Benjamin Valentino

Last updated

Benjamin Andrew Valentino (born 1971) [1] is a political scientist and professor at Dartmouth College. [2] His 2004 book Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century , adapted from his PhD thesis and published by Cornell University Press, has been reviewed in several academic journals. [3]

Contents

Analysis

Analysis of genocide and mass killing

In Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century , [5] Valentino sees ruler's motives, [6] rather than ideology, [7] as the key factor explaining the onset of genocide. [nb 1] Valentino says that ideology, racism, and paranoia can shape leaders' beliefs for why genocide and mass killing can be justified. [8] [nb 2] Valentino outlines two major category of mass killings, namely dispossessive mass killings and coercive mass killings. The first category includes ethnic cleansing, killings that accompany agrarian reforms in some Communist states and killings during colonial expansion, among others. The second category includes killings during counterinsurgency warfare and killings as part of imperialist conquests by the Axis powers during World War II, among others. [10] Valentino does not see authoritarianism or totalitarianism as explaining mass killing. [11] See quotes

Valentino develops his mass killing [nb 3] concept through eight-case studies, three of which fit the legal definition of genocide (the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the Rwandan genocide), while the other five are about politicide cases of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, Communist China under Mao Zedong, Democratic Kampuchea under the Khmer Rouge, [11] [nb 4] the anti-communist regime in Guatemala (the Guatemalan genocide), and Afghanistan during the Soviet–Afghan War. [20] Although he does not consider ideology or regime type as an important factor that explains these killings, [11] Valentino outlines Communist mass killing as a subtype of dispossessive mass killing, [8] which is considered as a complication of original theory his book is based on. [11] In regard to Communist mass killings, [nb 5] Valentino does not connect them and only discusses the Stalin era, the Mao era, and the Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia, and excludes counter-insurgency mass killings, which he groups in his book with similar killings by capitalist regimes; [7] they were not ideologically driven but resulted from the same motivations as non-Communist states. [3]

Power transition theory

Writing with Richard Ned Lebow and critiquing power transition theory, Valentino states, "Power transition theorists have been surprisingly reluctant to engage historical cases in an effort to show that wars between great powers have actually resulted from the motives described by their theories." [23] : 31 

Selected works

Notes

  1. ↑ Valentino's proposed concept is that mass killings are the results of leader's personality, rather than some particular ideology, or socioeconomic, ethnic, or other factors. Valentino analyzed eight separate cases divided on three subgroups. For each case or subgroup, Valentino engaged in an analysis of similar societies which did not engage in mass killings. [7]
  2. ↑ For Valentino, ideology is not an important factor, while the leader's personality is the key factor that can explain mass killings. [7] In explaining why ideology alone, or as he terms it "positive support", is not the cause of mass killing, Valentino quotes the maxim "When good men do nothing", which is often incorrectly attributed to Edmund Burke, and says that mass killing occurs when victims are unable to escape or defend themselves, and when passive people, who are unaffected by it, provide "negative support" by not being willing to take risk on behalf of others. Valentino writes that "mass killing often seems to require little more than what might be called 'negative support'—the inability of victims to escape or defend themselves, the absence of organized domestic or international perpetrators, and the lack of public willingness to take personal risks on behalf on others." According to Valentino, discrimination, hatred, and negative stereotypes directed at social groups "may not be enough on their own to provoke support for extermination, but widespread attitudes of this king may be sufficient to block effective opposition to it." In this sense, Valentino quotes Vladimir Brovkin as saying that "a vote for the Bolsheviks in 1917 was not a vote for Red Terror or even a vote for dictatorship of the proletariat." For Valentino, most scholars do not attribute the Nazis' electoral success to "the appeal of radical anti-Semitic ideas, let alone support for the extermination of the Jews", and says that the Nazi regime, and Adolf Hitler in particular, "remained broadly popular even as increasingly radical anti-Semitic measures were enacted." [9]
  3. ↑ Valentino defines mass killing as "the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants", where a massive number is defined as at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less; [12] this is the most accepted quantitative minimum threshold for the term. [13] Valentino states that "mass killings on a smaller scale" also appear to have been carried out by Communist regimes in eastern Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, and in the Third World, [14] using a threshold of 1,000 killed, [15] but the lack of documentation prevents definitive judgement about the scale of these events and the motives of the perpetrators. [16] Valentino attributes killings from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and occupation of the country between 1978 and 1989 as counter-guerrilla mass killing. [17] Citing Rudolph Rummel and The Black Book of Communism , both of which are controversial for their high-end estimates and have been criticized by other scholars for their flaws and methodology, [18] among others, Valentino estimates that mass killings in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and Democratic Kampuchea ranged from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million, and writes that the "highest end of the plausible range of deaths attributed to communist regimes" was "up to 110 million." [19]
  4. ↑ Valentino did not analyze or generalize all Communist states and mass killing, Communist mass killings in general, or that they belong to the same category, considering Stalin's mass killings as a different category from those in Afghanistan. The chapter "Communist Mass Killings" describes the three concrete cases (Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot), which are then contrasted with another case (Afghanistan), which is categorized as counter-guerrilla mass killing. [20] Valentino writes: "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing. In addition to shedding light on why some communist states have been among the most violent regimes in history, therefore, I also seek to explain why other communist countries have avoided this level of violence." [14]
  5. ↑ Valentino says that mass killing is not caused by communism, or any particular ideology, [7] and writes that it occurs when power is in the hands of one person or a small number of people, [21] and there is a "revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society." [22]

Quotes

1. ^ ( Stanton 2004 ) says:

"That's traditional perspective on it, but Valentino believes otherwise. In his view, mass killing represents a rational choice of elites to achieve or stay in political power in the face of perceived threats to their dominance. Valentino develops his argument through eight case studies. Three fit the legal definition of genocide (the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a 'national, ethnical, racial, or religious group'): Armenia, the Holocaust, and Rwanda. The remaining five amount to what political scientist Barbara Harff calls 'politicide,' mass killing for political reasons: Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia, Guatemala, and Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. By emphasizing cases of politicide over those of genocide, Valentino stacks the deck in favor of his politics-centered argument from the start." [20]

2. ( Alexander 2004 ) states:

"Valentino sets out to diminish the role that ethnicist ideologies and other social dysfunctions play in explanations of genocides. He instead traces these terrible outcomes to small sets of committed rulers, for whom mass murder is an instrumental means to such ends as regime security from suspect or threatening minority groups. As such, his thesis touches directly on the question of whether such regimes require the active support of at least important segments of the general population in order to carry out genocides. In arguing they do not, he categorizes most citizens of afflicted societies as bystanders and frontally challenges Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's claim that a committed regime and an 'eliminationist' culture are both necessary conditions for a genocidal outcome. Valentino tests his thesis against an array of evidence that is admirable in two ways. First, including Maoist China and military-ruled Guatemala retrieves often-overlooked cases for our consideration. Second, adding China, the USSR, and Soviet occupied Afghanistan may remind readers—too many of whom need reminding—just how many innocents were slaughtered by Communist regimes. For its many virtues, the analysis disappoints in two key ways. First, the study does not really identify the origins of rulers' beliefs about the threats they face. This matters because if he cannot explain in rationalist terms why Nazis believed they had to kill Jewish grandmothers in Poland, then Valentino risks inviting ideational explanations for genocides in through the back door, preserving the form of an instrumentalist account but not its content. Second, he ultimately does not explain why rulers resorted to genocide to deal with threats as opposed to other option." [24]

3. ( Ikenberry 2004 ) writes:

"In this astute and provocative study, Valentino argues instead that leaders, not societies, are to blame. In most cases, he finds that powerful leaders use mass killing to advance their own interests or indulge their own hatreds, rather than to carry out the desires of their constituencies. This 'strategic' view emerges from a review of mass killing in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia; ethnic killing in Turkish Armenia, Nazi Germany, and Rwanda; and counter-guerrilla killing in Guatemala and Afghanistan." [17]

4. ( Priselac 2005 ) says:

"After defining mass killing as the intentional killing of noncombatants resulting in 50,000 or more deaths within a five-year period, Valentino examines a number of specific cases to explain his theory. In this 'strategic approach' to assessing mass killing, Valentino divides his case studies into three types: Communist, ethnic and counter-guerrilla. He examines the communist regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot; mass killing based on ethnicity in Rwanda, Nazi Germany, and Turkey; and mass killings during counter-guerrilla operations in the Guatemalan civil war and under the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. One of Valentino’s central arguments is that 'characteristics of society at large, such as pre-existing cleaves, hatred and discrimination between groups and non-democratic forms of government, are of limited utility in distinguishing societies at high risk for mass killing.' Valentino's strongest arguments in support of this statement are his comparative studies of regimes that committed mass killing with similar regimes that did not." [25]

5. ( Chirot 2005 ) states:

"He claims that almost all cases are initiated by small groups of leaders, not by mass hatred or intolerance nor by poverty and suffering. Those deplorable conditions are very widespread, yet mass political murder on a genocidal scale is much less frequent. Not only is it beyond our capacity to end human nastiness and misery, but in any case, leaders not structural conditions or the wrong cultural values are responsible for mass slaughter. Perhaps even more important is the clear evidence that genocidal acts are ordered by those leaders for instrumental purposes, to gain very specific political ends. They are neither irrational outbursts of emotion nor driven by mass hatred. They are calculated strategies by powerful elites, sometimes even by single dictators who feel that they and their cherished programs are gravely endangered by the existence of hostile enemies who must be either terrorized into submission or eliminated entirely. Not trading with them, or threatening them with justice, is unlikely to stop them because by the time the decision to engage in mass killing has been taken, they view the situation as desperate.

Looking only at the 20th-century cases and focusing on eight specific cases, Valentino is able to provide a reasonable amount of detail about each one to support his strong conclusions. He divides the kinds of 'final solutions' into three types. First, he looks at Stalin's mass murders, at those in Mao’s China, and at the Khmer Rouge genocide. In all three cases, a small cadre of leaders led by a dedicated revolutionary chief was driven by utopian fantasies and ideological certitude that made it see enemies everywhere and kill millions. The fact that the leaders' people did not conform to revolutionary ideals could not mean that these ideals were wrong but that, instead, there were many traitors and saboteurs who had to be eliminated. Their revolutionary paranoia was much more than the personal monstrosity of each of these leaders but a fundamental part of their worldview and that of those immediately around them." [21]

6. ( Scott 2005 ) writes:

"Valentino argues for a 'strategic approach' to understand the etiology of mass killing that 'seeks to identify the specific situations, goals, and conditions that give leaders incentives to consider this kind of violence' (p. 67). He tells us that this approach is more productive because it focuses the observers' attention on mass killing as a strategy to a larger end and not necessarily an end in itself. We are reminded that mass public support is unnecessary for mass killings to occur. All that is needed is a group of people — large or small — having the requisite resources: political power, the ability to employ force, and opportunity to work their murderous mayhem.

Valentino's typology of mass killings is well supported by persuasive examples of episodes of violence against civilians. These cover a wide historical sweep, from the former Soviet Union, Turkish Armenia, and Nazi Germany, to the more recent examples from Cambodia, Guatemala, Afghanistan and Rwanda." [26]

7. ( Krain 2006 ) says:

"Valentino lays out the strategic logic of mass killing at length and proceeds to examine in separate chapters three different types of cases—communist, ethnic, and counter-guerrilla mass killings—each with its own unique and deadly logic. In each chapter, relevant cases of mass killings are subjected to thorough historical process tracing in order to highlight the role of the elite decision-making calculus. In each chapter, the author also briefly discusses cases in which mass killings did not occur." [27]

8. ( Aydin 2006 ) states:

"In Final Solutions, Valentino investigates the roots of this human tragedy and finds the answers — not in broad political and social structures within a society frequently modeled in human security studies, but in the goals and perceptions of small and powerful groups carrying out these policies. Valentino's rationalist approach to the study of mass killings is novel and insightful. He presents historical evidence that shows that leaders resorting to 'final solutions' are highly influenced by radical goals that touch the social fabric of society and their perception of effective strategies to best suppress the popular dissent that usually follows the implementation of these goals. Most importantly, Valentino's analysis is far reaching. Its emphasis on the rationality of killers and the instrumentality of mass killings shows that the scientific study of mass killings is possible and desirable, despite the ethical dimension of the issue." [28]

9. ( Tago & Wayman 2010 ) writes:

"Disagreeing with Rummel's finding that authoritarian and totalitarian government explains mass murder, Valentino (2004) argues that regime type does not matter; to Valentino the crucial thing is the motive for mass killing (Valentino, 2004: 70). He divides motive into the two categories of dispossessive mass killing (as in ethnic cleansing, colonial enlargement, or collectivization of agriculture) and coercive mass killing (as in counter-guerrilla, terrorist, and Axis imperialist conquests)." [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democide</span> Government-sanctioned killing

Democide refers to "the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command." The term was first coined by Holocaust historian and statistics expert, R.J. Rummel in his book Death by Government, but has also been described as a better term than genocide to refer to certain types of mass killings, by renowned Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer. According to Rummel, this definition covers a wide range of deaths, including forced labor and concentration camp victims, extrajudicial summary killings, and mass deaths due to governmental acts of criminal omission and neglect, such as in deliberate famines like the Holodomor, as well as killings by de facto governments, for example, killings during a civil war. This definition covers any murder of any number of persons by any government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Totalitarianism</span> Extreme form of authoritarianism

Totalitarianism is a political system and a form of government that prohibits opposition political parties, disregards and outlaws the political claims of individual and group opposition to the state, and controls the public sphere and the private sphere of society. In the field of political science, totalitarianism is the extreme form of authoritarianism, wherein all socio-political power is held by a dictator, who also controls the national politics and the peoples of the nation with continual propaganda campaigns that are broadcast by state-controlled and by friendly private mass communications media.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Homicide</span> Killing of a human by another human

Homicide is an act in which a person causes the death of another person. A homicide requires only a volitional act, or an omission, that causes the death of another, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm. It is separate from suicide.

Mass killing is a concept which has been proposed by genocide scholars who wish to define incidents of non-combat killing which are perpetrated by a government or a state. A mass killing is commonly defined as the killing of group members without the intention to eliminate the whole group, or otherwise the killing of large numbers of people without a clear group membership.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">R. J. Rummel</span> American political scientist (1932–2014)

Rudolph Joseph Rummel was an American political scientist, a statistician and professor at Indiana University, Yale University, and University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. He spent his career studying data on collective violence and war with a view toward helping their resolution or elimination. Contrasting genocide, Rummel coined the term democide for murder by government, such as the genocide of indigenous peoples and colonialism, Nazi Germany, the Stalinist purges, Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, and other authoritarian, totalitarian, or undemocratic regimes, coming to the conclusion that democratic regimes result in the least democides.

<i>The Black Book of Communism</i> 1997 book by Stéphane Courtois and others

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression is a 1997 book by Stéphane Courtois, Andrzej Paczkowski, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Margolin, and several other European academics documenting a history of political repression by communist states, including genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, and deaths in labor camps and allegedly artificially created famines. The book was originally published in France as Le Livre noir du communisme: Crimes, terreur, répression by Éditions Robert Laffont. In the United States, it was published by Harvard University Press, with a foreword by Martin Malia. The German edition, published by Piper Verlag, includes a chapter written by Joachim Gauck. The introduction was written by Courtois. Historian François Furet was originally slated to write the introduction, but he died before being able to do so.

Soviet and communist studies, or simply Soviet studies, is the field of regional and historical studies on the Soviet Union and other communist states, as well as the history of communism and of the communist parties that existed or still exist in some form in many countries, both inside and outside the former Eastern Bloc, such as the Communist Party USA. Aspects of its historiography have attracted debates between historians on several topics, including totalitarianism and Cold War espionage.

Political repression is the act of a state entity controlling a citizenry by force for political reasons, particularly for the purpose of restricting or preventing the citizenry's ability to take part in the political life of a society, thereby reducing their standing among their fellow citizens. Repression tactics target the citizenry who are most likely to challenge the political ideology of the state in order for the government to remain in control. In autocracies, the use of political repression is to prevent anti-regime support and mobilization. It is often manifested through policies such as human rights violations, surveillance abuse, police brutality, imprisonment, involuntary settlement, stripping of citizen's rights, lustration, and violent action or terror such as the murder, summary executions, torture, forced disappearance, and other extrajudicial punishment of political activists, dissidents, or general population. Direct repression tactics are those targeting specific actors who become aware of the harm done to them while covert tactics rely on the threat of citizenry being caught. The effectiveness of the tactics differ: covert repression tactics cause dissidents to use less detectable opposition tactics while direct repression allows citizenry to witness and react to the repression. Political repression can also be reinforced by means outside of written policy, such as by public and private media ownership and by self-censorship within the public.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic Kampuchea</span> 1975–1979 state in Southeast Asia

Democratic Kampuchea was the official name of the Cambodian state from 1975 to 1979, under the totalitarian dictatorship of Pol Pot and the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK), commonly known as the Khmer Rouge. It was established following the Khmer Rouge's capture of the capital Phnom Penh, effectively ending the United States-backed Khmer Republic of Lon Nol. After Vietnam took Phnom Penh in 1979, it was disestablished in 1982 with the creation of the CGDK in its place.

The actions by governments of communist states have been subject to criticism across the political spectrum. Communist party rule has been especially criticized by anti-communists and right-wing critics, but also by other socialists such as anarchists, democratic socialists, libertarian socialists, orthodox Marxists, and Trotskyist communists. Ruling communist parties have also been challenged by domestic dissent. According to the critics, rule by communist parties has often led to totalitarianism, political repression, restrictions of human rights, poor economic performance, and cultural and artistic censorship.

Communism is a sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement, whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state.

Political cleansing of a population is the elimination of categories of people in specific areas for political reasons. The means may vary and include forced migration, ethnic cleansing and population transfers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66</span> Anti-communist killings and unrest in Indonesia following a coup détat attempt

Large-scale killings and civil unrest primarily targeting members and supposed sympathizers of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) were carried out in Indonesia from 1965 to 1966. Other affected groups included alleged communist sympathisers, Gerwani women, trade unionists, ethnic Javanese Abangan, ethnic Chinese, atheists, so-called "unbelievers", and alleged leftists in general. According to the most widely published estimates at least 500,000 to 1 million people were killed, with some estimates going as high as two to three million. The atrocities, sometimes described as a genocide or a politicide, were instigated by the Indonesian Army under Suharto. Research and declassified documents demonstrate the Indonesian authorities received support from foreign countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass killings under communist regimes</span>

Mass killings under communist regimes occurred through a variety of means during the 20th century, including executions, famine, deaths through forced labour, deportation, starvation, and imprisonment. Some of these events have been classified as genocides or crimes against humanity. Other terms have been used to describe these events, including classicide, democide, red holocaust, and politicide. The mass killings have been studied by authors and academics and several of them have postulated the potential causes of these killings along with the factors which were associated with them. Some authors have tabulated a total death toll, consisting of all of the excess deaths which cumulatively occurred under the rule of communist states, but these death toll estimates have been criticised. Most frequently, the states and events which are studied and included in death toll estimates are the Holodomor and the Great Purge in the Soviet Union, the Great Chinese Famine and the Cultural Revolution in the People's Republic of China, and the Cambodian genocide in Democratic Kampuchea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-communist mass killings</span> Politically motivated mass killings of communists

Anti-communist mass killings are the politically motivated mass killings of communists, alleged communists, or their alleged supporters which were committed by anti-communists and political organizations or governments which opposed communism. The communist movement has faced opposition since it was founded and the opposition to it has often been organized and violent. Many anti-communist mass killing campaigns waged during the Cold War were supported and backed by the United States and its Western Bloc allies. Some U.S.-supported mass killings, including the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 and the killings by the Guatemalan military during the Guatemalan Civil War, are considered acts of genocide,

Barbara Harff is professor of political science emerita at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. In 2003 and again in 2005 she was a distinguished visiting professor at the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University. Her research focuses on the causes, risks, and prevention of genocidal violence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ten stages of genocide</span> Academic model explaining how genocides occur

The ten stages of genocide, formerly the eight stages of genocide, is an academic tool and a policy model which was created by Gregory Stanton, the founding president of Genocide Watch, in order to explain how genocides occur. The stages of genocide are not linear, and as a result, several of them may occur simultaneously. Stanton's stages are a conceptual model with no real-world sampling for analyzing the events and processes that lead to genocides, and they are also a model for determining preventative measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genocide prevention</span> Any act or actions that works toward averting future genocides

Prevention of genocide is any action that works toward averting future genocides. Genocides take a lot of planning, resources, and involved parties to carry out, they do not just happen instantaneously. Scholars in the field of genocide studies have identified a set of widely agreed upon risk factors that make a country or social group more at risk of carrying out a genocide, which include a wide range of political and cultural factors that create a context in which genocide is more likely, such as political upheaval or regime change, as well as psychological phenomena that can be manipulated and taken advantage of in large groups of people, like conformity and cognitive dissonance. Genocide prevention depends heavily on the knowledge and surveillance of these risk factors, as well as the identification of early warning signs of genocide beginning to occur.

<i>Final Solutions</i> 2003 book

Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century is a 2003 book by Benjamin Valentino on the political factors of mass killing and genocide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outline of genocide studies</span>

Below is an outline of articles on the academic field of genocide studies and subjects closely and directly related to the field of genocide studies; this is not an outline of acts or events related to genocide or topics loosely or sometimes related to the field of genocide studies. The Event outlines section contains links to outlines of acts of genocide.

References

  1. ↑ Valentino 2001.
  2. ↑ Valentino Faculty Directory.
  3. 1 2 Stanton 2004; Alexander 2004; Ikenberry 2004; Priselac 2005; Chirot 2005; Miller 2005; Christie 2005; Scott 2005; Krain 2006; Aydin 2006; Straus 2007; Tago & Wayman 2010.
  4. ↑ Straus 2007; Tago & Wayman 2010.
  5. ↑ Valentino 2013, pp. 66, 93: "I content mass killing occurs when powerful groups come to believe it is the best available means to accomplish certain radical goals, counter specific types of threats, or solve difficult military problem. ... I argue that radical communist regimes have proven such prodigious killers primarily because the social change they sought to bring about have resulted in the sudden and nearly complete material and political dispossession of millions of people. These regimes practiced social engineering of the highest order. It is the revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society that distinguishes radical communist regimes from all other forms of government, including less violent communist regimes and noncommunist, authoritarian governments." See also p. 70 for his proposed concept of coercive and dispossessive mass killing, and their subcategories. [4]
  6. ↑ Stanton 2004; Alexander 2004; Chirot 2005.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Stanton 2004; Ikenberry 2004; Priselac 2005.
  8. 1 2 Straus 2007.
  9. ↑ Valentino 2005, pp. 32–34. See also pp. 32–37.
  10. ↑ Straus 2007, p. 116: "... Valentino identifies two major types, each with three subtypes. The first major type is 'dispossessive mass killing,' which includes (1) 'communist mass killings' in which leaders seek to transform societies according to communist principles; (2) 'ethnic mass killings,' in which leaders forcibly remove an ethnic population; and (3) mass killing as leaders acquire and repopulate land. The second major type of mass killing is 'coercive mass killing,' which includes (1) killing in wars when leaders cannot defeat opponents using conventional means; (2) 'terrorist' mass killing when leaders use violence to force an opposing side to surrender; and (3) killing during the creation of empires when conquering leaders try to defeat resistance and intimidate future resistance."
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Tago & Wayman 2010.
  12. ↑ Bach-Lindsay, Huth & Valentino 2004.
  13. ↑ Tago & Wayman 2010; Esteban, Morelli & Rohner 2010.
  14. 1 2 Valentino 2013, p. 91.
  15. ↑ Ulfelder & Valentino 2008, p. 2.
  16. ↑ Valentino 2013, p. 75.
  17. 1 2 Ikenberry 2004.
  18. ↑ Harff 1996; Hiroaki 2001; Paczkowski 2001; Weiner 2002; Dulić 2004; Harff 2017.
  19. ↑ Valentino 2013, pp. 75, 275.
  20. 1 2 3 Stanton 2004.
  21. 1 2 Chirot 2005.
  22. ↑ Valentino 2013, pp. 91–93.
  23. ↑ Ma, Xinru; Kang, David C. (2024). Beyond Power Transitions: The Lessons of East Asian History and the Future of U.S.-China Relations. Columbia Studies in International Order and Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN   978-0-231-55597-5.
  24. ↑ Alexander 2004.
  25. ↑ Priselac 2005.
  26. ↑ Scott 2005.
  27. ↑ Krain 2006.
  28. ↑ Aydin 2006.

Bibliography

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.