Many bells must be rung, in this, our century of rampant savagery, for the dead innocents

Today, I was with a lady who is by blood, Armenian.  The history of the genocide against her people waged by the Ottoman Turks, in the very midst of the Great War, is, simply put, mind-numbing.

The rendition I heard today of my Armenian Lady’s  family history and national history had me take on the grimmest of search for statistics as to how many killed, when and where.  I didn’t have to look too far.  Shocked, even in this, our, hopelessly jaded age, I probed further on and found the follow quotes from Senor Piero Scaruffi.

As I  look over the list of the dead, mind you, simply of the 20^th Century, I must, at a minimum, ask myself  “just what sort of creature is man—God’s highest Creation?”  Lamentably, the answer is most unpleasant.  Of singular importance in the roll of death provided me by Senor Piero Scaruffi is that these are dead innocents, not merely warriors.  This is not a roll call of lost combatants, but instead a call of the innocents.  What do they call back to us about ourselves, these dead innocents, about who we all are, of what we are, all apparently, capable?  About mankind itself? There are so many dead and from every corner on this earth.

I very much hesitate to say that I am thankful to Senor Piero Scaruffi for his fine work, which, as an abstract academic exercise goes, truly is sterlingly brilliant.  I hesitate to thank simply because I ask all here this:  who can thank any man for a roll of the dead innocents such as Senor Piero Scaruffi now provides us?

***That said, I here commence to quote M. Piero Scaruffi in full below, until, and unless,  noted as otherwise.  This caution: Senor Scaruffi adopts an oft-strident politic in his synopsis, about which, I’ve nothing to say but I leave his thoughts on that for you to read as he wrote them after providing us the roll of the innocents***

First, a note about the author of this work we are about to read.  Senor Piero Scaruffi  was born in Trivero, Italy, in 1955.  He took down his degree in Mathematics, summa,  in 1982 from University of Turin, where he put himself to the General Theory of Relativity.  Nicely done, Piero, nicely done, that.  So, Senor brings here the requisite bona fides in the counting of  things, which I’ve always thought to be what mathematics is, or am I wrong about that,  to his important but dismal task of writing the roll of the innocents that we will now read ourselves.

See also Wars and Casualties of the 20th and 21st Century.

The worst genocides of the 20th and 21st Centuries

For a list of casualties in wars, see this page.

Main sources:

• Charny (1988) Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review
• Stephane Courtois: Black Book on Communism (1995)
• Matthews: Guiness Book of Records (2000)
• Clodfelter: Warfare and Armed Conflicts (1992)
• Elliot: Twentieth Century Book of the Dead (1972)
• Bouthoul : A List of the 366 Major Armed Conflicts of the period 1740-1974, Peace Research (1978)
• R.J. Rummel: Death by Government – Genocide and Mass Murder (1994)

• Matt White’s website
• Several general textbooks of 20th century history

1. Note: this website has been banned in China and Turkey since 2006. Please help boycott these countries.
2. The crimes committed by right-wing dictators have always been easier to track down than the crimes against humanity committed by communist leaders, so the figures for communist leaders like Stalin and Mao increase almost yearly as new secret documents become available. To this day, the Chinese government has not yet disclosed how many people were executed by Mao’s red guards during the Cultural Revolution and how many people were killed in Tibet during the Chinese invasion of 1950. We also don’t know how many dissidents have been killed by order of Kim Il Sung in North Korea, although presumably many thousands.
3. I often get asked if Hiroshima/Nagasaki qualify as a genocide. I disagree. First of all, why only nuclear weapons? The carpet bombing of German cities and of Tokyo killed the same number of people. Second, Winston Churchill and Harry Truman did not start that war: they ended it. It is even debatable if these bombings killed or saved lives: Hiroshima probably saved a lot of Japanese lives, because a long protracted invasion like the one that took place in Germany would have killed a lot more people (Germany lost 2 million people, Japan only 300,000, because Japan was never invaded, while Germany was invaded from all sides). Actually more Japanese died in two weeks of battles with the Soviet Union in Manchuria than in the two nuclear bombings. I suspect a nuclear bomb on Berlin would have killed 100,000 people but caused Germany to surrender right away, thus saving many German lives. (I know, it is gruesome to count dead bodies like this; but, again, i didn’t start that war, the Germans and the Japanese started it). The USA had a casualty rate of 35% in the battle of Okinawa: they expected to lose one million soldiers in a land invasion of Japan, and the estimates were that Japan would lose the same number of soldiers and many more civilians. Most historians believe that it was the atomic bomb to convince Japan to surrender, and it was the second one: after the first one, there were still members of the Japanese cabinet that were opposed to surrender (the cabinet had to be unanimous in order for the emperor to surrender). The dissenters who wanted to continue the war even tried a coup to overthrow the emperor rather than obey the order to surrender. After the first bomb, Nishina (head of the Japanese nuclear program) was asked if it was possible that the USA could build another atomic bomb within six months: obviously the people who asked him the question were not going to surrender unless a second bomb was possible. Koichi Kido, advisor to emperor Hirohito, said: “We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war.” Hisatsune Sakomizu, chief secretary of Cabinet, said that the atomic bombs were a “golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war.” Thus the Japanese themselves (those who wanted to surrender) seem to indicate that the two atomic bombs were indispensable to end a war that was killing hundreds of thousands of people per battle (the battle of Okinawa killed more Japanese than the atomic bomb on Nagasaki). It is also estimated that throughout Japan-occupied Asia about 200,000 civilians were dying every month (of disease, hunger, etc): if the atomic bombs helped Japan surrender even just six months earlier, that saved the lives of one million Indonesians, Indochinese, Philipinos, Chinese, etc. (Notable dissenting voices were the two most powerful USA generals, Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, who both felt that the atomic bombs were unnecessary to finish Japan).
   People die in wars. During the previous world-war, millions died of everything from guns to chemical weapons. The fact that a more or less efficient weapon is used to fight a war does not constitute genocide, per se.
   It is not the weapon, but the intent. Churchill’s and Truman’s intent was to end the war, not to exterminate the peoples (which they could have done easily, had they wanted to). In fact, i think that Churchill and Truman are exemplary of how to treat a defeated enemy: instead of annihilating the enemies, they helped Germany and Japan to rebuild themselves and become stronger wealthier than they had been before the war. It may have been the first time in history.
   Furthermore, we know that Werner Heisenberg in Germany and Yoshio Nishina in Japan were working on an atomic bomb: what if they had had the time to complete one? Heisenberg in Germany had failed to correctly calculate the critical mass of uranium required to sustain a chain reaction, but Nishina in Japan had just done that in 1944. It was a matter of time before German and Japanese scientists would find out the right recipe. Thus the first bomb saved a lot of lives, probably millions of lives (not just Japanese lives, but lives of all the nations that were being massacred by the Japanese). Last but not least, the USA dropped 720,000 leaflets on Hiroshima and other cities two days earlier, warning of the impending destruction of the city.
   It is certainly debatable, instead, if the second atomic bomb was necessary. The USA only waited three days to see the effect of the first atomic bomb and of its leaflets. Today sitting in our living rooms we can calmly debate this issue forever. Of course, it was a different kind of decision for the man sitting in the White House in the middle of a world war that had been raging for four years.
4. I’ve been asked why i blame the USA only for part of the civilian deaths in Vietnam while i blame the Soviet Union for all of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. The USA “invasion” of Vietnam is not as clearcut as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan:
   1. Even today many in Vietnam think that the aggressor was North Vietnam, not the USA, at least at the beginning, whereas everybody in Afghanistan blames the Soviet Union for that invasion. Nobody welcomed the Soviet Union, whereas about half of Vietnam welcomed the USA.
   2. When the Soviet Union withdrew, almost no Afghani followed them, whereas, when the USA withdrew, about eight million Vietnamese left with them and about three million ran away from Vietnam in the following decades risking their lives (the “boat people”).
   3. There are documented large-scale atrocities by the North Vietnamese against their own population (read the Black Book of Communism) while i haven’t seen evidence of any large-scale atrocity by the Afghani fighters against their own population
   4. The Soviet Union tried to invade the WHOLE of Afghanistan. The USA never tried to invade the northern part of Vietnam: it simply fought the Vietcong that wanted to annex south Vietnam to north Vietnam (if you read the history of the country, north and south Vietnam have fought wars for more than 1,000 years: go to the Timeline of Indochina and look for Annam and Champa. the ancient names of the two kingdoms). When the USA bombed civilians in North Vietnam, then i consider it a war crime.
5. The most frequently asked questions are always about current unpopular USA presidents: Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II… The moment the USA elects a new president, i start receiving emails asking to add him to the list of “genociders”. The moment the president leaves office the same people forget about him and jump on the next one. Can we consider President Bush a genocider due to all of the civilians killed in Iraq under his watch? I don’t think so, because the vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq were NOT killed by US troops. It is genocide, but the “genociders” are others, and the situation is still too murky to decide who exactly killed those 100,000 civilians. (If Bush is indirectly guilty of it, then certainly Islam is too). The USA bears some clear responsibilities for the chaos, but ineptitude, miscalculation, ignorance, etc do not qualify as genocide. Otheriwse the United Nations and France would be responsible for the genocide in Rwanda (900,000 people). Putin would be a better candidate for “genocider”, since the vast majority of Chechen civilians killed under his watch were killed by Russian troops. However, i have never received a single email nominating Putin…
6. Specifically about Bush II (the hot topic between 2003 and 2008). I have seen no evidence whatsoever that he or anybody working for him or the British prime minister or the Australian prime minister wanted to kill Iraqi civilians. And even less evidence that Iraqi civilians were killed in any large number by US soldiers. The Iraqi civilians killed by US soldiers are estimated at about 4% of all deaths, which is a little over 5,000. With all due respect for those families, a seven-year war that kills only 5,000 people (less than 1,000 a year) does not register anywhere in the history of the world. All the other civilians were killed by militias, suicide bombers, etc. and almost always in the name of Islam (so it would be more appropriate to vent your anger at that religion than at the USA). In fact, all the documents show that some caution was taken by the US and Britain to avoid mass civilian casualties. Compare with Vietnam, when the US bombed densely populated areas knowing that thousands of civilians would die. In fact, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might be the first large-scale wars in which the winners went out of their way to avoid mass civilian casualties. Compare with any other war. Future generations (who will face other crises and will be more concerned with their presidents than with Bush II) may see more clearly who is responsible for those killings. Most of them were killed by fellow Iraqis or at least fellow Muslims, not by US soldiers. Once we remove all the personal emotions against this or that politician, it is self-evident who/what killed those Iraqi civilians. If you simply scream hysterically against the president of the USA, you are not helping solve the real problem of those places.

***That said, I here cease to quote Senor Piero Scaruffi .  I leave his thoughts for you to read as he wrote them after his providing us the roll of the innocents, a labor for which, we must, with requisite hesitation, thank him roundly here***