NationStates Jolt Archive

What is Genocide?

'Genocide,’ consisting of the Greek ‘genos’ (race or tribe) plus the Latin ‘cide’ (killing). Many of these definitions assume some level of moral baggage, attempting to widen the definition to cover as many human-made horrors as possible. The word ‘genocide’ in common usage certainly does carry with it a special moral revulsion; but the purpose of different words is to denote fundamentally different phenomena, a purpose defeated at the expense of understanding if a word represents too wide a variety of meanings. Even on the moral front, a definition limited by theory rather than anger helps to illuminate the many facets of evil in the world: after all, is genocide really necessarily more morally reprehensible than mass killing of other types? Although more people are generally killed in a genocide than in another type of massacre, numbers should not inform morality.

The United Nations Genocide Convention, adopted in 1948, defines genocide as any of a list of specific ‘acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such.’ These acts include outright killing and infliction on the group of ‘serious bodily or mental harm [or] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,’ as well as the imposition of ‘measures intended to prevent births within the group’ or the forced transfer of group children to other groups.

Let's face it, genocide and mass murder occur in Nationstates very often, more often occuring in International Incidents, seeing as such an event would classify as an "International Incident". One thing that a lot of the people who actually commit is the serious side-effects of the population when a genocide occurs within their nations. In this thread, I'll go over exactly what happens during a genocide, as well as life after the horrible event that happened.

Why Do Genocides Occur?

(Note: I'm not looking for a debate over the specifics of these genocides, only trying to present a point on why they occur)
There are many reasons why genocides occur. I'll use some RL examples. For example, in Germany, the government blamed the economic state of the nation on the Jewish population, and proceeded to take it out on them. Hitler himself had a strong hatred for Jews. The Germans also executed political opponents such as Communists, and went as far as executing gypsies and homosexual men and women. They felt that the Aryan race was destined to be the superior race and they did all that they could to prevent political opponents from taking over.

In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin wanted the Ukraine to remain a part of the nation, so he developed methods of keeping the country at bay:

To Stalin, the burgeoning national revival movement and continuing loss of Soviet influence in the Ukraine was completely unacceptable. To crush the people's free spirit, he began to employ the same methods he had successfully used within the Soviet Union. Thus, beginning in 1929, over 5,000 Ukrainian scholars, scientists, cultural and religious leaders were arrested after being falsely accused of plotting an armed revolt. Those arrested were either shot without a trial or deported to prison camps in remote areas of Russia.

Stalin also imposed the Soviet system of land management known as collectivization. This resulted in the seizure of all privately owned farmlands and livestock, in a country where 80 percent of the people were traditional village farmers.

By mid 1932, nearly 75 percent of the farms in the Ukraine had been forcibly collectivized. On Stalin's orders, mandatory quotas of foodstuffs to be shipped out to the Soviet Union were drastically increased in August, October and again in January 1933, until there was simply no food remaining to feed the people of the Ukraine.

By the spring of 1933, the height of the famine, an estimated 25,000 persons died every day in the Ukraine. Entire villages were perishing. In Europe, America and Canada, persons of Ukrainian descent and others responded to news reports of the famine by sending in food supplies. But Soviet authorities halted all food shipments at the border. It was the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of a famine and thus to refuse any outside assistance. Anyone claiming that there was in fact a famine was accused of spreading anti-Soviet propaganda. Inside the Soviet Union, a person could be arrested for even using the word 'famine' or 'hunger' or 'starvation' in a sentence.

By the end of 1933, nearly 25 percent of the population of the Ukraine, including three million children, had perished. The Kulaks as a class were destroyed and an entire nation of village farmers had been laid low. With his immediate objectives now achieved, Stalin allowed food distribution to resume inside the Ukraine and the famine subsided. However, political persecutions and further round-ups of 'enemies' continued unchecked in the years following the famine, interrupted only in June 1941 when Nazi troops stormed into the country. Hitler's troops, like all previous invaders, arrived in the Ukraine to rob the breadbasket of Europe and simply replaced one reign of terror with another.

As you can see, the Soviet Union covered it all up, using political schemes to maintain their geographic borders, and thus, the Ukrainian farms which is called the Breadbasket of Europe. Joseph Stalin did anything in his power to maintain as many resources as he possibly could.

The Effects of Genocide on a Populace

The Trauma that the population goes through during and after a genocide is immense. The fact of the matter is that genocide brings fear to every humans' heart, seeing as a group is trying to systematically wipe an entire race/people off of the planet. The psychological effects it has on your brain is enough to completely alter the way a person thinks and the way that they live life, for the rest of their time on Earth. The effects of a genocide, especially after it has occurred is of massive distrust, especially between those who committed the crimes, those who were the targets, as well as those who are citizens of that country. If there is no trust within a specific area, between two groups of people, then clashes are almost inevitable, especially if each is always suspicious of the other group. For example, the Armenians and the Turks still have a large distrust of each other after the genocide that occured. Political relations between Armenia and Turkey have remained cold.

Bringing This into the Nationstates Perspective

Many nations within International Incidents have committed mass murder, along with genocide in their own nations, and continue on as if nothing happened. In Ukraine, the people revolted even more, after the actions of the Soviet Union began taking their effect upon the population. In the event of such a thing occuring within your nation, it is highly unlikely that your entire population will remain calm, and obey their leader. There is bound to be some sort of minority, as well as some sort of political activist group that would protest against such a thing, which has occured in every instance of genocide. The country itself would probably fall into a more unstable setting than before the event, depending on how serious it is.

The roleplaying of genocide within ones' nation is often not taken too seriously. One expects to 'execute/crucify/murder' a small group of the population and not have any sort of retaliation, whether it be political or militarily, as well as the stability of the nation to remain the same. I would prefer not to use specific examples, but there is one nation that I know of, whom has committed mass murders/execution on its own population more than ten times. These type of actions would more or less send the entire country into revolt, seeing as multiple targets have been picked. A distrust between the nation and its people has grown to unsurmountable proportions. A massive conflict is almost inevitable, if the population doesn't want its specific group to be the next executed.

Totally I agree with you. Too many n00bs come to II and start committing genocide when they don't even know what the side-effect will be. They try to copy bigger nations committing genocide, who also probably don't understand what it does. This is really a good resource to show to n00bs that commit genocide but maintain that they are unaffected by it. Good job :)

Not only n00bs are doing it... and I'll leave it at that.

Not only n00bs are doing it... and I'll leave it at that.

Exactly. This doesn't just deal with new players. There are some veterans of NationStates that still commit genocide with absolutely no side-effects.

Excellent little essay there, Euroslavia. I totally agree that nations are not RPing up to par with true genocide. I have been planning a genocidal event in my nation, which will be coming up relatively soon, and it will be preceded by several weeks of political and economic problems and be followed by the complete collapse of the government. Heh.

Very good job. You forgot one thing. You forgot to add Africa.

And also the FT effect, dont you think the nation can implement mass mind control? Or control collars? You forgot 2 important factors, these things can subdue revolt 100%.

Man, this thread has been long overdue. Thanks, Euroslavia, for putting up this. This needs to be in the II Consolidation Sticky.

Totally concur as usual Euro, keep up the good work.

The Armenians revolted against the Turks after the genocide (accepted because the comitte believed the Armenians helped the Russians at Sarikamis and would do so later) but it never threatened Turkish military actions, neither did it aid in the fall of the Turkish Government.
There have been more such cases where one group tries to destroy the other (ex-Yugoslavia, Iraq) but it rarely results in revolts(it did with Kurds and Shia in Iraq but they believed the US would help them) or uprisings in the nation of those who are guilty of genocide.

I can only agree to this thread when it is about cases where the action is directed against its own race or religion. And even then, Abdur Rahman systematicly attacked and killed Ghilzai (the biggest and most powerful tribe in Afghanistan) and moved the remnant of them north, the effect was that noone dared to take action against him. Even when he died noone tried to take the throne, so his son succeeded him peacefully. Genocide and its effects is different from case to case.

I see this as a much-needed reactionary post agaisnt the recent $genocide in $country, threads that are appearing. Definately a considation sticky worth post. Should be something, all newbs read upon entry into Nationstates.

{OOC: Most people in my nation couldn't give less of a crap if genocide is being committed, because:

A)Most of them don't belong to groups that are subject to being exterminated;
B)The groups that are being exterminated are either completely wiped out or almost completely wiped out, so there really aren't too many people who would be traumatized by it}

Exactly. This doesn't just deal with new players. There are some veterans of NationStates that still commit genocide with absolutely no side-effects.

I've been "wanting" to do some sort of genocide for my evil emperor to commit.
Would destroying entire planets count as genocide? Or more of a poor use of interrogation? Or both?

I'm using it's an introduction to a Galactic Civil War within my nation to keep civillians from rallying and helping the Malkir(my Jedi), which obviously fails because they just keep supporting the Malkir.

This was needed Euro-thanks.

{OOC: Most people in my nation couldn't give less of a crap if genocide is being committed, because:

A)Most of them don't belong to groups that are subject to being exterminated;
B)The groups that are being exterminated are either completely wiped out or almost completely wiped out, so there really aren't too many people who would be traumatized by it}

{OOC: Plus, I don't know if you could qualify my killings as 'genocide,' since I usually only kill a few hundred people at a time.}

We (And all nations participating in MGH) will cut all ties with El caudillo and boycott their goods if they boycott the MGH concerts and fundraising.

El Caudillo - People dont like to see other people murdered. Even in the most totalitarian, state-controlled and propaganda-soaked societies (ie Nazi Germany) people don't like it. Hitler never gained an elected majority, and that was before any of the organisaed anti-Jewish attacks began and a decade before extermination began first by firing squad and later by concentration camp and gas chamber, and all the time Hitler and the Nazi party attempted to hide it.

If you want to kill large numbers of people who live with the rest of your populace, there will be reprocussions. People dont like seeing their friends / neighbours / schoolmates being dragged off and shot, and when they know someone personally they're unlikely to believe your media, especially as you are so blatant about what has happened (the Nazis pretended that they were giving Jews a new and better life in Poland) and you're so blatant about your media being state-controlled.

Therefore, there are only two reasons why a significant amount of your populace doesnt rebel:

1) Fear. They're seeing people being dragged away and shot, they dont want it to happen to them. This is only a false sense of stability, however - as soon as these people feel it is safe to do so, they will take action against your government. This means that a small insurrection could quickly turn into a Civil War.

2) Loyalty and Patriotism. Clearly your people are affected by your propaganda to an extent, and a large proportion (although definately not everyone) of your people may believe it. This only works for so long, however, and then people start to disagree, and then it's only fear holding them back.

Clearly, as we can see in every country where there is an oppressive government, there will be a movement for change. In a highly oppressive society, this is most likely to be a very small, tight-knit terrorist group that will carry out bombing attacks against your government, etc. etc. In times of peace and wealth, you will probably be able to manage them. However, if you go to war and large numbers of people are called up, or there are economic problems, then the country may rapidly destabilise.

If you want to run a country, even a dictatorship, you need support. The army, the lower administrators and the general public are all people. People do not generally like to see others murdered. If you dont try to cover up what you've done (as dictators like Hitler and Mugabe do in real life) or at least restrict your killing sprees to occassional isolated incidents which you keep fairly low-key media wise, then your nation will, in the end, destabilise. It may take decades, but it will happen evenutally, and probably when you least want it to - when you're at war, or when your nation is doing badly on the international scene and people are losing faith in your Government.

EDIT: Wow. I set up to write a paragraph and ended up writing a page.

EDIT2: That was OOC, btw. Not a government statement.

It takes a little more than a totalitarian government to orchestrate a genocide. You have to have infrastructure in place to do it. The biggest one is a strong police/internal security force. A few spies will not do it.

What ended the Rwanda genocide was not the world community, not the UN peacekeepers, but RPF guerillas.

It takes a little more than a totalitarian government to orchestrate a genocide. You have to have infrastructure in place to do it. The biggest one is a strong police/internal security force. A few spies will not do it.

What ended the Rwanda genocide was not the world community, not the UN peacekeepers, but RPF guerillas.

Even if you have the "will of God" behind genocide, people will be afraid. They'll see the contradiction, explore their faith and find something against you. Then people get all riled up, and BAM! Down goes the government.

The Vintovian Minister of Culture thanks Praetonia and Euroslavia, as their Statements are Central to the MGH movement, and she hopes they are proud of that.

The Prince reiterates this Gratitude and says he admires anyone who will stand up to the horrors of genocide.

Praetonia, there is only one factor you have forgotten, how about mind control? Mind Control can be implemented by brainwashing or erasing their memories of that even or even controlling their minds directly through whatever means.

Praetonia, there is only one factor you have forgotten, how about mind control?
...

How about this isnt Sci-Fi?

I don't know, I dont think that's possible, unless you were to send every member of your populace to re-education camps (during which time they wouldnt be able to do any work, destroying your economy) for considerable periods of time (which would be prohibitively expensive even if you did have an economy left) and shoot anyone who doesnt respond correctly. Clearly, this is somewhat silly, and is unlikely to completely supress any semblence of compassion in 100% of people.

Praetonia, there is only one factor you have forgotten, how about mind control? Mind Control can be implemented by brainwashing or erasing their memories of that even or even controlling their minds directly through whatever means.

Thent he definition of murder comes into play. Can you kill a soul? Are you just imprisoning it?

A drunked Bob Vintoff stands up: 'Enough of this F****** philosophical S***, people are dying!!!!!

Please, sit down Mr. Vintoff!!

Both in that case.

I've been "wanting" to do some sort of genocide for my evil emperor to commit.
Would destroying entire planets count as genocide? Or more of a poor use of interrogation? Or both?


That would probably qualify more as an extermination. :p

But seriously, if the species living on that planet has more than one planet, then it would probably go more towards a strategic elimination of that species on the planet, and not necessarily 'genocide', though, if you were to go after all of their planets, it probably would be considered genocide.

...

How about this isnt Sci-Fi?

I don't know, I dont think that's possible, unless you were to send every member of your populace to re-education camps (during which time they wouldnt be able to do any work, destroying your economy) for considerable periods of time (which would be prohibitively expensive even if you did have an economy left) and shoot anyone who doesnt respond correctly. Clearly, this is somewhat silly, and is unlikely to completely supress any semblence of compassion in 100% of people.


Religion is sort of a mind control device, I utilze that in Parthia to keep the population in line. Besides that, I also like to muzzle the press and "dissapear" people in the middle of the night. I don't do purges like I used to, it has a tendency to make people get annoyed and to piss off a lot of nations.

A drunked Bob Vintoff stands up: 'Enough of this F****** philosophical S***, people are dying!!!!!

Please, sit down Mr. Vintoff!!

We (And all nations participating in MGH) will cut all ties with El caudillo and boycott their goods if they boycott the MGH concerts and fundraising.

OOC: This isn't a roleplay thread, it's OOC, which means Out of Character. This is meant to be a helpful guide for those who don't think of the consequences of genocide/mass murder on their nation.

Religion is sort of a mind control device, I utilze that in Parthia to keep the population in line. Besides that, I also like to muzzle the press and "dissapear" people in the middle of the night. I don't do purges like I used to, it has a tendency to make people get annoyed and to piss off a lot of nations.

Sure, religion may be a great way to create some sort of 'mind control', but you will probably never get the entire population to fall under it all. There'll always be at least a small group of people who refuse to involve themselves in religion.

Sure, religion may be a great way to create some sort of 'mind control', but you will probably never get the entire population to fall under it all. There'll always be at least a small group of people who refuse to involve themselves in religion.

True, though you also have to give people the illusion they are free, lots of non-political freedom.

Religion is sort of a mind control device, I utilze that in Parthia to keep the population in line.
The same as in Tsarist Russia and look what happened to that. I agree, it all works nicely so long as your nation is stable, but dont expect to be able to fight a major war and survive unless you win without awful casualties.

Besides that, I also like to muzzle the press and "dissapear" people in the middle of the night.
And I already covered those.

True, though you also have to give people the illusion they are free, lots of non-political freedom.

That is what my nation does!

He who indoctrinates, is the most indoctrinated.

In Guffingford, no political agenda is shoved down your throat, only bad news about other nations and how good our citizens have it. Only the most political convicted persons work for the government which means executive functions. Working as a city lawnmower doesn't involve politics or a regular police officer. The higher you climb the ladder, the more indoctrinated you become. Subversive elements are culled without mercy or expelled to St Vitus and Buford, the national prison islands. Civil rights aren't a political topic, the government stance on them is "do as you will". Some points of debate, such as homosexuality are controversial and officially punishable offences but it rarely happens. Same holds for euthenasia and abortion.

Civil libertarian and political authoritarian dictatorship outside the straightforward left-right political spectrum.

We should also mention the economic effects of genocide. Anytime one decides to wipe out a portion of one's population you are taking that population out of being a productive resourceful part of the economy and turning it into a drain that you have to spend money on.

The men, equipment and transportation used to get rid of the undesireables must all come directly from the pocket of the government, who will also lose the production capabilities and tax revenue from the populace being exterminated. Confiscated lands and money, are only a one time winfall for a government that will lose out, economically, in the long run.

It should be considered that at the height of the holocaust nearly one third of Germany's war time budget was going to support concentration camps and pay for gassess, bullets and other materials of execution and was even holding up troop movements within Germany to use trains and trucks to transport those who were to be exterminated.

Even slave labour drawn from the ranks of the victimized is detrimental overall. The slave labourers are less motivated, unhealthy and rarely produce enough to offset the cost of keeping them around to work. In 'Gulag' by Anna Applebaum, she correctly points out that despite Soviet propaganda Gulags using slave labour ran at permanent deficit even in the case of Kolyma where slave labour was used to mine gold and the labourers had next to zero resources spent on their housing and care. The simple cost of replacing the workers at Kolyma (which had a ninety percent fatality rate) was costlier than the tons of gold that was being extracted.

Move people on NS wrongly believe that genocide is only costly as far as humanity goes. It is simply a matter of taking a look at the nations that have actually practiced genocide and one can see the collapsed economies that go along with it. Few remember that at the end of World War II that Germany was so cash strapped that it wasn't paying it's soldiers, only two thirds of that was because of loss of trade and allied bombing, the other third went to finance genocide, and the massive logistics machine that must support it.

.::BUMP::.

My nation's kind of got a genocide in progress, It's a long, slow affair that won't really get much attention. and another possible one that would be viewed by the populace as self-preservation.
one is in my backstory, the other side started it, and the other a natural part of my nation's evolution.

You can be charged with genocide if you kill a small number of an ethnic minority, or even a group of people - it depends on the grounds. Though you are mostly charged with several counts of manslaughter.

.::BUMP::.

Therefore, there are only two reasons why a significant amount of your populace doesnt rebel:

1) Fear. They're seeing people being dragged away and shot, they dont want it to happen to them. This is only a false sense of stability, however - as soon as these people feel it is safe to do so, they will take action against your government. This means that a small insurrection could quickly turn into a Civil War.

2) Loyalty and Patriotism. Clearly your people are affected by your propaganda to an extent, and a large proportion (although definately not everyone) of your people may believe it. This only works for so long, however, and then people start to disagree, and then it's only fear holding them back.

And even if both those factors are in place, there's also another way to trigger a civil war, albeit a bit odd.

Should said genocided peoples commit mass suicide in public areas, the effect on the second factor (Loyalty and Patriotism) will be far greater, and then you have a rapidly decaying structure. See, being forced to see hundreds of people commiting mass suicide is far more painful than having them disappear, never to be seen again.

I got that one from Gandhi.

Who cares? nation states was created to make your own Utopia; if that includes genocides, we'll leave it at that!:gundge:







What is Genocide?

'Genocide,’ consisting of the Greek ‘genos’ (race or tribe) plus the Latin ‘cide’ (killing). Many of these definitions assume some level of moral baggage, attempting to widen the definition to cover as many human-made horrors as possible. The word ‘genocide’ in common usage certainly does carry with it a special moral revulsion; but the purpose of different words is to denote fundamentally different phenomena, a purpose defeated at the expense of understanding if a word represents too wide a variety of meanings. Even on the moral front, a definition limited by theory rather than anger helps to illuminate the many facets of evil in the world: after all, is genocide really necessarily more morally reprehensible than mass killing of other types? Although more people are generally killed in a genocide than in another type of massacre, numbers should not inform morality.

The United Nations Genocide Convention, adopted in 1948, defines genocide as any of a list of specific ‘acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such.’ These acts include outright killing and infliction on the group of ‘serious bodily or mental harm [or] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,’ as well as the imposition of ‘measures intended to prevent births within the group’ or the forced transfer of group children to other groups.

Let's face it, genocide and mass murder occur in Nationstates very often, more often occuring in International Incidents, seeing as such an event would classify as an "International Incident". One thing that a lot of the people who actually commit is the serious side-effects of the population when a genocide occurs within their nations. In this thread, I'll go over exactly what happens during a genocide, as well as life after the horrible event that happened.

Why Do Genocides Occur?

(Note: I'm not looking for a debate over the specifics of these genocides, only trying to present a point on why they occur)
There are many reasons why genocides occur. I'll use some RL examples. For example, in Germany, the government blamed the economic state of the nation on the Jewish population, and proceeded to take it out on them. Hitler himself had a strong hatred for Jews. The Germans also executed political opponents such as Communists, and went as far as executing gypsies and homosexual men and women. They felt that the Aryan race was destined to be the superior race and they did all that they could to prevent political opponents from taking over.

In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin wanted the Ukraine to remain a part of the nation, so he developed methods of keeping the country at bay:



As you can see, the Soviet Union covered it all up, using political schemes to maintain their geographic borders, and thus, the Ukrainian farms which is called the Breadbasket of Europe. Joseph Stalin did anything in his power to maintain as many resources as he possibly could.

The Effects of Genocide on a Populace

The Trauma that the population goes through during and after a genocide is immense. The fact of the matter is that genocide brings fear to every humans' heart, seeing as a group is trying to systematically wipe an entire race/people off of the planet. The psychological effects it has on your brain is enough to completely alter the way a person thinks and the way that they live life, for the rest of their time on Earth. The effects of a genocide, especially after it has occurred is of massive distrust, especially between those who committed the crimes, those who were the targets, as well as those who are citizens of that country. If there is no trust within a specific area, between two groups of people, then clashes are almost inevitable, especially if each is always suspicious of the other group. For example, the Armenians and the Turks still have a large distrust of each other after the genocide that occured. Political relations between Armenia and Turkey have remained cold.

Bringing This into the Nationstates Perspective

Many nations within International Incidents have committed mass murder, along with genocide in their own nations, and continue on as if nothing happened. In Ukraine, the people revolted even more, after the actions of the Soviet Union began taking their effect upon the population. In the event of such a thing occuring within your nation, it is highly unlikely that your entire population will remain calm, and obey their leader. There is bound to be some sort of minority, as well as some sort of political activist group that would protest against such a thing, which has occured in every instance of genocide. The country itself would probably fall into a more unstable setting than before the event, depending on how serious it is.

The roleplaying of genocide within ones' nation is often not taken too seriously. One expects to 'execute/crucify/murder' a small group of the population and not have any sort of retaliation, whether it be political or militarily, as well as the stability of the nation to remain the same. I would prefer not to use specific examples, but there is one nation that I know of, whom has committed mass murders/execution on its own population more than ten times. These type of actions would more or less send the entire country into revolt, seeing as multiple targets have been picked. A distrust between the nation and its people has grown to unsurmountable proportions. A massive conflict is almost inevitable, if the population doesn't want its specific group to be the next executed.

Who cares? nation states was created to make your own Utopia; if that includes genocides, we'll leave it at that!:gundge:

Sure, but some of us to like to play with some realistic consequences. If that's not your style, then feel free not to play with those that do.

Martentopis, if you're only going to post ten words, please don't quote all of Euroslavia's massive post. It's fairly obvious what you were responding to, in any case.

1) Fear. They're seeing people being dragged away and shot, they dont want it to happen to them. This is only a false sense of stability, however - as soon as these people feel it is safe to do so, they will take action against your government. This means that a small insurrection could quickly turn into a Civil War.

2) Loyalty and Patriotism. Clearly your people are affected by your propaganda to an extent, and a large proportion (although definately not everyone) of your people may believe it. This only works for so long, however, and then people start to disagree, and then it's only fear holding them back.

3) Tradition of Difference to Authority. Ever hear of the experiments were people agreed to inflict horrible pain on another human being just because a man in a white lab coat calmly told them it was okay? Well many societies/nations with a long history of harsh authoritarianism or Totalitarianism would most likely have developed a habitual difference to authority figures and unhealthy lacks of familiarity with (or outright hostility towards) free institutions/civil society. A lot depends on the legitimacy of the authority figures/regime in question...the regimes history (how it came into power), length of existence (if your form of government has been around for hundreds or thousands of years who are you to argue), justifying ideology, ethnic makeup (if the regime is made up entirely of the people of one tribe/ethnic group others are going to be less able to relate), and the strength of civil society compared to that of the state.

This difference will likely remain once the older order falls and pervert any democratic/republican regime that tries to take hold. For a good example look at modern Russia and the former Soviet Union, in many places the top leadership was thrown out only to be replaced by former Soviet thugs lower on the totem (and in some places the old leadership has kept itself in power). Meanwhile the old institutions of terror remain (although weakened somewhat).

4) Bribery. Regimes/Governments with faltering legitimacy, like the current rulers of the Gulf States and Iran, may choose (if they have the money available) to buy off their citizens instead of terrorizing them. Areas that are quiet will get a fancy new hospital or (if the government is really blatant) a check for each citizen in the mail. Areas that revolt...well they get nothing (and then the terror comes into play).

A perverse strategy is to combine 1 and 4, for example in Zimbabwe the government will only distribute food aid to regions that vote for the ruling party in elections.

Euroslavia: That is an excellent post that I wish I could have recommended to some nations a couple of weeks ago. Excellent research. I thought I was the only person to know about the Holodomor, 'inflict death by hunger', when Stalin killed some 15+ million people this way. What took the Nazis 12 years to kill 12 million took Stalin less than one for 15.