The Death March: Started 100 years ago today

As Aussies and Kiwis focus on ANZAC Day at present, it tends to overshadow an event, conventionally thought to have started today, a century ago, that is not as widely known as it should have been, not least because the land upon which it happened is, by and large, in complete denial of it.  The Governments of Australia and New Zealand, maintain this, presumably for convenience of trade with Turkey.  

That fact is an utter disgrace, and I give a rare credit to the Green Party for seeking to change this.

The Ottoman Empire was in trouble, the Great War, as it was then, was not going its way, and the Empire thought it had found one of the chief reasons, its scapegoat was the Armenians living in what is now Turkey, primarily because it saw Armenians as allied to Russia (which had often sided against discrimination and persecution of Armenians over previous centuries).  

There had been a history of periodic oppression of Armenians under Ottoman rule, as Armenians periodically rebelled against the inequality of treatment of the Ottoman state.  However, the catalyst for the events of a century ago came from the defeats of the Ottoman Empire in eastern Europe. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims fled from the Balkans to live in what is now Turkey, in what were predominantly Armenian areas.  These impoverished Muslims (who left many killed from war) were disenchanted by the relative comfort of the Armenian population, so a twin legacy of economic envy and "fifth column" fears emerged.  As Ottoman Muslims found it difficult to encourage Ottoman Armenians to turn against Armenians in Russia (which it was at war with), and there was genuine fear that Armenians would turn to fight with the Russians.

Armenian conscripts in the Ottoman army were demobilised, out of fear that they would switch sides. Their weapons were removed, and so it began.

Jevdet Bey, Governor of the Vilayet of Van, ordered 4000 Armenians to "volunteer" to defend the area from Russian attack, but the Armenians feared he would repeat his actions in villages of massacring Armenian men.  So they formed a self defence force, to protect a single square kilometre of the town of Algestan successfully.  On the night of the 23rd of April, the Ottoman Government rounded up 250 intellectuals and Armenian community leaders in Constantinople, and were moved to holding centres in Ankara, from where they were subsequently deported or executed.  In May, one of the triumvirate who ruled the Empire, Mehmed Talaat Pasha, ordered the deportation of Armenians.

Subsequently, Armenian property was confiscated, and hundreds of thousands of Armenians were forced at gunpoint, to leave their homes and businesses, and the towns and cities where they lived. Many were sent to march to Deir ez-Zor, in what is now Syria, crossing desert to get there.   Many starved or dehydrated in the process.  Some were shipped by rail, in a manner reminiscent to what the Nazis would replicate across Europe 25 years later. 

It was not just men of military age, but all men, women and children.  The soldiers had full carte-blanche to do as they saw fit, so in Damascus some would display women naked and sell them as chattels.  25 concentration camps had been set up to take the Armenians, where they were provided with woefully little rations in the way of food and virtually no medical attention. 

There are reports of villages being razed, with the inhabitants burned to death,  Estimates of the numbers killed range from the high hundreds of thousands to 1.5 million.  Raymond Ibrahim in The Commentator writes of the atrocities committed, saying they are not unsimilar to the actions of ISIS today, on some of the same territory.  

Turkey today denies that there was genocide, merely that Armenia collaborators with Russia were killed in war, and that the deportation wasn't forced killing, but that there was merely some starvation.  This continued obfuscation may reflect intense nationalistic pride, but it doesn't reflect evidence.  It is clear that, for a combination of historic bigotry and genuine military concern over allegiance, that the Ottoman's decided to remove Armenians from their country, not just without compensation, but in a manner than ensured many would die.

The continued denial by Turkey should shame its government, as it feeds into bigotry by some Turks against Armenians.  What's a further disgrace is that Barack Obama, even after campaigning about recognising the Armenian genocide, refuses to call it that as President. The continued obfuscation of the US President (if not Congress), and the governments of many countries, including Australia, New Zealand, and a more nuanced (gutless) position from the UK, and of course (just to show the humanity of Islam and its  opposition to Muslim led slaughter of non-Muslims) the only Muslim majority countries to recognise it are Lebanon and Syria.  

Some Armenians think that the commemoration of the events at Gallipoli are intended to take attention away from what happened to their ancestors.  I don't believe this is at all true for almost everyone who is involved in them, but it is important that we remember and note what happened.

Today, the country of Armenia is a small fraction of the territory that was Armenian dominated, and essentially represents the territory Russia won from the Ottoman Empire, minus that which it administratively carved up into other Soviet Socialist Republics.  Notably, a large Armenian enclave remains in Azerbaijan, where a sectarian conflict has periodically raged since independence of both countries.

The genocide of Armenians helped inspire the Holocaust.  It has also helped inspire Islamic State.  It is only right that today, we spend a moment to learn and remember what was done, because of their nationality and religion, to hundreds of thousands of innocent people.  It isn't about "shaming" Turkey.  It is about not forgetting when states wage the worst act any of them can do - to torture and slaughter there own people, for the crime of simply existing.

Starving child victims of the genocide of Armenians

Holocaust Memorial Day 2013

With so much media, so much exposure to violence and awareness of the grotesque cruel inhumanity that people can inflict upon others, it is not altogether unsurprising that a few are blase about the Holocaust.  The most recent utterance being the "Liberal" Democrat MP David Ward, who wondered how "the Jews" could suffer under the Holocaust and then oppress the Palestinians, as if a lengthy essentially civil conflict between two groups over one set of territory is akin to a government engaging in a systematic programme of rounding up and exterminating a whole segment of the population.  

I used to make that error.  When I was much younger, I saw it as one of many grotesque mass murders by governments.  Of course, Mao and Stalin murdered, starved and oppressed many many more than Hitler.  It really is splitting hairs about how morally empty they are in comparison, but there is a whole context of the Holocaust that needs to be made clear to all.

It really was different.

1930s Germany was a modern society.  Most people went about their business untroubled by the state, although it was increasingly clear that opposing the government wasn't a good idea, there hadn't been wholesale nationalisation of businesses big and small.  While media and education increasingly glorified the Nazi Aryan ideal and Germanic culture, they also spread the poison of virulent anti-semitism, setting the stage for the removal of all state legal protections for Jews (and others deemed sub-human), encouraging private and state boycotts, harassment, vandalism and assaults, and ultimately the state organised labelling, deportation, incarceration and ultimately execution of Jews.

There have been incidents of mass pogroms against groups, incited by political or religious leaders.  Rwanda's genocide is of that nature.  However, no other modern society, otherwise seen as civilised, engaged in organised, efficient eliminationist genocide. 

Of course, Jews have throughout history faced orchestrated organised discrimination and genocide before, but this is still in living memory, and it remains distinctive.

In 2008 I wrote:

Today Sunday 27 January is International Holocaust Memorial Day. It marks the day of liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp. It is about remembering all those murdered by the Nazi state, from six million Jews to 200,000 disabled people to gypsies, Poles, Soviet POWs, homosexuals, political dissidents from socialist to liberal persuasions. The utter complete dehumanisation of all those effectively declared "unpersons" by the Nazis remains a horror unparalleled in its comprehensive efficient single mindedness.

That today is what we should all commemorate.  Those millions executed, starved and tortured to death by the state, seeking to remove those individuals it deemed were not human.

I should not be demeaned by those politicians who dare try to compare such events to anything less than a systematic eliminationist slaughter of a whole category of people, by a government in peacetime (for it is a distraction to imply that this was an event "of World War 2", as if Nazi Germany would not have undertaken genocide had there been "peace" in Europe between states).  

So I urge you to spend a moment in quiet reflection, of those who suffered, died, fought and resisted those who wanted them dead, for no reason than their ancestry, their education, their wealth or their private beliefs.   Bear in mind those today, who continue to deny it, who diminish it and who relativise it, and what you can do to keep the memory alive of the unthinkable.

Hobsbawm - influential yes, deserving veneration? Hardly

The death of Eric Hobsbawm at 95 has provoked outpourings of paeans to his legacy, glorifying his undoubted significant contribution to the scholarship of history and in being influential, especially to Labour politicians in the UK. He has many fans, it includes Labour leader Ed Miliband, former NZ leftwing Prime Minister Helen Clark and a virtual who's who of leftwing activists in the UK today.

It is right for those who knew him personally to commemorate him on that level, as a friend or family member.  However, he is also presented as being more than that, as a great historian, but also with a moral fibre that was impeccable. 

Almost universally he was described as gentle, Tony Blair said "He wrote history that was intellectually of the highest order but combined with a profound sense of compassion and justice. And he was a tireless agitator for a better world".

Really?

I am not going to dismiss claims he was a nice man in person, nor will I criticise his works, because I am not a scholar of history and I have not read them.  However, Hobsbawm has his own history, that lasted to his final years, of being an apologist for the most blood thirsty regimes of the 20th century.

He wasn't just a Marxist historian, he was a member of the British Communist Party until its dissolution and he turned his back on the mass murders, starvation and atrocities his comrades committed for the cause, even recently effectively claiming that the ends would justify the means.  

Take this review of his works from historian Michael Burleigh. He describes his four "great" books on history as:

A synthetic quartet, from Age of Revolution to Age of Extremes, dazzles readers with the author’s apparent fluency as he zigzags from First to Third World contexts – unless you happen to be an expert on Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.Throughout, there was a dogmatic refusal to accept that the Bolshevik Revolution had been a murderous failure. Asked by the Canadian academic and politician Michael Ignatieff on television whether the deaths of 20 million people in the USSR – not to mention the 55 to 65 million victims of Mao’s Great Leap Forward – might have been justified if this Red utopia had been realised, Hobsbawm muttered in the affirmative.

Why is it that people who would, to a man or woman, claim they believe in compassion, even free speech and human rights, choose to have an enormous blind spot about a man who gave succour to those who created rivers of blood for the communist utopia?  

Imagine, for example, if he had embraced National Socialism, and had grudgingly accepted that the Holocaust would have been justified if a greater Europa run by Germany had been a happy, healthy, strong, fully employed economy of aryan people with order, wealth, equality and peace?  I can barely bring myself to write such nonsense, but he would have been vilified and ignored.  However, he embraced Stalin, he stuck with the Communist Party ever after the USSR crushed the revolutions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.  The various genuine claims about his compassion and character seem awfully cold when there is a calculated lack of passion about those crushed under the machine of "actually existing socialism".

Journalist Bryan Appleyard describes this peculiar blind spot:

I came across this when I asked Ben Pimlott if he regarded the atrocities of Soviets somehow less vile than those of the Nazis. He said he did but could not or would not offer an explanation. The explanation probably would have been something like: the Soviets were well-meaning, attempting to build a better world and the Nazis were simply evil. This is barely worthy of consideration. Both Stalin and Hitler appealed to better world ideologies built on absurd theories of history and both thought they were justified in killing millions and imposing suffering on a scale never before seen. Even if we give some moral credibility to communism, the character of Stalin is enough to detonate any notion that he was pursuing some great cause.

Cobden Centre fellow John Phelan says that he is no more worthy of acclaim than the pseudo-intellectual David Irving, which seems rather unfair, as Irving has spent his life denying reality explicitly, whereas Hobsbawm simply chose to be wilfully blind:

Time and again Eric Hobsbawm was faced with the full scale of the horror visited by the regime he supported and time and again he remained loyal. As he wrote in 2002“The Party . . . had the first, or more precisely the only real claim on our lives. Its demands had absolute priority. We accepted its discipline and hierarchy. We accepted the absolute obligation to follow 'the lines' it proposed to us, even when we disagreed with it . . . We did what it ordered us to do . . . Whatever it had ordered, we would have obeyed . . . If the Party ordered you to abandon your lover or spouse, you did so”Hobsbawm pleaded for “historical understanding”; he isn’t hard to understand. He was a man who failed to see that the choice of one murderous regime over another was no choice at all, who lacked the humility to admit it, and who was possessed of an incredible ability to blind himself to realities, no matter how bloody, which didn’t fit his view of the world.

Observer columnist Nick Cohen says of his work:

If you need convincing, look at Hobsbawm’s Age of Extremes The most brilliant analysis of the 20th century sits alongside the most abject apologias for tyranny. For all his contradictions, I’ll miss the better side of his intellect.

He notes about how Hobsbawm defended Stalin's Pact with Hitler:

I expect we will hear one excuse tomorrow that ought to have been buried with the Soviet Union: “communists excused Stalin because they were consumed by the laudable desire to fight fascism”. It is a half truth at best. The far left of the 1930s did indeed fight fascism. But in 1939 Stalin stood on his head and signed a pact with Hitler. For two years, until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, western communists and their sympathisers stood on their heads too and became the Nazis’ de factoallies. I have always been fascinated by ‘the midnight of the century’, when far left and right united against the middle, because it echoes our own time when liberal leftists excuse and indulge the radical Islamist right. 

Quite.  Right now we see again and again, the willingness to gloss over someone who had a blindspot, if not quite a denier for the atrocities his comrades committed.

Hobsbawm seemed like an old man who could never face up to the fact that he backed the wrong horse, it saw men and women murder, starve and torture on a scale unheard of in history.   That lack of contrition, lack of strength of character to admit he was wrong, means his memory will forever be darkened.

He was one of those academics that universities, and the politicians and bureaucrats who they spawned, forgave, glossing over these inconvenient black spots in his beliefs, to embrace his thoughts and writings.

Like the umpteen leftwing writers, especially feminists, today who treat Islam and Islamists with kit gloves, because, to them, it represents an attack on capitalism, sexualisation of women and conservative Christianity, those who today praise him - who did not actually know the man - are guilty of the same moral blind spot.

It isn't being nasty or mean to question the legacy of a man who happily sat on the side of murderers, indeed it is morally vacuous to do anything but that.

Douglas Murray writes as if a Nazi sympathising equivalent had died.

More below

A comment on the Daily Telegraph wrote of Hobsbawm and his utopianism and his abject refusal to see the evidence that the results of his philosophical beliefs were misery and horror. I thought it was worthy of repeating:

That Hobsbawm has learned nothing from living in England and that he has failed to grasp the fact that ideologies dedicated to remaking man and transforming him into some gruesome socialist robot have failed, and were doomed to fail, is demonstrated by his admiration of the Communist Manifesto. There are only two types of person that can admire such a hideous manifesto: those who want to exercise power over all other people; and those who are willing to submit to such power provided that their material needs are met, slaves in other words, people born for the whip (but at least they know they are slaves and they enjoy the kiss of the whip). I assume that Hobsbawm sees himself as some kind of Marxist Grand Inquisitor ruling over the dumb proletariat and wielding his whip for their benefit in between sequestering the assets of the hated middle classes and so reducing them to servitude and penury. It goes without saying that no serious Marxist could or would ever derive any envious pleasure from expropriating and defiling the hated expropriators. It is done out of a sense of duty to History (really). 

Some 36 minutes into an interview with Hobsbawm (Life in History, BBC Radio 4, repeated tonight) and I have still not picked up any mention of Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot or any reference to the genocide carried out by communist regimes in the 20th century. Finally, in the 45th minute, we reach the question for which I had been waiting. Hobsbawm is asked why he stayed in the Communist Party. Ever solicitous and unctuous, Schama and the programme editor avoid posing any awkward questions by the expedient of citing part of an earlier interview with Sue Lawley on 5th March 1995 (I am sure it is pure coincidence but Stalin died on 5th March 1953). When asked about mass murder in the Soviet Union by Lawley, Hobsbawm says that he did not know; he says he did not believe the details, perhaps, he says, he did not want to believe them (so much for evidence then and the reliability of Marxist historians). 

He says: ‘We did not know the extent of it’ [communist mass murder]. Lawley then asks whether such was his dedication to the dream of communism that any kind of sacrifice was worth the price:

Hobsbawm: “Yes, I think so”

Lawley: “Even the sacrifice of millions of lives?”

Hobsbawm: “Well that’s what we felt we had fought WWII for, didn’t we?”

Lawley: “Is there a difference between killing someone in war and killing your own?”

Hobsbawm: “We didn’t know that”

.As Hobsbawm says ‘We didn’t know that’ you can detect the utter fear and panic in his voice. This is the question he has known would come and has dreaded. Hobsbawm clumsily dodges the question and Lawley lacks the killer instinct to press the point of the knife to his throat. No listener can be convinced by Hobsbawm’s repulsive denial. There is, of course, a universe of difference between killing the enemy in war for survival and butchering millions of kulaks, so-called class enemies in the 1930s (circa 11,000,000) in order to build socialism. The fact that Hobsbawm claims not to see any difference between communist class war and a national fight for survival denigrates the struggle that Britain waged against Nazi Germany. According to Hobsbawm’s perverted view there is no difference between British soldiers killing German soldiers and Communist Party activists murdering millions of unarmed and innocent peasants in Ukraine by shooting and mass starvation.When Hobsbawm says ‘We didn’t know that’, one has to ask when he did finally know THAT, that being the real nature of the totalitarian Soviet Union and its imitators. Why did Lenin create the most brutal and long-lasting system of censorship in the twentieth century? What was Hobsbawm’s reaction to the news of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact)? What did he make of the publication of Doktor Zhivago? Why did the Red Army invade and rape Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and threaten to invade Poland in 1981? What did he make of Solzhenitsyn, the Truth Teller? Why did the Soviet state kill and imprison writers? Why did the KGB arrest the manuscript of Vasilii Grossman’s Life and Fate? Why did Stalin judicially murder some of his most talented army commanders at the moment when the threat posed by National-Socialist Germany was all too clear? How does Hobsbawm explain and justify Order № 00447? 

 When did he realise that the massacre of 21,857 Polish prisoners at Katyn and other sites in 1940 was a Soviet crime not a Nazi one? When did he finally accept that the full scale of the Ukrainian genocide, the Holodomor, with its 6,000,000 dead from genocide by starvation and another 5,000,000 dead from cold, disease and shooting? Does Hobsbawm even accept that the Holodomor took place? Hobsbawm says that his continuing membership of the Communist Party is a Cold War question and is irrelevant. This is a self-serving, cowardly evasion and Hobsbawm knows it. If a 95 year old former member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was asked about his continuing loyalty to National Socialism would Hobsbawm be satisfied with an answer along the lines that ‘this is a WWII question and is irrelevant’? Thousands of questions that historians ask about the Soviet regime are Cold War questions: are they irrelevant as well? Recall Hobsbawm’s views on chronology: ‘without chronology there can be no history’. That is true of an individual as well and in a BBC programme dedicated to a ‘life in history’, questions about Hobsbawm’s membership of the most genocidal political institution in man’s history are utterly relevant. 

There is another Cold War question that requires an answer: was Hobsbawm ever recruited by any Eastern European intelligence agency, say, the KGB or Stasi, with the aim of spying on academics and students known to be hostile to socialism? Hobsbawm could remove all doubt and speculation by stating unequivocally that he was not recruited by any Soviet bloc intelligence agency and that he never provided any information to any intelligence agency. Hobsbawm should also ask himself whether an academic, let us say the existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger, who remained a committed National Socialist until his death in 1976, would have found employment in a British university. Hobsbawm’s continuing belief in Marxism in 2012 reflects a state of mind that, despite all the earlier, reasonable talk about evidence and reason, is one that is demonstrably impervious to evidence and reason: the hallmark of the true revolutionary-believer slave.Hobsbawm’s position on Soviet genocide is nauseating and hypocritical even by the standards of British academics that played down Stalin’s crimes. 

Why does Schama not press the case about genocide committed in the name of communism to the point of destruction? In fact, a more aggressive and less easily deflected interviewer than Lawley could easily have brought about Hobsbawm’s psychological collapse on air. Hobsbawm sounded very close to breaking: he knows that Marxism is repulsive and he knows that for all his adopting the pose of the learned academic that his support of Marxism and his failure to acknowledge the full scope of communism’s hideous crimes against humanity, far worse than anything committed by the Nazis, is disgusting, cowardly and immoral. There is no difference between the person that denies National-Socialist crimes against Jews, the Holocaust, and communist propagandists like Hobsbawm who deny the Holodomor and other crimes committed by communist regimes. Schama’s role here is also disgraceful and shameful since by failing to ask and to press home the forensic questions that should have been pressed home he allows Hobsbawm’s prevarication and mendacity to pass unchallenged.

My birthday rant

I've been extremely busy, so have had little chance to rant.  So here are my two cents on the events that have provoked me:

Mladic the thug:  Few events were more shameful for Europe (and the United States and New Zealand as a member of the UN Security Council at the time), in my view, that the brutal neo-nazi style genocide inflicted in the Balkans in the 1990s.  It is astonishing that if a civilian kidnaps children and then massacres them en masse, that there is more horror than when a "general" is given endorsement by politicians to do the same, that there is craven appeasement to it all.   UN peacekeepers sat by and did nothing whilst Srebrenica - a town declared a "safe haven" (for whom!) by the UN Security Council, was "ethnically cleansed" by Mladic and his knuckle dragging fascists, all happily appeased by the Serbian Orthodox Church as well.  The role call of dishonour and shame at the time is long and disgraceful.  It took Slobodan Milosevic's attempt to do the same to Kosovo for serious action to be taken, by then thousands of men and boys had been slaughtered in a style reminiscent of the Nazi death squads that rounded up and annihilated Jews in Lithuania.   The other victims, the women and girls (don't think too long about the cutoff age because there really wasn't one) who were raped, not only as conquests by the semi-literate Serb brutes, but also to breed little half-Serbs as part of a deliberate "race" driven policy.   However, as blatant and disgusting as was the Serbian ethno-fascism, one shouldn't forget Croatia was led by men who were not much better.  Visit the Krajina region of Croatia today, and try to find the Serbs who still live there, after Croatia's military terrorised the Serb population and chased them from their homes and farms, families with roots there for generations.  It is a primary reason why Croatia should not be allowed to join the European Union - for it must fully face up to its past.

The arrest, trial and condemnation of Mladic should provide an opportunity to remind us all of this period in history and how easy it is to provoke poorly educated, semi-literate young men to perform atrocities with the endorsement of politicians and religious leaders.  It should also remind Muslims that the Western interventions in this case were to save Muslims (albeit moderate or even nominal ones).   It should also provoke at least some consideration from the self-styled "peace movement" about what should have been done, since the left was divided about humanitarian intervention in this case. 

Brash ACT:  Don Brash's takeover of ACT is a lifeline, and also notable among libertarian circles is Lindsay Perigo's employment related to ACT.  I'm cautiously optimistic.  The greatest weakness Don Brash faced in 2005 under National became those in National who sought to spin and populise messages in ways that backfired.  His willingness to address state activities that granted differential treatment of Maori was not portrayed well with "Iwi, Kiwi" which implied something it should not have.   However, Brash is both economically and socially liberal.  He has the intelligence and the ability to take ACT down a path of being consistently in favour of less government and being tough on crime that involves victims.  He is no libertarian, but if this is a chance to shake up the next National government and wean it off of the statist racists in the Maori Party, then it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  I'm going to be watching this space very closely.  It is clear I have always been affiliated with Libertarianz and remain so, but Brash's leadership could cause me to think carefully about who to vote for this year.  

Auckland rail boondoggle hog-tied:  The Ministry of Transport and Treasury have reviewed the Auckland underground rail loop business case and found it wanting. It is hardly surprising.  Auckland rail has been a faith-based initiative from the start, primarily because the enormous cost premium to move people by rail, compared to bus is not justified by the change in behaviour it provokes.   Auckland rail advocates think because it is attracting lots of passengers (all of whom pay less in fares than the cost of operating the service, let alone the cost of capital) it is a good thing, but scrutiny about where those users are coming from indicates some pretty clear home truths.

First, around half of all trips into central Auckland in the morning peak are by public transport today.  This mode share is high by the standards of any new world city, and most of them are travelling by bus.  Trying to increase this in the absence of any form of congestion pricing is difficult, as the current strategy is to take money from all motorists to subsidise a minority of trip.  The number of trips by public transport has increased by 50% in ten years.  However, 40% of that increase has been by rail, 33% by the Northern Busway alone (bear in mind this is one route that has cost around a tenth of the cost of the rail network which has 2.5 lines) and the remainder by conventional bus and ferry services.   Rail has been important, but for the money spent on it, has not delivered compared to the other modes.  

The notable figure is the 15% decline in car trips, which are partly a function of increased fuel prices.  This will have had an effect on reducing congestion, although not as much as the figure may suggest.

Given only 11% of employment in Auckland is in the CBD, this modeshift is minor in the scheme of transport in Auckland.  However, the officials and politicians involved are totally CBD focused.  In short, the impact of more trips to the CBD by bus and rail is very low on congestion.  

Furthermore, the scope for significant increases in public transport usage is limited, most new world cities would be thrilled to have this sort of CBD mode share.  

However, there is something else the rail enthusiasts ignore.  There is already a NZ$2 billion taxpayer funded commitment to electrify Auckland's rail network with projections of a doubling in rail patronage.  However, these forecasts are not realistic because, as the MoT/Treasury report states:

Much of the future patronage growth forecast for the rail network comes from areas where significant intensified residential land use in growth nodes has been assumed in the model. Future rail patronage growth, including from the electrified do minimum, is therefore likely to rely, in part, on the realization of these land use assumptions.

In other words, it will come only if Aucklanders choose to live in medium to high density housing near railway stations AND work in the CBD AND choose to commute by rail.  A bold assumption, that is not exactly plausible.  It is part of the planners' wet dream that Aucklanders are gagging to live in London, Paris or New York style apartment conditions near railway stations in the suburbs.  Yes, apartment living has appeal for some, by only typically for living near the city so one can walk.  Quite why people in Auckland would want to live in such housing in the suburbs is unclear.

In essence, a fortune is being spent upgrading Auckland's rail network based on patronage forecasts that are fanciful and difficult to believe.  If they prove to be correct, then the network will be constrained without an underground loop (although the constraint will only be in the morning and evening peak - a few billion dollars for a few hours a day).  If wrong, then not only will an inner city underground loop be a destruction of wealth, but so will the electrification.

What is most damning is this statement from the review:

Significant parts of the Business Case assessment were not compliant with the procedures outlined in the NZTA‘s EEM for calculating transport benefits.

In other words, Auckland Council gerrymandered its assessment to suit its own needs.   That isn't even counting the gross exaggeration of wider economic benefits on a scale not seen on comparable projects in other countries.

The Green Party of course went along with this, at the same time as it damned the government for supporting road projects that - analysed correctly - had negative benefit/cost ratios.   

In short, the underground rail loop in central Auckland is a boondoggle. A complete waste of money that ranks alongside the grandious highway projects the government is funding north of Puhoi and north of Wellington.   Those who damn one should damn the other and vice versa.   For the government to embrace negative BCR "roads of National significance" but not the railway, is partly hypocritical.  Partly, because roads are funded from road users, railways are NEVER funded from rail users.  However, for the Greens, the Auckland Council and the railevangelists to damn the roads, but bow down to the altar of the railway is at least as hypocritical.  It is time for the railevangelists to be honest - their belief in rail is no more than that - a non-evidence based feeling that trains are good, better than buses and that whatever it takes to build railways is justifiable.  One need only read the Auckland transport blog regularly to see the evangelical enthusiasm for spending other people's money on new rail lines all over the place.  None of it is linked to demand forecasting, willingness to pay or economic evaluation - it is just a rail enthusiasts build-fest. 

Oh and the same should apply to road building too.

Just one day

The day to remember what happens when the philosophy of selfless sacrifice, the belief that the common good is more important than people pursuing their own ends, the belief that the ends justify the means, the belief that people's ancestry is more important than their deeds, and when individualism is snuffed out completely and absolutely.

Holocaust Memorial Day is a day to recall the millions who were systematically removed from their homes, transported as cattle, enslaved, tortured and murdered industrial style in a manner that has yet to be paralleled by any regime.

It is also a day now to remember how the radical anti-capitalist Red Khmers took over Cambodia, declared Year Zero, abolished money, abolished property, systematically emptied the cities and shot, terrorised, tortured and starved between a quarter and a third of the population of that impoverished country - with the full material and moral support of the People's Republic of China.

A day to remember when the Orthodox Christian Serbian fascists went from town to town in Bosnia Hercegovina and ordered out the non-Serb men and boys, marched them out of town and shot them, and then went about raping the women and girl children of the towns (and one should not forget the Catholic Croatian fascists who did the same on a less organised scale to non-Croats).

A day to remember when the Hutu people of Rwanda had the fear and hatred struck into them to slaughter and butcher the Tutsi people, on a scale and extent that most has never really fully understood.

AND especially a day to remember when the Islamist thugs backed by the Sudanese dictatorship entered Darfur to slaughter, starve, rape and maim thousands of those who were not of them.

Many other mass slaughters and murders should also be part of today, and hopefully they will also be noted, such as the murder of Armenians under Turkish rule in the early 20th century, the Soviet slaughter of ethnic minorities and deemed class enemies under Lenin and Stalin, Mao's mass starvation of Chinese people in the 1960s, the murder, disappearance and purge of one third of the people of Equatorial Guinea in the early 1970s.  The list goes on.

It is why the use of the term "holocaust" should not be used lightly.  It is about the systematic slaughter and indiscriminate murder of vast numbers of people because of their background.   A scourge that the 21st century has sadly not yet purged from the desires of some politicians or religious leaders.

Karadzic planned eradication of Bosnian Muslims

The Times reports evidence at the The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic of phone taps when he said in 1991:

They have to know that there are 20,000 armed Serbs around Sarajevo.... it will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die. They will disappear. That people will disappear from the face of the earth.

Charming.

The vile murderous vision of nationalist slaughter by this thug, his right hand brute Ratko Mladic and the late Slobodan Milosevic was put into practice, while the world watched.

Of course, it wasn't helped by the arms embargo which meant Bosnian Muslims could not readily acquire the means to defend themselves, whilst Bosnian Serbs had already taken control of most of the arms of the former Yugoslav National Army, which had been controlled from Belgrade. It wasn't helped by the UN declaring Srebrenica as a "safe haven" which Bosnian Muslim refugees fled to, only to be slaughtered (the men and the boys slaughtered, the women and girls raped, as part of a deliberate plan to fill Bosnia with "baby Serbs"). The mistakes were many in the international response to this conflict, but nothing beats the pure brutal evil of the likes of Karadzic, proving some Europeans still have the willingness to undertake atrocities akin to those committed by the Nazis.

Of course, no side was innocent of bloodshed inflicted on the innocent, but without a doubt the Bosnian Serb side was the blatant standard-bearer of "ethnic cleansing". The trial of Karadzic reminds us all of how xenophobic chauvinism remains a cancerous tumour that some politicians are only too willing to encourage, and all too many are willing to kill in the name of.

Freedom of speech may have caused the Holocaust

Who said that?

A member of the House of Lords. A member of the British Labour Party.

Baroness Uddin said this on BBC Radio 4, when interviewed on the 5pm news on 16 October 2009. You can hear her say this at 38 minutes into the one hour programme, (perhaps only if you are located in the UK), until Friday 23 October (when week old programmes get removed).

What did she say?

"I think when we say that freedom of speech is important and I will support to the death the freedom to speak but we have to remember that maybe what gave rise to the mass genocide of the Jews in Germany was freedom to speak”

Baroness Uddin was lauded for being the first Muslim woman member of the House of Lords. She has already faced scandals of claiming for a second home in Kent, that she doesn't live in, while she lives in London, in a "housing association" home - in other words, public housing which exists for the poor, with rents a fraction of the private sector market rates. Prima facie there is evidence of her pilfering the public purse for her own benefit.

She is a new Labour pinup, her list of achievements are:
- Diploma of Social Work;
- Labour councillor in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets;
- failed to gain candidate selection to stand for Parliament for the 1997 election.

So New Labour put her in Parliament anyway, in the House of Lords.

A woman who thinks freedom of speech is equated with Nazism.

Why is she not being pilloried by the British media, unless this wasn't picked up? (Notice the BBC didn't challenge her on this outrageous claim).

I'm gobsmacked.

(Hat Tip: Old Holborn who is righteously furious about this and far from speechless)

The Greens and the Khmer Rouge Part 2

So the Greens got their history wrong and engaged in a bit of USA bashing, so what, they aren’t like the Khmer Rouge are they? I mean, you’d struggle to find the Khmer Rouge spirit and philosophy in most Green party member wouldn’t you? Well, yes probably.

However, the difference between the Greens and the Khmer Rouge is not as plain and obvious as that. Both apply the same philosophical principles, both have some similar political goals and indeed both use the same fundamental methodology, the difference is one of degree.

It is one that sadly the Greens can’t see in themselves, for to admit that would be truly horrifying.

Frogblog stated “every political and religious creed that has allowed any form of violence to be part of its agenda or methodology has at times created the sort of madness that Pol Pot let loose”

Indeed, although I doubt the Greens acknowledge that they themselves have violence at the centre of their methodology. I have said this before many times, but the fundamental means the Greens use to their ends is state violence. The rhetoric of “peace” is wrapped in the fist of the state, the state that the Greens want to ban products they don’t approve of, because of what they are, what they contain, who made them or where they are from. The same state the Greens want to compel, prohibit and regulate, all with the threat of force against those who disobey. The same state the Greens want to force people to pay more, again with the threat of confiscation of property and imprisonment if you refuse. The Greens want to increase the role of the state, which has as its sole difference from every other institution the monopoly right to initiate force against others. In short, the Greens want more violence, yet cannot see that they are on a continuum of political parties advocating more violence – the Khmer Rouge are different by a matter of degree.

Then Frogblog stated “The real underlying human attribute that set the Killing Fields, and the Holocaust, and Inquisition, and 9-11 and Abu Ghraib et al in action, is certainty, certainty on a scale that will impose its will through violence.” Note the selection of targets. Two mass murders by politicians, a torture/murder spree by religious fanatics, an act of terrorism by religious fanatics, and then… a prison run by the US government that saw some working there commit abuses of… humiliation and torture, on a tiny scale in comparison. Again, had to find something the US did, not Stalin, Mao, Hussein, Ceausescu etc.

However, Frog is curious about talking of certainty. For the environmental movement is full of the same philosophy. Certainty that man made climate change is happening, means Armageddon if CO2 emissions are not drastically cut back, and that can only happen by curtailing fossil fuel based industries and transport, and not using nuclear power, and primarily in developed countries. Organic food good, GE food bad. Natural good, manmade bad. Train good, car bad. Recycling good, mining bad. Local good, foreign bad. State owned good, private and commercial bad. You can go on and on. Attacking these points of view can easily get slander and abuse, as if you are attacking a fundamentalist religion. Criticising climate change science means you are called a denier, terminology used to describe those who deny the historical fact of the Holocaust. Of course, the Greens will happily impose their will through violence. It has supporters who happily use violence to break into property and destroy it, or use it to threaten people at protests, and naturally it still believes in state violence to achieve its goals.

However, there is a more fundamental point. The Khmer Rouge expounded a number of political goals that are not that different from what the Greens espouse.

Yes the Greens do not want to engage in mass murder of any group. Yes the Greens approve of education, admittedly state monopoly education. Yes, the Greens wouldn’t abolish liberal democracy, but how many of them believe money is the root of all evil? How many would think doing away with money isn’t a bad thing?

The Khmer Rouge rejected foreign culture, technology and influences, the Greens rabidly back protection from imports, local content quotas and subsidies on media and rage vehemently against foreign investment or foreign ownership of “our” land and assets. The Greens are xenophobic or rather just nationalistic, the difference is the Khmer Rouge were fanatically so. The difference, is a matter of degree.

The Khmer Rouge embraced subsistence, basic agriculture, labour and self sufficiency. All very environmentally friendly, all for one and one for all. Everyone worked in the fields, everyone got fed, everyone was housed. It was organic, it was healthy, it wasn’t commercialized, and notwithstanding the slave labour conditions and insufficient rations to keep people alive – the principle was everyone had a job, everyone had subsistence, everyone ate healthily and nobody got rich. The difference, is a matter of degree.

Certainly, the carbon footprint would have been tiny. The Greens welcome old fashioned agriculture, self sufficiency and reject commercialization of just about everything. Cars had been banned, indeed aviation had virtually be shut down (though so had the railways so, hmmm a bit mixed). No fossil fuel burning power stations, little use of imported oil, so nobody who went through that period could have been accused of “harming the planet”. The Greens would regard any new power station, car or plane to have been a step backwards then. The difference, is a matter of degree.

The Khmer Rouge abolished money, the Greens are against free trade and extremely suspicious of capitalism. They seek to nationalize, regulate and prohibit various business activities. The difference is a matter of degree.

The Khmer Rouge took children from their parents, placed them in state schools so they would learn the official dogma, and to spy on adults. The Greens welcomed Cindy Kiro’s proposal to monitor children from cradle to grave, to prosecute parents who apply a mild smack to their children, the Greens oppose competition in education, oppose alternative ideas being taught from their dogma on the environment, and happily call on children to get parents to recycle. The difference is a matter of degree.

Philosophically, the only core differences between the Khmer Rouge and the Greens are the willingness of the Khmer Rouge to use violence to dispatch opponents, and the degree to which the Greens would go in using force to implement a future of less capitalism, less industry, more egalitarianism and more nationalism.

You see the Greens don’t believe that your body is yours, the Greens don’t believe parents should be responsible to pay for their children (or decide their education, diet, healthcare or media) , the Greens don’t believe businesses and consumers should trade freely, the Greens don’t believe that all adult interaction should be voluntary, the Greens classify people into groups (Maori, women, GLBT, foreign investors, businesspeople, students, disabled, elderly, the “rich”, the “poor”) and regard collective action to be more valuable than individual achievement.

The Khmer Rouge didn’t believe your body was yours, they didn’t believe parents were responsible for their children, they didn’t believe in business, they didn’t believe in voluntary adult interaction and classified people into groups, and regarded individuals as a means to an end.

Be very clear. I believe that most Green party members are light years away from having the intent or desire to do anything on the scale of bloodshed of the Khmer Rouge. However, philosophically, the differences are only one of degree – not principle. The Khmer Rouge believed in a pure Cambodian society without any foreign influences and no individualism. The Greens believe in a pre-industrial NZ society with all that is foreign being carefully selected, and individualism being under the watchful eye of an ever maternal state that directs collective and democratic decision making about much of your life.

Is it any wonder Keith Locke once looked upon the “liberation” of Phnom Penh fondly?

Greens and the Khmer Rouge Part 1

Frogblog has posted about the evidence given by Rob Hamill at the trial of Duch, who operated the Tuol Sleng torture and murder prison in Cambodia. A chance, of course, to reflect simply upon the horrors of the Khmer rouge era. Estimates of numbers executed and starved to death by this regime range from 1.2 to 2.2 million people, between a quarter and a third of the population.

The easy target is to throw stones at Keith Locke. It is fairly well known that in his naïve youth he cheered on the Khmer Rouge victory in Phnom Penh as a liberation. Of course he was not the only one, the Lon Nol military dictatorship that had been overthrown was corrupt and brutal. Nobody missed it at the time, it was hoped things could only get better. Few paid any attention to stories coming out of Khmer Rouge occupied territory of the Maoist autarchy imposed on the local population, although images from the early 1970s showed the uniformity and order that they had imposed (ironically published approvingly by a Chinese state propaganda pictorial magazine).

However, my concern is not Keith Locke. He was young and naïve, better to forgive that and his statements about nuclear power only being safe under socialism, and cheering on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, than to dwell a quarter of a century or more later. My concern is also not Sue Bradford, who was cheerleading on Maoist China in the early 1970s, the Khmer Rouge’s chief source of funds, arms and ideology. Imagine if a senior National MP had cheered on Pinochet, Franco or Salazar in his youth and how that would be treated by the Greens, but I digress.

It is this statement

“For us in the West what we have to get our heads around is that the Khmer Rouge learnt their ideology in Paris and were able to seize power because Richard Nixon personally ordered a secret bombing campaign that killed half a million. And that US foreign policy, in particular their determination to never forgive anyone that drives them off, allowed the Khmer Rouge to occupy Cambodia’s UN seat until 1993 rather than the government installed by the Vietnamese invasion that ended their rule.”

This statement evades certain facts, and would make you think that it is all the fault of the West and the US that the Khmer Rouge came to power. This is, at best, a side effect of failed policies, and there are others who can carry far more blame.

Yes the Khmer Rouge learnt their ideology in Paris, at the Sorbonne, along with many other Marxists. Radical Maoism was de riguer among many academics, vile as it always has been. However, the Khmer Rouge was active before the US bombings. Why did the US bomb Cambodia in the first place? Because it was being used by the North Vietnamese as a bypass route to infiltrate South Vietnam. “Neutral” Cambodia was a staging ground for invasions of South Vietnam. The US response was to use bombing and then invasion to close the borders, and buy time. The bombing killed between 100,000 and 600,000 (half a million is a high estimate), and certainly gave the Khmer Rouge propaganda to attract illiterate peasants to fight for them. The US backed the overthrow of Prince Norodom Sihanouk (a very slimy long time friend of Kim Il Sung) and supported a corrupt and brutal strongman called Lon Nol. His antics also helped fuel support for the Khmer Rouge. However he achieved the primary goal, securing the borders of Cambodia and wiping out North Vietnamese forces in Cambodia.

The Khmer Rouge was backed solidly by Mao, China supplying explicit financial and material support. The USSR was more interested in Vietnam. So it was China that enabled the Khmer Rouge to fight against Lon Nol. However, it was Lon Nol himself who was so corrupt, incompetent and cruel that caused many Cambodians to join the fight against him. Note that Prince Sihanouk himself backed the Khmer Rouge as well – the “neutral” Prince backing radical Maoists so he could continue to enjoy the trappings of power. The US did not back the Khmer Rouge, it unfortunately backed its hopelessly incompetent and immoral opponents.

So the US was guilty of foolishness in Cambodia, because its goal in Vietnam propelled victims of its actions (and its friend’s actions) to support the Khmer Rouge. However, to say Nixon enabled the Khmer Rouge to seize power is evading two key points:

1. Had the Khmer Rouge not had Chinese support, it may well have failed to takeover, avoiding the massive loss of life its regime caused.
2. The US from 1970 to 1975 armed, funded and backed the Lon Nol military regime, which whilst bad, fought the Khmer Rouge. Had Lon Nol remained in power, it would have been corrupt, and far from free, but would not have been as murderous. A similar analogy is Korea, where South Korean dictatorships and military regimes ran the country from 1953 through to 1988, but which was far less deadly than North Korea for its people.

The truth is that China provided succour to the Khmer Rouge, the US lamely fought against it, but the biggest supporters of the Khmer Rouge were often Western academics.

The Greens skirt over the Khmer Rouge years. The years when umpteen Western academics embraced the Khmer Rouge, including the fool Malcolm Caldwell who decided to go visit them, and got murdered as a result. The years when leftwing pinup Noam Chomsky declared stories of mass murder and starvation from Democratic Kampuchea as CIA propaganda (the man has slithered in evasion of this statement ever since). This thesis talks of the "Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia" being "Democratic Kampuchea symbolized their wildest hopes and dreams. From the classroom to the politburo, the new Kampuchea was, to these scholars, theory becoming reality" says Sophal Ear.

You see the Khmer Rouge represented the idealistic vision of so many on the left. More on that in Part 2.

Vietnam invaded Cambodia for various reasons, including a border incident, concern over the Khmer Rouge treatment of ethnic Vietnamese (Vietnam knew only too well what was going on there), Soviet support for Vietnamese expansionism (as Vietnam was not backed by China – as was seen in a brief border war between the two in 1979).

You may find it odd that a party that opposed the US overthrowing the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, overthrowing the Taliban dictatorship and includes many who opposed the US kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, so warmly receives (or at least glosses over) Vietnam invading Cambodia.

Let me be clear, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was moral, purely because it ended the Khmer Rouge horror, even though nobody could dare claim that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam was free or respected individual rights, it fell short of the mass executions of the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge had been brutal to Vietnamese on both sides of the border. However, overthrowing the Khmer Rouge does not fit well with Green Party rhetoric against imperialism and war, particularly since the government installed by Hanoi was little more than an extension of its own.

The Greens claim the US allowed the Khmer Rouge to occupy the UN seat of Cambodia rather than the Vietnamese installed regime because of a fit of pique at losing the Vietnam War. This is an element of truth evading several facts and with the wrong motive.

The seat at the UN was held by the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, shared by the Khmer Rouge, FUNCINPEC and the KPNLF, the latter two being royalist and anti-communist. This was maintained because China and the US both vetoed Soviet and Vietnamese requests for the seat to be taken up by the Hanoi led government. Of course when the Cold War ended, all of this fell away. Vietnam had withdrawn from Cambodia, and the pro-Vietnamese government engaged in a coalition with FUNCINPEC and the KPNLF, whilst the Khmer Rouge tried to continue fighting.

So why the history lesson? Well it is understandable to write about Rob Hamill testifying at Duch’s trial. It is a tragic NZ element to one of the most vile events of the 20th century. Indeed so vile it demonstrates that what is worse than war is government turning on its own people. However, the Greens couldn’t use the occasion to simply deplore the Khmer Rouge, deplore Maoism and condemn totalitarianism and communism. No. It was used to blame the United States, by selective use of the facts and evading the fundamental blame for the Khmer Rouge – Marxist scholars, Chinese Maoists and the embrace of the ideology that individuals only exist for the greater good.

The Greens implicitly endorse the Vietnamese invasion and conquest of Cambodia, because it overthrew a murderous tyranny, but don’t support the US doing the same in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, why would the Greens selectively report history to bash the US? Why not bash China for providing the greater succuour to the Khmer Rouge? Why not bash communism generally? Why ignore the US backing of the Khmer Rouge's opponents over sustained periods? Why not slam the apologists of the regime from leftwing academia (which included your own)? Why not criticise Norodom Sihanouk for letting Cambodia be a vehicle for Vietnamese communist insurgency (attracting US attention), and then being a vehicle for the Khmer Rouge to have legitimacy?

Or better yet, why not shut the hell up about a party and government that represented an idealised vision of a society without any capitalism (money was abolished), without carbon based energy, where everyone was equal, there were no possessions, where peasantry had been raised to the highest level, where everyone was meant to get what they needed, and nobody was rich. Then ask yourself, before the consequences of this vision were obvious, would you too have supported it?

In my entire life if I do something, I do it properly

so said Kaing Guek Eav, better known as Comrade Duch, administrator of the Tuol Sleng torture and murder prison in Phnom Penh when the Khmer Rouge was in power.

The Daily Telegraph reporting on his trial said: "His nom de guerre came from a textbook story about "Duch" a model pupil who always had his hand raised.

"I liked the name Duch because I wanted to be the well disciplined boy who respected teachers, who wanted to do good deeds,"

I remember reading that Khieu Samphan, the number two in the Khmer Rouge was a well disciplined boy too, who never had a girlfriend, and who was constantly teased.

Therein is the mind of the psychopathic mass murderers who obey the state they helped create, and spill blood as if it were water. Typically not that different from the occasional teenager who takes a gun and shoots out his fellow students.

Turkey tries to improve relations with Armenia , sort of

According to the Sunday Telegraph, Turkish President Abdullah Gul has visited Armenia. The first ever visit by a Turkish leader to independent Armenia, which given the history between the two nations is important. However, sadly, Turkey seems still unwilling to accept its past.

President Gul said of Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian "He did not mention... the so-called genocide claims"

According to Wikipedia:

"The date of the onset of the genocide is conventionally held to be April 24, 1915, the day that Ottoman authorities arrested some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. Thereafter, the Ottoman military uprooted Armenians from their homes and forced them to march for hundreds of miles, depriving them of food and water, to the desert of what is now Syria. Massacres were indiscriminate of age or gender, with rape and other sexual abuse commonplace."

Between 300,000 and 1.5 million Armenians died during this period. However arguing over numbers is beside the point. It is also beside the point to consider that many Turks also died in the ensuing conflict. There is little evidence that there was a deliberate effort to wipe out Turks by Armenians.

Modern day Turks have little to fear from admitting that the Ottoman Empire discriminated against Armenians, that Armenians sought independence, and the corrupt brutal Ottoman regime co-opted many Turks to expel and execute Armenians. Germans have had to face their role in the most well known genocide of all. Turkey needs to engage internally about this dark period of history, resist nationalist pride, and acknowledge the evil of the past. Precious few alive today are likely to have had any responsibility for it, and it would be a fitting first step before seriously considering secular Turkey's membership in the European Union.

The evil of Radovan Karadzic

Hmmm nasty Santa?

For some who don't remember the Balkan wars of the 1990s, it's worth having a run down of what happened, step by step:
- Titoist communism was already in decline in the 1980s after he died, with the Yugoslav Communist Party splitting into factions, on largely federal lines, as all of the 6 Yugoslav republics (and two autonomous provinces of Serbia). The decline in the relative power of Belgrade over Yugoslavia was felt in Serbia. Serb nationalist Slobodan Milosevic started evocating nationalist racist rhetoric against Kosovo Albanians in 1989, and spread fear among Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia that they should feel threatened. Albanian was banned in universities and government in Kosovo, despite 90% of the population being Albanian.
- Slovenia and Croatia both were increasingly fed up with the old communist bureaucracy of Yugoslavia and how the national wealth predominantly generated in the north in their republics was redistributed south to Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro. Slovenia was led by non-Serbo Croat speaking liberals who saw Western Europe as the model to follow, Croatia increasingly saw the rise of a reactionary group of nationalists, led by one Franjo Tudjman, who spread the same racist filth about Serbs as Milosevic spread about Croats.
- Milosevic took increasing control of the Federal Yugoslav government and armed forces, and talk of a new Yugoslavia, which would be more centralised was countered by talk of a new looser Yugoslavia with very little federal role beyond foreign affairs and defence. Slovenia decided to declare independence, a minor issue as Slovenia was fairly homogeneous. Croatia swiftly decided to do the same, which was more disconcerting.
- Slovenia was led by a pro-Western liberal government, and beyond a short lived battle with Serb controlled Yugoslav Army forces, successfully seceded de facto and de jure, and is now an EU member state.
- Croatia was led by a fascist nationalist government which glossed over the appalling genocidal past of Croatia in the 1940s, when Ante Pavelic slaughtered and deported non-Catholic Croats with full backing of Nazi Germany. Pavelic's feared "Ustashe" would go from town to town seeking out Muslims, Jews and Orthodox Christians - with the full complicity of the Vatican - and ordered that one third be converted, one third be deported and one third executed. Franjo Tudjman saw himself as the heir of Croat nationalism.
- Serbs in Croatia understandably feared greatly a repeat of history, and Milosevic greatly exaggerated the risk of this, but the fear was real. Serb dominated areas such as Vukovar and the Krajina became the battlegrounds between the Serb dominated Yugoslav National Army and Croatia. Both sides murdered and applied their fascist bigotry to each other, but the worst atrocities were noted at Vukovar. However, the Croats also engaged in "ethnic cleansing".
- Following the independence of Croatia, Bosnia Hercegovina, which had been governed by a fairly cosmopolitan coalition of Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks, the withdrawing Serbian controlled Yugoslav Federal Army started a new mission, the carving up of Bosnia. The fairly tolerant open government in Sarajevo was an anathema to the nationalist fascists in Zagreb and Belgrade, and so carving up Bosnia into parts of greater Croatia and greater Serbia was the mission of both sets of forces.

- Under the lead of Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb forces (essentially the former Yugoslav National Army) secured areas of Bosnia and systematically embarked on its open policy of "ethnic cleansing"which predominantly involved going house to house and kicking non Serbs out of town.
- Under the lead of Karadzic part of the campaign against Bosniaks and Croats was to detain men in camps as POWs, and Bosnian Serb soldiers were given free reign to act as they wished. Many Bosniak women and girls were raped as part of the terror campaign to displace non-Serbs.
- The Srebrenica massacre was the culmination of this policy.

and today Bosnia remains divided between the "Republika Srpska" run by the remaining Serb nationalist parties and the rest of Bosnia, shared by Bosniak and Croat political parties. If Ratko Mladic can also be found and charged, and Croatia hands over its war criminals, then some great steps forward will have been made. Bosnia is the hardest though - for there are stolen homes, massacres and the need to rebuild trust and community among people infected with bigotry. The road to reconciliation in Bosnia will be a long and difficult one. Prosecuting and incarcerating the new nasty Santa will be a first step.

What did Peter Brown think before he went there?

According to the NZ Herald when asked about the junket to eastern Europe you paid for and the personal highlight of the trip, he said it was Auschwitz, and of it said:

.

"I didn't believe it would be so evil....."

.

What does it take Peter? Seriously. How fucking evil does genocide have to be? What did you think it was, a prison camp?

.

then to top it off, he just doesn't get it.

.

He said "it just reinforced for me the importance of democracy"

.

Why, because the Nazis got elected? You honestly think the Nazis would have lost elections in the 1930s? Would it have been ok had the Germans voted to gas the Jews (they voted for anti-semitic policies)? Pick up Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners... I doubt democracy would have saved the Jews Peter. The word is freedom, but you belong to a nationalist xenophobic party that has been propping up the Clark Labour government, you don't really understand that concept.

.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of one of those people you trust to make decisions on your retirement income, your healthcare, your kid's education and how to spend around 40% of your income. It's not his fault, he's just not very bright.

Holocaust memorial day

Some say they already know, some say it ignores or takes attention from other incidents of genocide or mass murder, but it doesn't matter that some know, it doesn't matter than many might not want to be reminded, and it is not the same as other incidents of genocide, nor does it take attention away from them. Those comments in particular fail to do justice about what happened in the 1930s in a country that had been widely seen as a civilised modern state. The Holocaust showed that those who thought themselves above tribalist brutality could do so en masse, could do so efficiently, callously and that people sat by and did nothing.

^

Today Sunday 27 January is International Holocaust Memorial Day. It marks the day of liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp. It is about remembering all those murdered by the Nazi state, from six million Jews to 200,000 disabled people to gypsies, Poles, Soviet POWs, homosexuals, political dissidents from socialist to liberal persuasions. The utter complete dehumanisation of all those effectively declared "unpersons" by the Nazis remains a horror unparalleled in its comprehensive efficient single mindedness. It also reminds that the murders of the Khmer Rouge, the Hutu militia, the Sudanese government, the Serb nationalists and all others show that mass slaughter based on collectivist ideology has not evaporated - indeed it show no sign of having been eradicated.

^

So take a moment to remember, remember those who had their jobs, their homes taken from them, who were beaten, bullied, robbed, imprisoned, tortured, humiliated and killed, like cattle. Those who were rounded up as enemies of the nation, and slaughtered en masse, day after day, week after week for years on end. This whilst so many peacefully went about their business, turning a blind eye to the train loads of human cargo, the neighbours who were taken away at night never to be seen, the propaganda blaming troubles on the one group of people who never ever threatened you or others.

^

The Holocaust was the natural conclusion of violent collectivism - the elimination of those who do not fit the collective vision, the collective punishment of them and the demonisation of them based not on what they do, or even what they think, but what identity they fit. Take a moment of silence to remember, and just think, think of those who use identity politics now to demonise.

Greens continue to ignore Camp 22

So the Greens had a "day of action against genocide" on Bastille Day.

^

How absolutely disgusting.

^

How dare Metiria Turei claim that current policy on aborigines is akin to the Holocaust, akin to the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians, akin to the Hutu genocide against the Tutsi, akin to Saddam's slaughter of Kurds, akin to Year Zero in Cambodia (not strictly genocide, but was mass murder of people according to a stereotypical group), or even akin to policies towards Aborigines in the 19th century? She diminishes what the word "genocide" means - the deliberate or reckless killing of a large number of people of a particular ethnic group.

^

and how can she remain ignorant of Camp 22, No. 14 Gaechun camp, No. 18 Bukchang camp, No. 15 Yoduk camp, No. 16 Hwasong camp and No. 25 Chongjin camp - all slave labour camps, enslaving children as political prisoners? The silence from the Greens is deafening.

^

So go on, email them all. Start with metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz and then Jeanette.Fitzsimons@parliament.govt.nz sue.bradford@parliament.govt.nz keith.locke@parliament.govt.nz nandor.tanczos@parliament.govt.nz and sue.kedgley@parliament.govt.nz

^

While you're at it, get Rodney Hide and Heather Roy to support this too, they have every reason to do so. The North Korean gulags are an atrocity that should not be tolerated in the 21st century, and we should not let concern over its nuclear weapons arsenal blind us to this. I don't expect Winston Peters to give a damn as foreign Minister, I mean honestly, you really think MFAT would dare ruffle feathers by allowing him to send a formal protest to Pyongyang about it?

^

More importantly, would those who proclaim NZ's "independent foreign policy" on something as virtually meaningless in real terms as nuclear armed ship visits, want to stick their neck out and have New Zealand demand the closure of North Korea's gulag? If not, why not?