Empire, which were claimed simultaneously by Turks, Armenians, and Kurds. Armenian nationalist organizations claimed an independent Armenian state encompassing six Ottoman provinces (Sivas, Bitlis, Van, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Erzurum), the British wanted even more. Finally, the Sèvres Treaty signed in 1920 recognized Armenia as a «free and independent state» in Northeastern Anatolia, including the provinces of Trabzon, Kars, Ardahan, Erzurum, Van and Bitlis, also inhabited by Kurds (Articles 88 to 94). It foresaw a «local autonomy for the predominantly Kurdish areas» in Southeastern Anatolia (articles 62 to 64). It even foresaw that «if within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty the Kurdish peoples within the areas defined in Article 62 shall address themselves to the Council of the League of Nations in such a manner as to show that a majority of the population of these areas desires independence from Turkey, and if the Council then considers that these peoples are capable of such independence and recommends that it should be granted to them, Turkey hereby agrees to execute such a recommendation, and to renounce all rights and title over these areas.»

However, not all Kurdish dignitaries supported this project. First, Mustafa Kemal strongly appealed to the Kurds for support against the foreign occupiers with notable success. Most Sunni Kurdish dignitaries, motivated by religious solidarity, supported the Kemalist resistance movement, organized from mid-1919 in Eastern Anatolia, which promised fraternity between Turks and Kurds, the liberation of the Caliph in Istanbul from the infidel occupants, and the liberation of Mossul province from British rule. However, this call did not really appeal to the heterodox Alevis ,who were less attached to the Caliphate. The attitude of the Alevi religious hierarchy during the War of Independence, although it remains debated, overall seems to have been supportive of the Kemalist movement, at least at its conception (Küçük, 2002; Fliche and Massicard, 2006). However, the attachment of some Kurdish groups – especially those of Dersim, a very rural and poor region situated east of Koçgiri, only formally integrated into the Empire, and which had recently gained autonomy during the War – to this religious hierarchy seems to have been quite loose.

De 11h30 à 13h - Amphi rouge, Campus de la CCI

Carte blanche au Mémorial de Caen

INTERVENANTS : FARID AMEUR, chercheur à l'Institut Pierre Renouvin de l'université Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne, JOHANN CHAPOUTOT, maître de conférences en histoire contemporaine à l'université Pierre Mendès France de Grenoble, GERARD RABINOVITCH, philosophe et sociologue, chercheur au CNRS (Centre de Recherches Sens, Éthique, Société)(sous réserve), JACQUES SEMELIN, directeur de recherche CERI-Sciences Po (CNRS), EMMANUEL THIEBOT, historien au Mémorial de Caen

À partir de l'exposition présentée au Mémorial de Caen jusqu'à fin décembre 2009, les incités de cette table ronde tenteront de comprendre et d'analyser les mécanismes d'exclusion de l'autre à différentes époques du XXème siècle. Que ce soit en partant de l'exemple des juifs qui conduit au génocide, qui lui-même résulte de ressorts idéologiques de haine et d'exclusion antérieurs à l'arrivée au pouvoir des nazis en Allemagne comme l'explique Gérard Rabinovitch, commissaire de cette exposition. Mais d'autres types d'exclusions poussées à l'extrême tels que ceux évoqués dans l'Encyclopédie des violences de masse sous la direction de Jacques, seront aussi évoquées. Parallèlement, l'exclusion étatique de la ségrégation raciale américaine sera abordée en contrepoint des exclusions ayant abouti à des massacres de masse ou génocides.

Les Rendez-vous de l'histoire
3, quai Abbé Grégoire
41000 BLOIS

Source : Les rendez-vous de l'Histoire

«Writing history… aims at calming the dead who still haunt the present,and at offering them scriptural tombs.»

Michel de Certeau, The Writing of History , New York and Chichester, Columbia University Press, 1988.

OUR SCIENTIFIC APPROACH

The Evolution of the Perception of Violence

Our perception of violence and its very definition are closely linked to modern sensitivity. What is considered violent in the 21st century may not necessarily have been four centuries earlier. Similarly, what is perceived as violent today in a particular country may not necessarily be so in another. How we perceive violence is subject to significant historical and cultural variations. Expressions such as «mass murder», «mass crimes», or «mass rape» appeared in the mid-20th century. Acknowledging this evolution, the OEMV adopts the more general term of «mass violence.»

The Emergence of the Term «Genocide»

The term «genocide» was coined by lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944. It was then applied to international law, giving rise to the Convention for the Prevention and Repression of the Crime of Genocide , adopted by the United Nations on December 9, 1948. Following World War II, the term crystallized the horrors of Nazi crimes, especially the extermination of European Jews. From then on, the word «genocide» gradually spread into colloquial speech to designate absolute evil, the crime of crimes against non-combatant populations. Journalists, activists and academics spoke of «genocide» in reference to almost all conflicts of the second half of the 20th century, in which there were large numbers of civilian victims, from Cambodia to Chechnya, including Burundi, Rwanda, Guatemala, Colombia, Iraq, Bosnia, Darfur and many more. This concept was also used retroactively with reference to various massacres: that of the inhabitants of Melos by the Greeks (in the 5th century B.C.), that of the Vendéens in 1793 during the French Revolution, that of the Native Americans in the USA, that of the Armenians in 1915, as well as organized famine in the Ukraine, various cases of deportation of populations in the former USSR under Stalin, the extermination of Gypsies and homosexuals by the Nazis, or even the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, this list is not comprehensive.

Problems of Classification and Definition

The use of the term «genocide» when referring to very different historical situations raises many objections and fuels heated debate. This has led to an apparently inextricable classification problem, concerning the diverse and vague meanings attributed to the term. Nonetheless, the incrimination of genocide remains relevant in view of the 1948 Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide . Undoubtedly and in spite of its ambiguity, this document represents a fundamental contribution by international lawyers. It bears witness to the emergence of a universal conscience opposing the outrageousness of mass crimes. Indeed, the 1948 Convention appears all the more important since social scientists have been unable to agree on a common definition of genocide. Shedding light on their different approaches is among the main objectives of the OEMV.

The Difficulty of Choosing the Appropriate Term

One of the reasons for these disagreements is linked to the fact that since Lemkin's pioneer work, genocide studies have mostly developed at the crossroads of law and social sciences. This constitutive overlapping of the normative nature of international law with socio-historical analysis necessarily generates considerable conceptual difficulties. It triggers intense argument, both in the areas of science and of memory. It has led to an unfortunate inflation of the use of the word «genocide» by multiple actors across the world, characterizing of the different kinds of instrumentalization of the term on behalf of politics or identity. Therefore, our team preferred not to call this project a «Genocide Encyclopedia». We also chose to avoid expressions such as «Encyclopedia of Crimes against Humanity» which would emphasize the legal aspect of the project. Ultimately, the term «mass violence» gradually emerged as a matter of consensus, as it is sufficiently neutral and general to cover our object of study.

From The Concept of Genocide to That of Mass Violence

By «mass violence» we refer to human phenomena of collective destructiveness that are primarily due to political, social, religious or cultural causes. This category excludes natural disasters and technological accidents. Moreover, it does not coincide with armed combat inherent in war, but rather with all violence directly or indirectly affecting civilians, either in times of war or of peace. The OEMV does not cover all systems of political, economic or racial domination and coercion. It will not suffice for a country to be subjected to a dictatorial regime, a colonial power, a racial segregation system, or to have experienced one of these, in order for the events linked to such policies to be recorded and discussed here. These situations of institutional violence combined with significant forms of symbolic violence do not necessarily give rise to mass murder.

Rather than studying situations of domination, the OEMV is specifically focused on the process of destruction that may be generated by such situations or by the dynamics of war leading to mass killings. On the whole, the substance of the OEMV is not the myriad ways of enslaving or imprisoning men, or even of occasionally torturing or killing them in order to remind them who decides of their fate. Rather, it focuses on the countless ways of having them killed en masse, either directly or indirectly. It is in this sense that the expression of «mass violence» is most relevant.

The Massacre as a Lexical Reference Unit

The concept of mass violence has the advantage of implying different modes of operation of human destructiveness. Thus, it most certainly includes the notion of massacre, defined as a usually collective form of the act of destruction of non-combatants (including combatants who have been disarmed). The term «massacre» has established itself as one of the main lexical reference units in this field of study. One of the OEMV's goals is to identify the propagation of massacres affecting a country or a regional area during a particular historical period and, thus, to retrace the processes of mass violence that is to be qualified – or not – as genocide. However, the term «massacre» cannot designate every form of group violence, such as ethnic or religious riots, deportation or planned famines. Therefore, once again, the use of the term «mass violence» seems most appropriate to describe the diversity of lethal behavior.

The Use of a Quantitative Threshold

The discussion of numbers is always difficult, especially as in many cases, a precise evaluation of the number of victims proves to be impossible. Hence, it is important to use a quantitative variable – which is always approximate – in conjunction with qualitative criteria linked to the country's context, to the period involved, but also to our own contemporary sensitivity. The constant difficulty of the evaluation of the number of victims led us to make an important practical decision regarding the web site's layout. Indeed, we avoided structuring the site according to a hierarchical organization of cases, which would necessarily be arbitrary and might have provoked intense controversy. Consequently, we opted for a structure that is as neutral as possible, mainly access through geography. Thus, the data can be accessed through two main channels: either by clicking on the geographical map or the nominal list of countries. In a few cases, phenomena of mass violence attain such amplitude that they cross borders and become transnational. Most such cases occurred in the declining Ottoman Empire, in the Soviet Union and in Nazi Europe. Hence, the indexes concerning such cases can be found in the category «Thematic Issues».

About Our Contributors

Particular attention was given to the drafting of methodological recommendations that all potential contributors must take into account. In this sense, the OEMV is not based on the spontaneous participation of Internet users. The knowledge gathered here comes from the best specialists of a historical case or a theoretical issue, most of who are researchers and academics. Furthermore, each contribution is peer-reviewed. We take great care in avoiding that any political entity or community instrumentalize the content of this publication. Readers are encouraged to consult the list of members of the Steering Committee and the International Academic Advisory Board. Of course, we welcome the participation of scholars from all over the world.

A Comparative and Cross-Discipline Approach

The OEMV is an essential tool for the development of comparative research. To compare does not mean to treat different events in the same way, even though some points of convergence between certain cases may be established. On the contrary, through the chronological indexes contextualized in reference to different countries, each case presented in the OEMV retains its specificity. Conversely, the fact that all the cases are gathered together in the same database and share the same methodological framework, allowing the reader to navigate from one case to another, facilitates the spread of knowledge. In this sense, comparing allows differentiation. The OEMV has proved innovative in yet another way through its fundamental openness to a cross-discipline approach. Indeed, the phenomenon of «massacres» appears so intrinsically complex that it necessarily calls for a multi-disciplinary approach, not simply historical, but also psychological, anthropological or political. The composition of the Steering Committee and the variety of theoretical papers presented here bear witness to our determination to use multiple analytical approaches in order to enhance our understanding of the most destructive forms of behavior.

The Importance of our Readers' Support

Being well aware of certain deficiencies of the OEMV in its present form, we are open to all constructive suggestions. For instance, many historical cases have not been addressed yet. They are obviously part of our future plans for the development of the OEMV. Similarly, we intend to have contributions concerning a particular country translated into its vernacular language. All this requires time and resources, and we therefore hope to have access to the means necessary in order to meet these goals.

However, our choice of not charging for access to this site makes its future uncertain. Consequently, our enterprise depends in part on private donations which will not only allow its objectives to be met, but will also allow it to endure. The OEMV must be considered a universal public service.

To support the OEMV, please consult our Donate page

Our scientific approach

Notre approche scientifique (en français)

Nuestro enfoque cientifico (en espanol)

Call for Articles for a Special Issue of theJournal of Genocide Research.

Journal of Genocide Research

Professors Charles Desnoyers (LaSalle University, Philadelphia) and Richard C. Kagan (Emeritus at Hamline University) are jointly editing articles on Genocide in Asia.

The topic of Asian genocide has been covered either in a few specific cases such as Cambodia, Tibet, Indonesia and East Timor, or has been included as an article in collected works on genocide. Professor Ben Kiernan is, of course, best known for his publications and his research center on genocide in Cambodia. Edited collections include Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (Routledge, 2006 (Adam Jones); Annihilating Differences: The Anthropology of Genocide (Alexander Hinton), and The Specter of Genocide (Robert Gellately and Ben Kiernan). War, Race and Revolution (Eric Weitz) is one of the few full-length comparative works on Asian and European genocide.
Our project has grown out of our panel on comparative genocide at the January 2009 meeting of the American Historical Association. Although we are historians, we welcome pieces from specialists in all academic disciplines. We will accept articles in languages other than English. But the final articles must be in English. We reserve the right to publish some of these articles in abstract form if translations are not available. We also invite book reviews of works on Asian genocide.

In this special issue, we seek contributions that will develop the following areas of thought. (Note that this is not an inclusive or limited list.)

New methodological studies of Asian genocide.

Comparative studies of Asian genocide with other historical and geographical cases.

Analysis of lesser-known incidents of genocide in Asia.

Analysis of well-known genocides that open up new areas of research and knowledge.

Historiographical essay. The Journal of Asian Studies has wonderful such essays on topics of Asian studies.

Critique of genocide studies.

Book reviews.

The finished articles must be limited to 8,000 words including notes.

We will forward them to the Journal's editors who will send them out for outside review.

We would be glad to discuss preliminary topics and drafts directly with the writers.

Please send a proposal of 5 pages maximum and a short curriculum vitae by November 2009 to the guest editors: rckagan gmail.com or desnoyer lasalle.edu