Are not 'ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide' synonyms anyway? With the former being used to mean the latter... as a euphemism?
Map Thread XXI
- Thread starter fluttersky
- Start date
-
- Tags
- map map thread
- Status
I think it's only a difference in scale. The usages I normally see reserve "genocide" as an intent to kill off all, or nearly all, of a particular population, whereas "ethnic cleansing" is more of a "well, we just wanted to get rid of them, we didn't care what happened to them" mindset... in practical terms it's a distinction without a difference, and not likely to matter to you if you're dead
Not all ethnic cleansing is genocide, but nearly all forms of genocide are ethnic cleansing. Bit of a square/rectangle situation.
Ethnic cleansing can be carried out without mass murder, via population removal, transfers, etc. Genocide, meanwhile, is predicated on killing.
So, the Armenian Genocide was a genocide and ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, Turkish/Greek population transfers were ethnic cleansing, but not genocide, since demographic changes weren't achieved via mass death.
This gets a bit hazier under some of the broader definitions considered by the Genocide Convention, but since those aren't really on the books it's not worth mentioning.
Not necessarily, 2-3 out of 5 acts of genocide can be achieved without death.
Yes let's please take this quarrel somewhere else. We condemn all crimes against humanity here and think they ought to be discussed on places other than the map thread. We don't want a repeat of the much regretted incident with Map Thread XVI.
Thread Tax: 1948 or so in a 1984 type scenario
After Operation Sealion, the US was able to liberate the UK but a permanant war government is steadily corroding respect for the government. As China struggles to hold down "liberated" Asia, it is increasingly forced to draw on ex-Japanese administrators, decreasing the regime's legitimacy and fostering calls for a new Asian revolution. Meanwhile, Stalin has made it to Paris like the Tsar, but the horrible strain of the war has caused the young who have never known anything but war to whisper that perhaps there needs to be a neo-Bolshevism.
Wouldn't it make more sense for Japan to just avoid war with the United States and manage to subdue the rest of Asia instead of China apparently using witchcraft to repair it's devastated infrastructure and conjure up the ships to go on a conquest spree?
Bleak. Think Olaf Stapledon had a similar scenario in First and Last Men, though in his "virgin Earth" was the almost total extinction of Man brought on by natural and man-made disasters.
And then the Obliteration of the Self revolution takes over the GEACPS? Yeah, now that I think about it, that might make more sense. I'd been thinking less that the Chinese used witchcraft and more that they were occupying the Japanese Empire after the US became distracted and this way the Axis still lose but your idea might make a bit more sense, if we're still concerned about that after Operation Sea Mammal That Must Not Be Named
Well I think even Sealion would look plausible compared to 1930s China invading Japan.if we're still concerned about that after Operation Sea Mammal That Must Not Be Named
FireCrispyHistory
Banned
Ok, so what the *DOLPHIN NOISES* happened with Japan? Did they invade China and die to China? And if the Nazis won, then wouldn't they give Japan all of Sakhalin and maybe even some of Siberia, you know, with Japan and Germany being friends in the two decades?
That does not seem like victory so total that it could end up with such a thing. Not at all.
Judging by the fill-in colour, I'm assuming the US had...a few things to say.
First thing that caught my eye here is the way Indonesia is split. It seems that these are the borders of Indonesia from its war of independence and later its United States of Indonesia period, judging from the Dutch-controlled territory in Sumatra and Java (with some additions to the Republic of Indonesia, such as most of Sulawesi and more of Java).
Last edited:
Nazi victory, where communists, after crushing defeta, do NOT somehow take over China?
I like it, if for nothing else, than for this!
As for Japan - us occupation, am I right?
And what is in Siberia?
And those central Asian split states? Are they communist? Aligned to Germany, Turkey, USA, Iran, India...? (India... what regime there? are they neutral or close to on of global powers?)
Crazymachines
Banned
Japan is indeed occupied by the USA, Vladivostok/Siberia is a US client state.
Most of central asia is officially non communist but led by the remains of the various local communist party members. India is neutral and starting to play china and the wallies against each other
Does that say Tsardom of Montenegro?
Criticism welcomed
Does that mean Šćepan Mali formed a dynasty?
What's the POD?
- Status