Genocide

The reason that it happened in the way that it did in WW2 was because the Nazis made it happen in the way it did. It was unknown to the world at large. It was secret. Not that anyone at the time could have intervened had it been common knowledge. But the important point is that no on could communicate with anyone openly in the Nazi fortress of Europe. The Resistance movements in various countries were subject to infliltration by the Gestapo (German Secret State Police) and people sent for 'Resettlement' disappeared from the connection of the home towns & families. And it is this ability to communicate now that makes the difference: Freedom to type this on my computer is a very valuable commodity. And that you can read it also is part & parcel of freedom, it is a very valuable thing. 'Arbeit Macht Frei' it said on the gates of Dachau Concentration Camp (Work makes you Free) & it was a lie. Freedom is about being able to say that the Nazis were liars. Make sure no one ever tells you different.

There was no genocide in Palestine. This is hyperbole.

The actual Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has been going on since the 1920s or late 1940s depending on how you define the groups.

To read more about why Palestine is not a genocide or how the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict began, please see the Related Questions below.

Because Pol Pot wanted to eliminate all traces of the corrupt former regime and start fresh at year zero, he targeted intellectuals, professionals, government before the reign ( non-communists) and even people that were considered literate, or known to be educated.

From 1958-61, The Great Leap, initiated by Mao Zedong, was a program meant to bring about more industrialization in his country, but instead brought his country farther behind and killed millions.

There can be several terms. A massacre refers to the killing of a large number of people in one place, usually by a force far superior to the one killed. Genocide refers to the hunting and killing of people based on specific criteria, which can take place over longer amounts of time. Massacres usually happen in more specified areas in shorter lengths of time, while genocide can occur over decades. Massacre's also tend to be indiscriminate, with everyone present at the time killed, while genocide is by definition more selective.

method 1:

firing squad: In this peoples are asked to stand in groups and they shoot out.

emthod 2:

gas chamber: In ths the people are locked in room are poisen gas is filled.

method 3:

the city is bombed.

method 4:

raping and kiling

method 5:

stoping food supply

It'll probebly be something like Brown. Something simple.

Although the UN took a more active role in recognizing the atrocities in Darfur, it had little impact in either case.

The genocide in Bosnia, much like several earlier incidents of genocide, was motivated by ethnic hatred. The main ethnic groups of the region, the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, had a long-standing mutual hatred. When Marshall Tito ruled Yugoslavia, he kept everything under control with the traditional iron fist of communist dictators everywhere; after his death, things fell apart in a big way.

We instate wengerocracy - a form of government where you get to watch the leader of your country the entire time anybody ever leads your country. That will benefit you.

By creating different states for different ethnicities. Bosnia for the muslims, a croatian state for croatians and a serbian state for serbs. By creating different states for different ethnicities. Bosnia for the muslims, a croatian state for croatians and a serbian state for serbs.

many tutsis were killed with ma-shine guns and machetes and thousands of women were raped the hutus. The radio was used to encourage ordinary people to attack tutsis.

It is not known for sure. Estimates range from 800,000 to 1,000,000 people.

before the genocide, the Hutu's and the Tutsi's lived together and even married each other, however, there had always been disagreements between the two tribes. traditionally, the Tutsi's ruled the country, but the Hutu's didn't really like the idea as the Tutsi's were only ruling the country because they were the much bigger tribe. the killing was sparked by the death of the Rwandan president, a Hutu. his plane was shot down on April 6 1994, and the Hut's assumed that it was the Tutsi's who killed him, therefore, it sparked the genocide, but to this day, no one is sure who shot down the plane.

24,000 to 100,000 Hereros. Don't know how many Germans though.

10 000 000 people, and 3 000 000 children among them. Mostly they were Ukrainian villagers, people from cities and some intelligency.

-Dictator General Efrain Rios Montt

-Guerillas ( who were terrorists)

-Prejudice against Mayans

-Rights of the mayans were violated

The estimates vary, but around 1,000,000 would be a good guess. (Roughly 3% of the population, which would be equivalent to approximately 10 million Americans.)

To see a detailed discussion of Saddam Hussein's killings, see the below link.

It is difficult to say what exactly led to the genocide in Rwanda, as there isn't agreement as to what was the impetus for this genocide. One explanation given, which was popularised by Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" is that Rwanda's people were victims of a Malthusian crisis, meaning that the genocide happened because Rwanda was overpopulated which means that because of population pressure there is environmental degradation.

This argument goes that in a country with a rising population, where there is limited resources, pressure is being placed on the land, resulting in less fertile land, which means people have to start using marginal land for agriculture. This drains the soil from nutrients. The result of this is that valuable ecosystems are destroyed, soils become depleted and natural resources become overused. As a result of this people and the environment suffer which can then lead to societal collapse and an event like the Rwandan genocide.

However, not everybody agrees with Diamond's argument for what caused the Rwandan genocide. Some blame government policies which led to discontent among Rwandans. Others blame tribal conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis.

Not JUST Jews, anyone who wasn't a pure cenral European Aryan. The Jews were his most frequent target, since they were easily identified and who were perceived as "different" because of their practices. Hitler killed the Jews to fund his war, but he also wanted to take over Europe to allow Aryans to expand.

Not only did US troops shoot down college students during this incident; but they were also protesting one of the most aggressive actions taken by US forces during the whole war; invading and attacking enemy troops in a neutral country (Cambodia). It was big news in the war, and bigger news at home.

Hanik97 -

On May 4, l970 members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4th, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.

In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4th and their aftermath. Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970; Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980; Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970 at Kent State University.(1)

Despite the substantial literature which exists on the Kent State shootings, misinformation and misunderstanding continue to surround the events of May 4. For example, a prominent college-level United States history book by Mary Beth Norton et al. (1994), which is also used in high school advanced placement courses,(2) contains a picture of the shootings of May 4 accompanied by the following summary of events: "In May 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, National Guardsmen confronted student antiwar protestors with a tear gas barrage. Soon afterward, with no provocation, soldiers opened fire into a group of fleeing students. Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who had been walking to class." (Norton et al., 1994, p. 732) Unfortunately, this short description contains four factual errors: (1) some degree of provocation did exist; (2) the students were not fleeing when the Guard initially opened fire; (3) only one of the four students who died, William Schroeder, was shot in the back; and (4) one female student, Sandy Schreuer, had been walking to class, but the other female, Allison Krause, had been part of the demonstration.

This article is an attempt to deal with the historical inaccuracies that surround the May 4th shootings at Kent State University by providing high school social studies teachers with a resource to which they can turn if they wish to teach about the subject or to involve students in research on the issue. Our approach is to raise and provide answers to twelve of the most frequently asked questions about May 4 at Kent State. We will also offer a list of the most important questions involving the shootings which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Finally, we will conclude with a brief annotated bibliography for those wishing to explore the subject further.

Belgium colonists in 1916 identified Tutsis the minority of the region, them being richer in general, having cattle, thus being superior, and had it better under Belgium rule, Hutus resented this.

France supported the Hutus during the genocide and when things got bad they evacuated only the white people.

China provided the Hutus with machetes.

The US really was apathetic.

The UN backed out, they wanted to evacuate all the peacekeepers and evacuated many, they promised to send in troops but that didn't happen until after the genocide.