User:Peinini/Genocide justification

Lead
Genocide justification is the claim that a genocide is morally excusable or necessary, differing from genocide denial, which is the attempt to reject the occurrence of genocide. Perpetrators often claim that genocide victims presented a serious threat, justifying their actions by stating it was legitimate self-defense of a nation or state. According to modern international criminal law, there can be no excuse for genocide.

Genocide is often camouflaged as military activity against combatants, and the distinction between denial and justification is often blurred.

Examples of genocide justification include Turkish nationalists' claims in regard to the Armenian genocide, the Nazis' justifications behind the Holocaust, anti-Tutsi propaganda during the Rwandan genocide, Serbian nationalists' justifications for the Srebrenica massacre, and the Myanmar government's claims about the Rohingya genocide.

This article delves into the topic of genocide justification. It provides examples from many different cultures and multiple points in history from which this occured. In my edit, I will be going deeper and providing more sources for instances of genocide justification discussed in the original article, but which can be expanded (Rwandan Genocide, Holocaust) as well as provide media to support this text.

Armenian genocide
Justification and rationalization are commonly associated with the Armenian genocide. Perpetrators portrayed the killings as a legitimate defense against Armenians who were perceived as traitors colluding with Russia during a time of war. Both at the time and later, claims were made that the deportation of Armenians was justified by military necessity. Historian Hans-Lukas Kieser points out, "To justify genocide, Talaat framed a whole discourse and set of arguments. The self-righteous justification for murder and destruction remained entrenched in later memoirs, politics, and historiography." In an interview with Berliner Tageblatt in May 1915, Talaat stated, "We have been blamed for not making a distinction between guilty and innocent Armenians. [To do so] was impossible. Because of the nature of things, one who was still innocent today could be guilty tomorrow. The concern for the safety of Turkey simply had to silence all other concerns. Our actions were determined by national and historical necessity." During the trial of Soghomon Tehlirian, several German newspapers, such as the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, the Frankfurter Zeitung, or the Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger, published articles and essays justifying the annihilation of the Armenian people.

Justification and rationalization are common with regard to the, as the perpetrators portrayed the killings as legitimate defense against Armenians, who were perceived as traitors and colluding with Russia during a time of war. Both at the time and later, it has been claimed that the deportation of Armenians was justified by military necessity. Historian states: "To justify genocide,  framed a whole discourse and set of arguments, so that the self-righteous justification for murder and destruction remained entrenched in later memoirs, politics, and historiography." Interviewed by Berliner Tageblatt in May 1915, Talaat stated: "We have been blamed for not making a distinction between guilty and innocent Armenians. [To do so] was impossible. Because of the nature of things, one who was still innocent today could be guilty tomorrow. The concern for the safety of Turkey simply had to silence all other concerns. Our actions were determined by national and historical necessity." During the trial of Soghomon Tehlirian, several German newspapers such as the the or the published articles and essays which justified the annihilation of the Armenian people.

The Holocaust
Further information: Jewish war conspiracy theory and Secondary antisemitism The Nazis preferred to justify the killing of Jews rather than deny it entirely as seen in Hitler's prophecy, a speech by Hitler where he stated that it was time to "wrestle the Jewish world enemy to the ground", and that the German government was completely determined "to get rid of these people". Nazi anthropologists would justify their genocide with the argument of "health, cleanliness, and racial homogeneity". Another example of Nazi justification is the 1943 Posen speeches, in which SS chief Heinrich Himmler argued that the although the systematic mass murder of Jews was an unpleasant task for individual SS men, it was necessary and justified.

During the Einsatzgruppen trial, Otto Ohlendorf, who was responsible for the deaths of 90,000 Jews, did not deny that the crimes occurred or that he was responsible for them. Instead, he justified the systematic murder as anticipatory self-defense against the mortal threat supposedly posed by Jews, Romani people, Communists, and others. Ohlendorf argued that the killing of Jewish children was necessary because, knowing how their parents died, they would grow up to hate Germany. Ohlendorf's claims were not accepted by the court and he was sentenced to death for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and membership in a criminal organization. He was executed by hanging in 1951.

Since the end of World War II, cases of justifying the Holocaust have also been observed in Iran, the Arab world, and Eastern Europe, in which the alleged behavior of Jews is claimed to cause antisemitism and justify the killing of Jews. Some Moldovan historians have claimed that the Holocaust in Romania was justified by the lack of loyalty shown by Jews to the interwar Romanian state.

Rwandan genocide
The Rwandan genocide was justified by its perpetrators as a legitimate response to the military campaign of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, including by its mastermind, Théoneste Bagosora, who repeated these arguments at the trial which resulted in his conviction for genocide. Justification attempts include “shifting blame from the government to the RPF forces and an attempt to claim the acts were done in self-defense”. Following the assasination of Hutu President Juvénal Habyarimana, Hutu propagandists exploited the pre-existing stereotype that equated all Tutsi with the RPF. By intentionally merging the Tutsi community with the RPF. they propagated the narrative that Tutsi were responsible for the president's assassination. This narrative is reinforced by the statement, "relying on the easy identification of all Tutsi with the RPF, Hutu propagandists said Tutsi deserved whatever ill befell them because it was they who had launched the war in the first place."

The emergence of the Hutu newspaper Kangura marked a turning point in the dissemination of anti-Tutsi propaganda, often inciting violence. Established in the early 1990s, Kangura played a pivotal role in shaping public opinion and escalating ethnic tensions in Rwanda. The cover of the November 1991 issue of Kangura, is emlematic of this propaganda campaign. Next to a menacing image of a machete, the text poses a chilling question, "Which weapons are we going to use to beat the cockroaches for good?" This dehumanizing language was deliberately employed to justify violence against the Tutsi population. The manipulation of historical figures in such imagery aimed to legitimize the Hutu victimhood narrative and fuel the genocidal ideologies that would later manifest in the horrors of 1994.

The media landscape of the region, which included a popular radio show Radio Rwanda, played a crucial role in shaping public opinion of Tutsi people. In March 1992, Radio Rwanda warned that "Hutu leaders in Bugesera were going to be murdered by Tutsi", deliberately spreading false information to spur the Hutu massacres of Tutsi. Collusion between various media outlets including Kangura and the radio station RTLM, strengthened the impact of these false narratives, further reinforcing dangerous ideologies that culminated in the events of the Rwandan genocide in 1994.

Rohingya genocide
Myanmar leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, defends the military's actions during what has been described as the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, denying that genocide took place at all. In 2017, The Intercept reported that she was "an apologist for genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass rape". After her December 2019 remarks in the International Court of Justice, American political scientist William Felice wrote that she used "the same arguments that organizers of genocide and ethnic cleansing deployed throughout the 20th century to validate mass murder". Physicians for Human Rights states that Myanmar "continues to justify their mass extermination [of Rohingya] as a reasonable response to 'terrorist activities.'" Refugees International said that she was "defending the most indefensible of crimes"—genocide. This genocide is said to have been a cultivation of private and structural Islamophobia in Myanmar, as well as increasing tensions between Rohingya Muslims and the Burman Buddhist Majority.

The Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) of Myanmar's democratic government were aggressive and forceful in the repression of the Rohingya as it aligned with the aims of the Buddhist extremist groups. Their actions were justified "through the pretence of operating in the name of a democratically elected regime and not a military dictatorship".

Evaluation
I believe the article could've built upon a few of the examples a bit more, including the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and Bosnian genocide. The article went really in depth on the Armenian genocide with a lot of direct quotes and references, and I feel that the other examples can also be developed a bit more to the same extent. Each claim does have citation from a credible source.

I agree with the user above in the sense tha t there are a few more examples of genocide justification which can be brought up. Given the Armenian genocide was one of the first instances of genocide and reported over 1.5 million casualties, I do believe this article holds it as a prime example of genocide justification; however, more sources could be provided.