- "What do we mean by the defeat of the enemy? Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury, or any other means -- either completely or enough to make him stop fighting. . . . ."-Carl von Clausewitz-
in fairness, it is said he sent in emissaries to the towns to allow them to surrender, if they refused, every man woman and child...no quarter.
I guess my poorly supported point is, I don't think it is new, and pogroms have gone on from the beginning. Weather changes.. climate changes have caused wars for thousands of years, the only "new" part is, in "this" change man is an exacerbating influence.
For example, Genghis Khan and what he did to the Kwarezmid Empire has no analogy in modern history, at least in terms of the willingness to massacre whole populations in the cities of Bukhara, Samarkand, Herat, Tus, and Neyshabur (major cities in Central Asia at that time).
Neither Stalin nor Hitler nor Pol Pot came close (percentage-wise) to inflicting that kind of atrocity.
Oh, and as for pogroms, you are correct that they are not new. They were however unique to Jews. The word was invented afterall in specific reference to them.
In any case, on a smaller scale, killing all or many members of a village or city occurred quite often. Ever heard of the Aztecs? Or the Jurchen? etc.. Genocide was quite common in the past PhinPhan1227, though the scale was obviously different.
I already gave my argument if you cared to read it. Siege warfare took a massive toll on civilians through disease and hunger. It was not infrequent for entire cities to die from an extended siege. By surrenduring outright, the population was for the most part saved.
Now, on a small scall mass murder has certainly taken place. But you are talking tribal and city levels, not true genocide. Actually, I would argue that the first true genocidal attempt was that of the US government against the American Indian. The Aztecs aren't an example of PURPOSEFUL genocide. The Spanish wanted slaves, not corpses.
You'll see there that the Mongol conquests seem to have killed an estimated 40 million, which is as much as Mao Zedong (much of which was due to famine), and is only behind WW2 at 55 million.
Now, if you scroll down, you'll find a book on the Mongols says:
"Man make a rough guess that 1.25M people were killed in Khwarezm in two years-- that's 25% of 5M original inhabitants."
The point is when compared to many other conquests by other conquerers, the Mongols well outdid them in terms of genocide and numbers killed. Like I said, many of those killed came AFTER the conquests. It was a conquest based on revenge, not just based on acquiring territory.
So, what you need to do is show me the traditional method of siege warfare when conquering similar territory with similar population levels produced that level of destruction. You may find individual cases where much of the population died, but by and large, Genghis Khan's method produced more casualties than the traditional methods of conquests, at least in Kwarezm.
Oh, and as far as genocide and American natives are concerned, some scholars agree genocide, or at least as you put it "purposeful" mass murders, was involved:
"But while introduced disease devastated native populations, colonial brutality and economic dislocation also played significant roles. Rummel, for example, estimates a total of approximately 13.7 million democides (deliberate killings) of native Americans in the colonial and post-colonial eras."
And for our purposes, "democide" is more accurate than the strict legal definition of "genocide". Democide is defined as "The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder"