gunduz-aktan-kitap-soyledikleri-ve-yazdiklari

WHAT HE SAID AND WHAT HE WROTE
From the standpoint of its organization, its implementation and
its consequences, the Jewish genocide may be, as an exceptional
example, incomparable with the other cases. The decision to
introduce a “final solution” for the Jewish genocide was taken at
the Wannsee meeting in 1942, and the crime was confessed during
the Nuremberg trials. But even if the intent to destroy had not been
revealed clearly like that, one could take into account the
discriminatory laws passed against the Jews, the “pogrom” type
attacks including the “Crystal Night” of 1938, and the way the
Jews had been driven out of the society and forced to live in the
ghettos where they could not meet normal human needs as the
preliminaries heralding a genocide. Besides, the virulent anti-
Semitism had begun as a movement no less than fifteen years prior
to the genocide, and the words and writings of Hitler and the other
Nazi ideologues in the framework of that movement, make it all too
clear the intention to destroy the Jews. Similarly, among the Serbs,
having an ethnically homogenous homeland had been a widelyused
rhetoric since 1981. In fact, the ‘ethnic cleansing’ as a
concept was allegedly invented by V. Seselj, one of the Serbian
paramilitary leaders.
To prove the presence of the intent to destroy, which must be
ascertained to show that a given incident was genocide, one has to
look at the period preceding the perpetration of the acts of
genocide, and investigate whether that kind of intent had begun to
take shape. The presence of a state-like organization, a plan and
its implementation by an organized force are being considered as
factors leading to a presumption of the presence of the intent to
destroy.
Motive
Not only the intent with which the crime is committed, but also
the reason or the grounds for that intent are vitally important. This
urge is set forth as motive, described in the Nuremberg Principles
6 (e) involving the crimes against humanity, as “murder,
extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts
done to any civilian population, or persecution on political, racial
or religious grounds”. Resolution 96 (1), on the other hand, stated
that the crime of genocide may have been committed “on religious,
racial, political or any other grounds”. According to Resolution 96
(1), the motive for genocide was more comprehensive than even the
240
Gündüz Aktan