NationStates Jolt Archive

At the suggestion of Neu Leonstein:

Would you put the American victory over the Natives on the same level as the Turkish attempted slaughter of the Armenians and the attempted final solution of the Nazis against the Jews and other undesirables?

Before you jump on me, hear me out.

The Jews and Armenians were attacked for the sole purpose of wiping them off the face of the earth.....We only fought the natives over the land.....not that they would have, but, if they had just walked off the land and given it to us, we wouldnt have had to fire a single bullet...and everyone would have been happy.

Basically, what I'm saying is that it was never about trying to eliminate them or even kill them, it was just all about the land and who would get it.

Which leads me to this, show me one great nation that HAS NOT fought someone over land.

Basically, I think that, even though it was not Americas brightest hour, it wasnt a genocide..at all. It had nothing to do with killing and everything to do with fighting over land...something that has been done by all peoples and nations for all of history.

It may not be genocide, but the 'relocate or die' motif from that period is consistent with the less sexy but still evil term Ethnic Cleansing.

It may not be genocide, but the 'relocate or die' motif from that period is consistent with the less sexy but still evil term Ethnic Cleansing.

Yes, well...like I said, show me one great nation that has not fought over land.

Well.. wasn't it England that did that? Not America. Meh?

Well.. wasn't it England that did that? Not America. Meh?

Basically every nation has done it, in one way or another.

Well.. wasn't it England that did that? Not America. Meh?

No, pretty sure it was America...STOP TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR OUR ACTIONS! :p

I voted yes, but I'll really have to think about it. I define genocide as killing an ethnic group directly. As much as I'd like to call Andrew Jackson genocidal, he indirectly cause Amerindian deaths. Also, a lot of deaths were caused by mini-wars, disease, and by settlers. Some of the settlers could be considered genocidal because they did organize groups to kill Amerindians.

Well.. wasn't it England that did that? Not America. Meh?
America did it too. See Andrew Jackson's decision on the natives in Georgia [or some state near there].

I said no, because like the OP pointed out, we didn't want to kill them all, just take their land.

Yes, well...like I said, show me one great nation that has not fought over land.

I'm not required to. Does a murder become less wrong because the murderor can prove there have been thousands of other murders?

Well when they sided with the British in the War of 1812, they pretty well punched their own ticket. Hard to argue with the quality of life it left everyone who lives in America with.

I voted yes, but I'll really have to think about it. I define genocide as killing an ethnic group directly. As much as I'd like to call Andrew Jackson genocidal, he indirectly cause Amerindian deaths. Also, a lot of deaths were caused by mini-wars, disease, and by settlers. Some of the settlers could be considered genocidal because they did organize groups to kill Amerindians.

Yes, but like my OP said, the objective was to fight over the land...not to exterminate the Natives.

Like I said, and although this never would have happend, if the indians just walked off the land and gave it to us...we would have been happy not killing a single one.

Thats not genocidal.

America did it too. See Andrew Jackson's decision on the natives in Georgia [or some state near there].

I said no, because like the OP pointed out, we didn't want to kill them all, just take their land.
I see

It's a lot more complex than that. Sure, there were some people who were live and let live about the natives--there was a lot more intermarriage than the history books generally let on, so much so that some of those "wars" were more like family feuds.

But then there were some people, and many of them in positions of power, who believed "there's no good injun but a dead injun" and were out to destroy the savage heathen. So for some it was decidedly genocide. For others, not so much.

At the suggestion of Neu Leonstein:

Would you put the American victory over the Natives on the same level as the Turkish attempted slaughter of the Armenians and the attempted final solution of the Nazis against the Jews and other undesirables?


Yes it is. The Colonial settlers came to this land and TOOK it from the NATIVES who had more rights to this land than they did. It was an invasion and a genocide, not justin the US, but in Mexico, the Carribean, and South America as well. All of those native peoples, from the Incas to the Tainos and Caribs, as well as the North American tribes were WIPED out and murdered for their land because we wanted it and they were in the way. That IS GENOCIDE.

Before you jump on me, hear me out.

The Jews and Armenians were attacked for the sole purpose of wiping them off the face of the earth.....We only fought the natives over the land.....not that they would have, but, if they had just walked off the land and given it to us, we wouldnt have had to fire a single bullet...and everyone would have been happy.

Why should they have "just walked off the land?" It was theirs to begin with. :rolleyes: You dont think that murdering jews and Armenians was over land?? It was, over their dominion over their territories, and in order to take them they were targeted and killed.

Basically, what I'm saying is that it was never about trying to eliminate them or even kill them, it was just all about the land and who would get it.

Wow, you really need to go back to school buddy, seriously.

Which leads me to this, show me one great nation that HAS NOT fought someone over land.

None, but that does not make it right, your simplistic and ignorant justification based on "everyone else has done it, why cant we?" is just embarrassing.

Basically, I think that, even though it was not Americas brightest hour, it wasnt a genocide..at all. It had nothing to do with killing and everything to do with fighting over land...something that has been done by all peoples and nations for all of history.

Murdering 6 million Jews because you think you are the "master race", and murdering the millions of Native American cultures because of "Manifest Destiny" is the same thing.

The same can be said of Australia and the Aboriginal people, as well as Japan and their genocide in Manchuria. Denial of your history is unpatriotic, you have to accept the bad with the good.

It's a lot more complex than that. Sure, there were some people who were live and let live about the natives--there was a lot more intermarriage than the history books generally let on, so much so that some of those "wars" were more like family feuds.

But then there were some people, and many of them in positions of power, who believed "there's no good injun but a dead injun" and were out to destroy the savage heathen. So for some it was decidedly genocide. For others, not so much.

Well sure, theres always extreme individuals...but we are taking about the whole...fighting over the land aspect as a whole here.

Do you find what we did genocidal or simply...just warring.

Yes, well...like I said, show me one great nation that has not fought over land.

One more thing, this can't be boiled down to a 'fight over lands,' because fighting to take land and Ethnic Cleansing are very different. One can take over land without committing Ethnic Cleansing. America did not take this route. We forcibly removed, at gunpoint, the natives of an area so white americans could have it. Those whom resisted were killed. That is Ethnic Cleansing.

An example of a fight over lands might be the Roman conquest of Greece. Rome took the land, for sure, but allowed the peoples there to remain on that land, rather than moving or killing them and entirely replacing them with Romans.

EDIT - As to comparing it to Hitler's Holocaust, that's incorrect. A more apt comparison would be to his partially realized Lebenstraum ideas, in which his people took(or would have taken) land and forced the natives(Slavs, mostly) to leave or die.

Well sure, theres always extreme individuals...but we are taking about the whole...fighting over the land aspect as a whole here.

Do you find what we did genocidal or simply...just warring.
In the end, genocidal, because I'm more interested in the outcome than the reason. And frankly, I think you're being a bit naive when you suggest that we wouldn't have wiped them out even if they had left their land. We're talking about people who believed in the inherent superiority of the white man here. Natives had two choices--assimilate to the point where they no longer existed, or die. Those who intermarried were in the process of assimilating.

In the end, genocidal, because I'm more interested in the outcome than the reason. And frankly, I think you're being a bit naive when you suggest that we wouldn't have wiped them out even if they had left their land. We're talking about people who believed in the inherent superiority of the white man here. Natives had two choices--assimilate to the point where they no longer existed, or die. Those who intermarried were in the process of assimilating.

And you beleive thier assimliation into our culture is bad?

Basically, what I'm saying is that it was never about trying to eliminate them or even kill them, it was just all about the land and who would get it.

if i should fall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_Massacre) in the struggle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears), scatter my ashes to the wind, but bury my heart at wounded knee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre)

A few examples of what we are talking about here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pequot_War
http://www.dickshovel.com/genosite.html
http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs307a,0,6305728.story?coll=ny-lihistory-navigation
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/uncivil.htm
http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/aiholocaust.html
http://storm.simpson.edu/~proctorn/1756/scalp%20bounty1.htm

Yes, there were instances of wars for land. But victory was almost never enough - the total destruction of the Native tribes, or at least their culture, was aimed for. What about the scalp bounty? Why would state governments pay for proof of dead Indians?

It's impossible to ignore all these massacres, the racism, the broken treaties and so on. A description of the events as made in the OP would presuppose that the wars were fought fairly over land. Obviously they weren't, in many cases they were out-right wars of extermination.

So if I kill my uncle so I can inherit his farm that makes me a better person than if I kill him just because I hate him?

And you beleive thier assimliation into our culture is bad?Not at all. Good or bad doesn't come into it--I think assimilation was inevitable. But there were a lot of white people at the time who didn't think highly of miscegenation with the heathen (sound familiar?), and who thought it would be better to wipe them out than let them intermarry and pollute the white race.

it is and it isnt like the nazis and the turks

there were times when the policy was to wipe out certain tribes. that they could escape doesnt mean it wasnt genocidal. there were campaigns that targetted the old, women, and children. there was a distribution of blankets infected with small pox. there was the wholesale relocation of the cherokees and choctaws, forcing thousands to walk from georgia to oklahoma. there was the killing of the buffalo which was well understood to be way to cut off the plains indian's food supply. there was the removal of indian children from their families so they could be made into "white people" in boarding schools.


then there were the times when the policy was to respect indian rights. there were times when public outcry at injustice was so strong that policies had to be abandoned. there were times when white settlers were removed from indian lands.

it was generally genocidal without the focused attention and power that the nazis had to get the job done.

As to comparing it to Hitler's Holocaust, that's incorrect. A more apt comparison would be to his partially realized Lebenstraum ideas, in which his people took(or would have taken) land and forced the natives(Slavs, mostly) to leave or die.
A very apt comparison indeed. It's virtually the same thing - the war of extermination for the sake of gaining living space.

Which is ultimately much the same as what the Turks did to the Armenians - forced relocation and all the stuff that came with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Holocaust

This thread is especially amusing when you remember that not only did European settlers kill indians, they also abducted people from another continent and used them as slaves. Maybe if there were no Africans there would be more Native Americans today because the Europeans would have breed them as slaves.

if i should fall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_Massacre) in the struggle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears), scatter my ashes to the wind, but bury my heart at wounded knee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre)

Amen.

it is and it isnt like the nazis and the turks

there were times when the policy was to wipe out certain tribes. that they could escape doesnt mean it wasnt genocidal. there were campaigns that targetted the old, women, and children. there was a distribution of blankets infected with small pox. there was the wholesale relocation of the cherokees and choctaws, forcing thousands to walk from georgia to oklahoma. there was the killing of the buffalo which was well understood to be way to cut off the plains indian's food supply. there was the removal of indian children from their families so they could be made into "white people" in boarding schools.


then there were the times when the policy was to respect indian rights. there were times when public outcry at injustice was so strong that policies had to be abandoned. there were times when white settlers were removed from indian lands.

it was generally genocidal without the focused attention and power that the nazis had to get the job done.
Man, and I was just gonna offer some blankets to the folks in the thread. After all, they would've been for free... Come on - free blankets! Take one :eek:

Ashmoria and Free Soviets covered what I would have said......

if they had just walked off the land and given it to us, we wouldnt have had to fire a single bullet...and everyone would have been happy.

Bullets were not the only weapon used. Smallpox infected blankets were used as well to get rid of some tribes without having to look like they did it.

As to walking off their land, I'm sure that if they walked right off it....and into the sea, the white settlers would have been happy. Pretty much the same with the case of Jews some 60-70 years back. If they had all gone *poof*, a certain fascist would have been quite happy.

Telling someone "Give me all your stuff and walk out that airlock or I'll space you myself" is still murder whether it was you that actually pushed the guy out or not.

I define genocide as killing an ethnic group directly.

that's not a particularly robust definition. i think you should adopt the un standard (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html) instead. otherwise you're going to need to come up with more words to cover the various actions undertaken with intent to eliminate groups over the years.


Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

i'd never heard of it described as genocide before. who said it was genocide? certainly what happened to the native americans was not good at all but genocide? i don't think so.

I don't know what happened in the US, but up here, British explorers intentionally infected natives with small pox to eliminate them. That's chemical warfare.

I don't know what happened in the US, but up here, British explorers intentionally infected natives with small pox to eliminate them. That's chemical warfare.

Ha,
quite teh opposite mon cher.

The british started a smallpox innoculation campaign on the western front before they were kicked out.

Ha,
quite teh opposite mon cher.

The british started a smallpox innoculation campaign on the western front before they were kicked out.

Maybe it wasn't the British. But at least one European group intentionally passed infected blankets to the Natives in trade.

EDIT: It was the British. Lord Jeffrey Amherst to be exact.

You want genocide?
Try that the australiand did to the aborigionals.
Until it comes out that the US colonizers stole native children and tried to "breed them to be more white" i wont see it as genocide.

At the suggestion of Neu Leonstein:

Would you put the American victory over the Natives on the same level as the Turkish attempted slaughter of the Armenians and the attempted final solution of the Nazis against the Jews and other undesirables?

Before you jump on me, hear me out.

The Jews and Armenians were attacked for the sole purpose of wiping them off the face of the earth.....We only fought the natives over the land.....not that they would have, but, if they had just walked off the land and given it to us, we wouldnt have had to fire a single bullet...and everyone would have been happy.

Basically, what I'm saying is that it was never about trying to eliminate them or even kill them, it was just all about the land and who would get it.

Which leads me to this, show me one great nation that HAS NOT fought someone over land.

Basically, I think that, even though it was not Americas brightest hour, it wasnt a genocide..at all. It had nothing to do with killing and everything to do with fighting over land...something that has been done by all peoples and nations for all of history.
Placing Native Americans in 'reservations' and then giving them blankets infected with measles sounds like the systematic mass killing on the basis of race (aka genocide) to me. This is not much different to putting jews in concentration camps, then exterminating them in gas chambers.

You want genocide?
Try that the australiand did to the aborigionals.
Until it comes out that the US colonizers stole native children and tried to "breed them to be more white" i wont see it as genocide.
Australian genocide on Aboriginals doesn't have anything to do with US genocide on Native Americans. The former should not influence your judgement on the latter.

Maybe it wasn't the British. But at least one European group intentionally passed infected blankets to the Natives in trade.

EDIT: It was the British. Lord Jeffrey Amherst to be exact.
The Americans did too, as did the Australians.

You want genocide?
Try that the australiand did to the aborigionals.
Until it comes out that the US colonizers stole native children and tried to "breed them to be more white" i wont see it as genocide.
But what if in America, the native children were simply killed instead?

The fact that many have done it does not make it right, in fact it makes it worse because it has been seen to be wrong time and time again but still we don't stop destroying life.

It was a deliberate slaughter, going as far as giving them blankets contaged with the smallpox or other disease to kill a whole village from disease, to eliminating the buffalos to make them starve to death (and of course, so many direct slaughter).

And the racist stereotypes were so strong that they still exist now, did you see how many movies and comics show the "evil indians" and "good cowboys" ?

So yes, it really was a slaughter of a people motivated by racism: a genocide. Sure, they wanted to get the land too - but Hitler wanted the wealth of the jews (real and supposed one) and in most other genocides they also wanted to take the land and/or the wealth of the victims. But in most "wars for lands", the local population were not slaughtered, but assimilated by the conqueror.

Dolphi too offered money to Jews who wanted to go away...
The naughty German was not genocidal when offering the deal.
Go away the great conqueror wants your place...
Jules Cesar just replace the local by Romans, the local then became slaves....
Genocide thing was not always the good way, mainly when the conqueror needed labour force.
However genocide is compulsory when it's no labour needs or no labour force on the market...

Now we pray, Brothers we wont genocide you, we will help you and we will be the fathers of your children, amen.


The High Priest
In a genocide party in the garden, trying to barbeQ some savage sausages.

This just proves that the Europeans were no more civilized than any other country. The Indian tribes were constantly fighting each other. The first slaves that the Europeans got in Africa were captives in battle who were sold to the Europeans by the victorious tribes. The europeans were also constantly fighting each other. We were just more successful at killing because we had progressed from swords and spears.

The Nazis had a national policy to exterminate the Jews. Against the indians it was less organized, but still effective. It was also still genocide, according to the description laid out by the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

This just proves that the Europeans were no more civilized than any other country. The Indian tribes were constantly fighting each other. The first slaves that the Europeans got in Africa were captives in battle who were sold to the Europeans by the victorious tribes. The europeans were also constantly fighting each other. We were just more successful at killing because we had progressed from swords and spears.

The Nazis had a national policy to exterminate the Jews. Against the indians it was less organized, but still effective. It was also still genocide, according to the description laid out by the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Which seems a proper definition to go by when discussing genocide. Rather than the usual "I don't see that as genocide because...just because"

I don't see it as genocide in the 'final solution' kind of thinking used by the nazi's. I suppose it depends on your definition of genocide. If it means to wipe out people based on their race/ethnicity, then yes, it happened. If it means to wipe out ALL people of a particular race/ethnicity, I don't believe there was quite the concerted effort that the Turks or Nazi's used.

However, it can't be denied that the colonial powers (pre-American Revolution) used biological warfare against the native peoples during times of war. However, this is also during a time where both sides would send warriors/soldiers into respective villages and slaughter civilians.

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/warfare.cfm

And the government of the US, post-revolution, is responsible for some of its own ethnic crimes, such as forced relocation of native groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears


The big difference between the genocide of the 20th century and the plight of North American natives, is that in the case of Turkey and Nazi Germany, there was a concerted effort to round up citizens inside their own territory in an effort at mass extermination. In the case of the colonization of the Americas, it was the result of two groups fighting over posession of land and resources. If that counts as genocide, than all of humankind is guilty of it if you trace it back far enough.

I wouldn't say it was like Hitler's attempted extermination of the Jews, but that it was like the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians.


This thread is especially amusing when you remember that not only did European settlers kill indians, they also abducted people from another continent and used them as slaves. Maybe if there were no Africans there would be more Native Americans today because the Europeans would have breed them as slaves.Possible, but unlikely. The reason that they started abducting them from other continents was in part because the natives were reduced to such small numbers by outbreaks of disease that there weren't enough of them to use as slaves.

Yes, it was. General ethnic cleansing that often escalated into outright genocide.

Which seems a proper definition to go by when discussing genocide. Rather than the usual "I don't see that as genocide because...just because"
From the CPPCG:
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
(a), (b) and (c) certainly took place. The question is: was there, on part of the US government, "intent to destroy, in whole or in part," the Indians?

(a), (b) and (c) certainly took place. The question is: was there, on part of the US government, "intent to destroy, in whole or in part," the Indians?

(d) and (e) did to some extent too.

and i think the sheer weight of the pattern of behavior is enough to prove intent, even if we didn't have the documentary evidence to bolster it that we do.

(d) and (e) did to some extent too.

and i think the sheer weight of the pattern of behavior is enough to prove intent, even if we didn't have the documentary evidence to bolster it that we do.
It is not enough. It wasn't enough for the Nuremberg trials, for example. You cannot 'impute to administrators and officials responsibility for mass murder' without the documentation. Either that, or actively directing acts of mass murder.

I don't know what happened in the US, but up here, British explorers intentionally infected natives with small pox to eliminate them. That's chemical warfare.

They dit that here in the US too, but to a much broader scale.

Technically, it wasn't "genocide", but "dimensional relocation".

It is not enough. It wasn't enough for the Nuremberg trials, for example. You cannot 'impute to administrators and officials responsibility for mass murder' without the documentation. Either that, or actively directing acts of mass murder.

we don't need documentation of them saying "i have ordered you to round up all the indians, outlaw their way of life, and ship their children off to boarding schools expressly in order to commit genocide against them." the fact that they did order such activities repeatedly with easily knowable results demonstrates the intent.

of course, we actually do have documentation of express intent to destroy various indigenous groups as groups, so it doesn't particularly matter.

we don't need documentation of them saying "i have ordered you to round up all the indians, outlaw their way of life, and ship their children off to boarding schools expressly in order to commit genocide against them." the fact that they did order such activities repeatedly with easily knowable results demonstrates the intent.

of course, we actually do have documentation of express intent to destroy various indigenous groups as groups, so it doesn't particularly matter.
Show us the orders and the relevant documentation -- and the charge of genocide will be proven then.

Show us the orders and the relevant documentation -- and the charge of genocide will be proven then.

Well? Show us the proof Hitler commited suicide.

As ash has mentioned, I guess the smallpox was nothing more then an accident. :rolleyes:

Well? Show us the proof Hitler commited suicide.

As ash has mentioned, I guess the smallpox was nothing more then an accident. :rolleyes:
"Акт № 12

судебно-медицинского исследования обгоревшего трупа мужчины (предположительно труп Гитлера).

08 мая 1945 года, город Берлин — Бух. Морг ХППГ № 496

Комиссия в составе Главного судебно-медицинского эксперта Шкаравского Ф.И., Главного патологоанатома Красной Армии подполковника медицинской службы Краев-ского H.A., и.о. Главного патологоанатома 1-го Белорусского фронта майора медицинской службы Маранц А.Я., армейского [132] суд.мед. эксперта 3-й ударной армии майора медицинской службы Богуславского Ю. И. и армейского патологоанатома 3-й ударной армии майора медицинской службы Гулъкевич Ю.В. по приказанию члена Военного совета 1-го Белорусского фронта генерал-лейтенанта Телегина от 03 мая 1945 года произвела судебно-медицинское исследование трупа мужчины (предположительно труп Гитлера).

При исследовании обнаружено:

А. Наружный осмотр

В деревянном ящике длиной 163 см., шириной 55 см. и вышиной 53 см. доставлены остатки обгоревшего трупа мужчины. На трупе был обнаружен обгоревший по краям кусок трикотажной материи размером 25х$ см., желтоватого цвета, похожий на трикотажную рубашку.

Ввиду того, что труп обгорел, судить о возрасте трудно, можно предположить, что возраст был около 50—60 лет, рост его 165 см. (измерение неточное вследствие обугливания тканей), длина правой большой берцовой кости — 39 см. Труп в значительной степени обугленный, от него ощущается запах горелого мяса. Крышка черепа частично отсутствует, сохранились части затылочной кости, левой височной, нижняя часть скуловых и носовых костей, а также верхняя и нижняя челюсти. Правая сторона черепа обгорела больше, чем левая.

Внутри черепной коробки заметны части обгорелого мозга и твердой мозговой оболочки. На лице и туловище кожа отсутствует; сохранились лишь остатки обугленных мышц. Имеются множественные мелкие трещины носовых костей и костей верхней челюсти. Язык обуглен, кончик его плотно сжат между зубами верхней и нижней челюсти. Зубы верхней челюсти в количестве 9 представляют собой единый желто-металлический (золотой) мостик, который держится на штифтах 2-го левого и 2-го правого резцов.

В этом мосту имеется 4 верхних резца (2j1JL1L2), 2 клыка (3j) (L3), левый первый малый коренной зуб (1-4), 1 и 2 малые, коренные зубы справа (4jsJ) (см. схему). Левый 1-й резец (1-1) представляет собой белую зубную пластинку с трещинами и черным дефектом эмали внизу, которая вставлена спереди в металлический (золотой) зуб, 2-й резец, клык и 1-й малый коренной слева, а также 7/2 резцы и 1-й малый коренной зуб справа представляют собой обычные эмалевые зубные пластинки, фиксированные в задней своей части на основе моста. Правый клык имеет сплошную желто-металлическую (золотую) коронку.

Мостик верхней челюсти [133] слева за 2-м малым коренным зубом (L4) вертикально спилен. Нижняя челюсть лежит свободно в обгоревшей ротовой полости. Задние части альвеолярных отростков ее имеют остроконечную поверхность излома. Костная пластинка нижней челюсти обуглена с передней поверхности нижнего края. На передней поверхности ее также видны обугленные верхушки зубных корней. Нижняя челюсть имеет 15 зубов, из них искусственных 10 (2J iJLlL 2) и первый (4J) правый малый коренной зуб — естественные со значительно стертой жевательной поверхностью и обнаженной шейкой коронки.

Эмаль зубов с синеватым отливом, а шейка грязно-желтого цвета, 4-й, 5-й, 7-й и 8-й левый зубы искусственные, навесные, желто-металлические (золотые), представляют собой единый мостик золотых коронок, укрепленный на 3-м, 5-м (по мостику 6-м) и 8-м (по мостику 9-м) зубах. 2-й правый малый коренной зуб (5) покрыт желто-металлической (золотой) коронкой, связанной дугообразной пластинкой-валиком с правым клыком (3).

Часть жевательной и задней поверхности правого клыка покрыта желто-металлической (золотой) пластинкой мостика. 1-й правый большой коренной зуб — искусственный, белый, укреплен на золотой основе, связанной с мостиком второго малого коренного зуба и правого резца.

Во рту обнаружены кусочки стекла, составляющие часть стенок и дна тонкостенной ампулы. Мышцы шеи обуглены, ребра справа отсутствуют, выгорели. Правая боковая часть грудной клетки и живота выгорела, через образовавшиеся отверстия видно правое легкое, печень и кишечник. Половой член обуглен, в обоженной, но сохранившейся мошонке обнаружено только правое яичко. По ходу пахового канала — левое яичко не обнаружено.

Правая рука значительно обгорела, концы изломленных костей плеча и предплечья обуглены. Мышцы черного и местами коричневого цвета, сухие, распадаются при дотрагивании на отдельные волокна. Сохранились остатки обгоревших верхних двух третей левого плеча; свободный конец плечевой кости обуглен и выступает из сухих мягких тканей.

Обе ноги тоже обуглены, мягкие ткани во многих местах отсутствуют, обгорели и отпали. Кости обгорели и обломались. Имеется перелом правой бедренной и правой большой берцовой кости. Стопа левая отсутствует.

Б. Внутренний осмотр

Расположение внутренних органов правильное. Легкие сверху черные, на разрезе темно-красного цвета, плотноватой [135] консистенции. Слизистая верхних дыхательных путей темно-красного цвета. Полости сердца заполнены запекшейся кровью красно-бурого цвета. Мышца сердца плотная, имеет вид вареного мяса. Печень сверху черная обгоревшая, плотноватой консистенции, на разрезе желто-серого цвета. Почки уменьшенных размеров — 9x5x5,5 см. Капсула легко снимается, поверхность их гладкая; рисунок смазан. Почки имеют вареный вид. Мочевой пузырь содержит 5 кубиков желтоватого цвета мочи. Слизистая пузыря серая. Селезенка, желудок и кишечник обгоревшие, местами почти черного цвета.

Примечание: 1. Отделу Смерш 3-й ударной армии 8.5.45 г. переданы изъятые из трупа:

а) желто-металлический мост верхней челюсти с 9-ю зубами.
б) обгоревшая нижняя челюсть с 15-ю зубами.

2. Из протокола допроса гражданки Гойзерман{83.1} Кете можно предположить, что описанные в акте зубы и мостик принадлежат рейхсканцлеру Гитлеру

3. Гр. Гойзерман Кете в разговоре с главным судебным экспертом фронта подполковником Шкаравским, имевшем место 11.5.45 г.{83.2} в ХППГ № 496, детально описывала состояние зубов Гитлера. Ее описание совпадает с анатомическими данными ротовой полости вскрытого нами обгоревшего неизвестного мужчины.

Приложение: К акту прилагается пробирка с кусочками стеклянной ампулы, обнаруженной во рту трупа{83.3}.

Заключение:

На основании результатов судебно-медицинского исследования обгоревшего трупа неизвестного мужчины и результатов экспертизы других трупов этой группы (акты №№ 1—11) комиссия приходит к выводам:

1. Анатомическая характеристика трупа

Вследствие значительного обугливания тела нет возможности описать наружный вид покойного, но все же можно отметить следующее:[136]

а) Рост около 165 сантиметров (сто шестьдесят пять)
б) Возраст (по общему развитию, величине органов, по состоянию нижних резцов и правого малого коренного зуба) колеблется в пределах 50—60 лет (пятьдесят—шестьдесят).
в) Левое яичко в мошонке и по ходу семенного канала в паховом канале и малом тазу не обнаружено.
г) Основной анатомической находкой, которая может быть использована для идентификации личности, являются челюсти с большим количеством искусственных мостиков зубов, коронок и пломб (смотри акт).

2. Причина смерти

На значительно измененном огнем теле видимых признаков тяжелых смертельных повреждений или заболеваний не обнаружено.

Наличие в полости рта остатков раздавленной стеклянной ампулы, наличие таких же ампул в полости рта других трупов (см. акты №№ 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 и 13), явный запах горького миндаля от трупов (акты № 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11) и результаты судебно-химического исследования внутренностей с обнаружением цианистых соединений (акты №№ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) позволяют прийти комиссии к заключению, что в данном случае смерть наступила в результате отравления цианистыми соединениями{83.4}».
«Замечания

к акту №12 судебно-медицинского исследования обгоревшего трупа мужчины, произведенного Комиссией врачей 8/V-1945 года в городе Берлине, и к акту №13 судебно-медицинского исследования обгоревшего трупа неизвестной женщины, произведенного той же Комиссией 8/V-1945 года в городе Берлине.

К акту №12 (предположительно трупа Гитлера)

1) Из акта совершенно не видно, было ли произведено исследование костей основания черепа, что имеет в данном [139] случае очень большое значение ввиду констатирования обдуцентами «множественных мелких трещин носовых костей и костей верхней челюсти». Кроме того, направление, длина и взаимное соотношение этих трещин в акте не отмечены, что лишает возможности судить об их происхождении.

2) В акте не описано изменение внутренней поверхности аорты и других крупных сосудов, что в известной мере могло подтвердить высказанное Комиссией «по состоянию нижних резцов и первого малого коренного зуба» мнение о возрасте покойного.

3) Не изъяты части наиболее сохранившихся внутренних органов для судебно-химического исследования на присутствие в них цианистых соединений, что необходимо было сделать, независимо от возможных результатов анализа, — ввиду обнаружения в полости рта «кусочков стекла, составляющих часть стенок и дна тонкостенной ампулы».

4) Заключение Комиссии, что «смерть неизвестного мужчины наступила в результате отравления цианистыми соединениями», основано только на наличии в полости рта трупа остатков раздавленной ампулы и по аналогии с установленной Комиссией причиной смерти двух мужчин, одной женщины и 6 детей (акты № 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 и 11). Это заключение можно рассматривать только как предположительное, тем более что обдуцентами не исследовано состояние костей основания черепа и не уделено внимания вопросу о происхождении «многочисленных трещин носовых костей и костей верхней челюсти».

К акту № 13 (предположительно жены Гитлера)

1) Врачами не исследованы кости основания черепа на предмет возможного обнаружения каких-либо их повреждений, что, само собой разумеется, имеет существенное значение при решении вопроса о характере и причине смерти неизвестной женщины.

2) Из очень краткого описания «ясно выраженных кровоизлияний» вокруг отверстий в коже, неправильной формы, размером 7x0,9 см, по пар астернальной линии, слева, на уровне второго межреберного промежутка, и ясных кровоизлияний вокруг двух отверстий, размером 0,8x0,4 см, в верхней части сердечной сумки спереди нельзя сделать определенного вывода о том, что являются ли эти повреждения прижизненного или посмертного происхождения, тем более что совсем не отмечено, какой вид и характер имели стенки двух сквозных огнестрельных каналов в верхней доле левого [140] легкого. Точно так же нельзя составить твердого мнения о происхождении этих повреждений и на основании характеристики их, приведенной экспертами в данном ими заключении о причине смерти неизвестной женщины («несмотря на наличие тяжелых ранений...»).

3) Не произведено судебно-химическое исследование частей внутренних органов на присутствие в них цианистых соединений, к чему Комиссия прибегала во всех тех случаях, когда при исследовании ими других трупов ощущался «запах горького миндаля».

Некоторые из приведенных существенных недостатков исследования трупов неизвестных мужчины и женщины, напр, отсутствие описания состояния костей оснований черепа, могут быть устранены при перевскрытии этих трупов.

Профессор (Семеновский)»
Главный судебно-медицинский эксперт 1-го Белорусского фронта Ф.И. Шкаравский"

Enjoy!

"Акт № 12

судебно-медицинского исследования обгоревшего трупа мужчины (предположительно труп Гитлера).

Whoo, go Russian!

"Акт № 12


Enjoy!


:rolleyes: You overlook the point.

We assume you guys were telling the truth.

Documentation isn't required in all actions. What else do you call one race obliterating another race?

It's far easier to declare they are hostile and must be subdued for the greator good. We have had actions that wiped out whole villages.

:gundge: :mp5: :confused: :mad: :sniper: :upyours:

It wasn’t genocide. It was simply the strong taking from the weak, as has occurred countless times throughout history. In a few hundred years, white Americans will fill about as guilty as this as the Turks feel for waltzing across Asia.

:rolleyes: You overlook the point.

We assume you guys were telling the truth.
Thank you! But we are talking about a specific and strictly defined crime against humanity, namely genocide, and there exists a necessity of proving the intent. There must be orders and letters -- the hisrtorians should delve deeply into the documents of Andrew Jackson, etc.

Documentation isn't required in all actions. What else do you call one race obliterating another race?
I know history, more or less. But I do not know why, for example, there are no Khazars left in modern Russia and Ukraine. You need evidence to prove genocide.

Actually, one can kill millions of your own countrymen and it won't be genocide -- if one hasn't singled out a particular 'national, ethnical, racial or religious group' when committing mass murder.

Thank you! But we are talking about a specific and strictly defined crime against humanity, namely genocide, and there exists a necessity of proving the intent. There must be orders and letters -- the hisrtorians should delve deeply into the documents of Andrew Jackson, etc.


I know history, more or less. But I do not know why, for example, there are no Khazars left in modern Russia and Ukraine. You need evidence to prove genocide.

Actually, one can kill millions of your own countrymen and it won't be genocide -- if one hasn't singled out a particular 'national, ethnical, racial or religious group' when committing mass murder.
of course orders exist. are you thinking it was all spontaneous?

andrew jackson ordered the removal of the cherokee and choctaw. they were forced to sign treaties or die. they were promised transportation to "indian territory" (oklahoma) that transportation turned out to be their own feet.

kit carson was ordered to remove the navajos and the mescalero apaches to bosque redondo. thousands of navajos died there.

yes these documents still exist. no im not going to look them up for you.

segregated polls are gay.

of course orders exist. are you thinking it was all spontaneous?
What exactly?

andrew jackson ordered the removal of the cherokee and choctaw. they were forced to sign treaties or die. they were promised transportation to "indian territory" (oklahoma) that transportation turned out to be their own feet.
Removal constitutes the crime of population transfer and not genocide. Population transfer was named as a war crime and a crime against humanity after WWII only. It can be argued that the crime of genocide was also defined in the 1940s; however, the events constituting genocide have never been met with approval of international law, either written or customary. On the countrary, several treaties, concluded under the aegis of the League of Nations in the 1920s, approved several instances of population transfer. Unfortunately, it was acceptable in those times...

Thus, Jackson seems to be innocent on this one.

kit carson was ordered to remove the navajos and the mescalero apaches to bosque redondo. thousands of navajos died there.
Who gave the order? Then again, it's population transfer...

yes these documents still exist. no im not going to look them up for you.
Look them up for yourself -- It's really interesting. I myself am curious to know whether the top officials of the 18th and 19th Century US sanctioned mass murder of Indians with the express intent to destroy them once and for all, like the German leaders of WWII ordered the extermination of Jews and Roma.

At the suggestion of Neu Leonstein:

Would you put the American victory over the Natives on the same level as the Turkish attempted slaughter of the Armenians and the attempted final solution of the Nazis against the Jews and other undesirables?

Before you jump on me, hear me out.

The Jews and Armenians were attacked for the sole purpose of wiping them off the face of the earth.....We only fought the natives over the land.....not that they would have, but, if they had just walked off the land and given it to us, we wouldnt have had to fire a single bullet...and everyone would have been happy.

Basically, what I'm saying is that it was never about trying to eliminate them or even kill them, it was just all about the land and who would get it.

Which leads me to this, show me one great nation that HAS NOT fought someone over land.

Basically, I think that, even though it was not Americas brightest hour, it wasnt a genocide..at all. It had nothing to do with killing and everything to do with fighting over land...something that has been done by all peoples and nations for all of history.


Got to agree with the original OP here. Although some of the things were outrageous. Although it was matched by some outrageous Native American attrocities. This is in no way the same as a wanted slaughter of millions in gas chambers. Remember most natives that died after first contact died of disease that was carried by the Europeans.

Got to agree with the original OP here. Although some of the things were outrageous. Although it was matched by some outrageous Native American attrocities. This is in no way the same as a wanted slaughter of millions in gas chambers. Remember most natives that died after first contact died of disease that was carried by the Europeans.

Agreed in regards to your post and agreed in regards to your sig. :)

segregated polls are gay.

Your gay, why do you always find something to bitch about.

Relax man...theres obviously a reason for the "segregated" poll...and even if you cant understand the reason all you have to do is ask and I'd be glad to explain it to you.

Jesus.

Got to agree with the original OP here. Although some of the things were outrageous. Although it was matched by some outrageous Native American attrocities. This is in no way the same as a wanted slaughter of millions in gas chambers. Remember most natives that died after first contact died of disease that was carried by the Europeans.

I ultimately tend to agree with this assessment. While genocide is difficult to define (and with good reason: if we defined genocide as the killing of half a million members of an ethnic group, would killing only 400,000 be okay?), the general definition is that it is the willful carrying through of an intent to exterminate or reduce an ethnic population. In this case, our intent was to forcibly evict them from the land, and if they died in the process, so be it. That is greed beyond measure and the kind of action that earns a one-way ticket to hell, but it's not the same as genocide.

It doesn't qualify as genocide, but as a previous poster put it it probably counts as ethnic cleansing.
Yes, well...like I said, show me one great nation that has not fought over land.
Switzerland? :D

It doesn't qualify as genocide, but as a previous poster put it it probably counts as ethnic cleansing.

Switzerland? :D

Hey, they've only been nuetral for like half a milenium...I'm sure they fought before that. :D

Anyway, stop picking apart my arguments, ya bastard..:p

I'm going to kill someone but I'm not going to write down anything about it! Without documents it will be as if it never happened and the police will be helpless! The perfect crime! HA HA HAHAHA!

Meh. Proving malice aforethought in case of murder does not require a written statement. But, if you are into 'historical criminology' and want to prove that it was, say, Henry VII who killed the Princes in the Tower, your proof can be found only in dusty letters dating from the 15th Century.