Compiled by Adam Jones
Following are three rejected posts to the H-Genocide mailing list on the subject of the Allied campaign in Afghanistan (October 2001). My correspondence with list editor Alan Jacobs is integrated with the posts, which are presented in chronological order. Readers are referred to the extraordinary comments from the H-Genocide editorial board, seeking to justify their rejection of the posts (see 24 October entry). See also the article in Counterpunch, 26 October 2001: Genocide Scholar "Silenced" on Academic List For Comments About Bombing of Afghanistan.
The following story was published in The Guardian (UK) this morning. It suggests that a) *millions* of Afghans could die this winter without an immediate and massive resumption of food aid, and b) the main impediment to such a resumption is the current U.S.-led bombing campaign against Afghanistan.
If both a) and b) are correct, or even if there is a reasonable possibility that they are correct, is it not incumbent upon the Allied coalition to place the humanitarian crisis at the top of its agenda, and to do whatever is necessary to ensure that relief shipments resume? If coalition leaders are aware of the present situation, as most of the major humanitarian agencies and international media appear to be, and choose to continue the bombing in coming weeks (with or without token airdrops of rations in non-Taliban controlled areas), could any resulting largescale mortality legitimately be termed genocidal?
Sincerely,
Adam Jones
CIDE, Mexico City
=====
Millions will die unless food convoys resume soon
Bombing and shortage of trucks add to difficulties
Paul Kelso and Rory McCarthy in Islamabad
Friday October 12, 2001
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4275641,00.html
Millions of Afghan civilians will perish in the coming months unless there is an immediate resumption of food convoys and a massive increase in the volume of food they carry into the battered country, aid agencies warned yesterday.
With 6m people threatened with starvation and winter no more than six weeks away, aid agencies face a race against time to get sufficient stockpiles of food into the country. It is a race they look almost certain to lose as long as the bombing continues.
The World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that 50,000 tonnes of food a month are needed to feed the millions on the brink of starvation, as well as the 1.5m refugees the UN anticipates will emerge as a result of the allied attacks.
With the central highlands and much of the north of the country inaccessible for up to five months in winter, stock piles of 250,000 tonnes of food have to be transported in the next four to six weeks.
Even before the current cris is reduced the flow of aid to a trickle, the largest amount of food the WFP managed to deliver in a month was 30,000 tonnes.
With bombing raids continuing day and night, it is hard to envisage how the targets can be met. Even the WFP's most optimistic forecast, that 1,800 tonnes could be moved every day until winter sets in, will leave millions facing starvation.
The WFP is attempting to accelerate its food convoys in response to the crisis. Since Wednesday three convoys loaded with more than 3,000 tonnes of food and wheat flour left Iran, Tajikistan and Pakistan.
"It is one of the most difficult tasks WFP has faced in its history," Francesco Luna, a WFP spokesman in Islamabad said last night.
"In some areas Taliban officials have begun to demand new taxes from WFP drivers. Yesterday in Spin Baldak, near the border crossing at Chaman in western Pakistan, Taliban soldiers stopped a convoy of trucks carrying 400 tonnes of food and ordered drivers to pay \\$32 (£22) in tax per tonne. We refused but we hope to be able to get the convoy through," said Mr Luna.
Three consecutive years of drought left Afghanistan on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe even before the September 11 attacks on America. Since then most foreign aid workers have left the country and local food distribution networks have been disrupted as people flee the bombing.
"We're extremely worried," said David Throp, an emergency adviser for Save the Children. "We have an extremely limited window to get food in, and every day that passes without food moving is a day lost." [...]
(For a very vivid depiction of life for ordinary people under the bombs, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,568264,00.html.)
13 October 2001
From: Alan Jacobs
H-Genocide, Editor
ajacobs@mail.h-net.msu.edu
-----
Dear Adam,
Although I feel the human tragedy deeply, I don't see how this relates to genocide or even crimes against humanity, that is, unless you subscribe to the idea all war is such a crime, in which case the starving millions of Europe after WW II would have been defined in the same way.
Jake
Dear Jake,
This is a shame; I thought the link to genocide was quite clear. If an war is being waged in a way that directly disrupts a necessary humanitarian effort, and thousands or millions die as a result, this could arguably be considered a crime against humanity, democide, genocide -- take your pick. The key is the question of intentionality, i.e., are the military actions being taken in full knowledge of their potentially catastrophic human consequences? It appears that they are, and therefore that criticisms aimed at heading off the catastrophe may well be justified. The conscious imposition of famine and resulting mass death has certainly received some attention in the genocide studies literature (e.g., Ukraine, Ethiopia). I did try to make the link to genocide explicit, and I think the message deserves to be posted. Hope you will do so.
Best wishes,
Adam
From: Alan Jacobs
H-Genocide, Editor
ajacobs@mail.h-net.msu.edu
-----
OK, fine, now show me how this war is being conducted in the manner you describe. And also show how the war is being conducted as a terror campaign, or for that matter how it is different from other wars with respect to humanitarian issues. The US is talking about rebuilding Afghanistan, is sending in food, in the air and overland. I don't think that you can reasonably call this a crime against humanity or genocide. What bothers me about your position is that you don't include Taliban or Al Qaida crimes. You always seem to be having a whack at the USA.
Genocide is a matter of intention. We have to want to create a humanitarian crisis. In this sense your question is rhetorical.
Jake
Dear Alan: I think the "mens rea" concept is relevant here. If actions are being carried out in full knowledge of the catastrophe they may be contributing to, and if that catastrophe occurs, we can infer that the acts were intentional. Literally from the day of the attacks, the U.S. has impeded the humanitarian effort, by pressuring Pakistan to close its border with Afghanistan (it remains closed to all but sporadic convoys and refugee movements, the latter in clear violation of international law). If hundreds of thousands die as a result, I know where the principal fault will lie.
With regard to the crimes of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, we have focused extensively on the former in the "Gendercide in the News" section of our Gendercide Watch website, posting stories about the genocidal massacres carried out (also with the excuse of war) against civilian populations. And I think I have been pretty clear that I consider the September 11 attacks a brutal atrocity.
I'll ask you one more time to reconsider posting the message, and then will drop it.
Best wishes,
Adam
The following excerpts are from an article titled "What's So Complex About It?," written by Michael Albert and posted to the ZNet site (http://www.zmag.org) several days ago. The article argues that the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan is now tending in a genocidal direction, primarily as a result of Allied determination to continue widespread bombing in these crucial few weeks before the onset of winter.
In my view, Albert's analysis would now need to be supplemented by strong criticism of the Taliban's recent behaviour towards foreign aid-workers, local staff, and food stocks in the country. If the Allies are indeed angling for genocide, the Taliban, with their harassment, assaults, and seizures, seem more than prepared to play the same "game."
I think there are nonetheless profound questions to be raised about the military strategies adopted in response to the September 11 atrocities, and that these should be discussed and debated by genocide scholars, among many others.
Sincerely,
Adam Jones
CIDE, Mexico City
(from Michael Albert, "What's So Complex About It?")
[...] Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said October 15, "The bombing has to stop right now. There is a humanitarian emergency." Lest anyone miss the point, he continued, "In winter the lorries cannot go in any more. Millions of Afghans will be unreachable in winter and winter is coming very, very soon." As Reuters reported (and AP carried as well, but not any U.S. newspaper or other major media outlet, as best I can tell), "the United Nations has warned of a catastrophe unless aid can get through for up to seven million Afghans." Ziegler continues, "We must give the (humanitarian) organizations a chance to save the millions of people who are internally displaced (inside Afghanistan)," adding that he was echoing an (essentially unreported) appeal made by U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson a few days earlier, who was in turn echoing reports that go back to before the bombing. Ziegler called the bombing "a catastrophe for humanitarian work." Or in the words of Christian Aid Spokesman Dominic Nutt (quoted in the Scotsman but again in no U.S. papers): "We are beyond the stage where we can sit down and talk about this over tea. If they stop the bombing we can get the food aid in, it's as simple as that. Tony Blair and George Bush have repeatedly said this is a three-stringed offensive -- diplomatic, military and humanitarian. Well the diplomatic and military are there but where is the humanitarian? A few planes throwing lunchboxes around over the mountains is laughable." You can look at reports from one AID agency after another, it is all the same story. Impending calamity, stop the bombing.
So what's complicated in all this?
Perhaps someone with a more subtle mind than mine can clarify it for me. But assuming one has the above information at hand, to me it seems to boil down to this. If we bomb (or even just threaten to bomb), they are more likely to starve. If we don't bomb (or threaten to bomb), they are less likely to starve. If we continue bombing, we are telling the innocent civilians who may starve -- not thousands but millions of them -- you just don't count. Compared to Washington's agenda, you are nothing.
And what is Washington's agenda? Remarkably, the stated aim is to get bin Laden and to try him or perhaps just execute him ourselves. We could stop the bombing and have him tried in a third country, the Taliban has noted, but that's not acceptable. So for this minuscule gradation of difference, we are told that Washington is willing to risk 7 million people. Behind the rhetoric, to me the real goals appear to be to delegitimate international law, to establish that Washington will get its way regardless of impediments and that we can and will act unilaterally whenever it suits us –- the technical term for which is to ensure that our threats remain "credible" -- and to propel a long-term war on terrorism to entrench the most reactionary policies in the U.S. and around the globe, and, along with all that, to terminate bin Laden and others. [...]
When I was a kid and first learned about Nazi Germany, like many other kids, I asked how the German population could abide such horrors. I even wondered if maybe Germans were somehow genetically evil or amoral. I have long since understood that Germans weren't different than Brits or Americans or anyone else, though their circumstances were different, but for those who still don't understand mass subservience to vile crimes induced by structural processes of great power and breadth, I have to admit that I mostly just want to shout: Look around, dammit!
We live in a highly advanced country with means of communication that are virtually instantaneous and vastly superior to what the German populace had. We don't have a dictator and brownshirts threatening everyone who dissents. Dissent here can be somewhat unpleasant and may involve some sacrifice and risk, but the price is most often way less than incarceration, much less death. That's fact one. Fact two is that our country is risking murdering a few million civilians in the next few months ... every serious commentator knows it, no serious commentator denies it ... and we are pursuing that genocidal path on the idiotic or grotesquely racist pretext that by so doing we are reducing terrorism in the world, even as we add millions to the tally of civilians currently terrorized for political purposes and simultaneously breed new hate and desperation that will yield still more terror in the future. Does anyone remember "destroying the city to save it"? What's next? Terrorize the planet to rid it of terrorists? For people of my generation, in the Vietnam War the U.S. killed roughly 2 million Vietnamese over years and years of horrible violation of the norms of justice, liberty, and plain humanity. The utterly incomprehensible truth is that the U.S. could attain that same level of massacre in the next few months, and, whether it happens or not, our leaders, our media moguls and commentators, in fact most of our "intelligentisia" are quite sanguine about doing so.
It is possible, with considerable effort, for the average person to discover that this "war" is potentially genocidal. [...] One can get that single insight, the possibility that genocidal calamity is imminent, even from the NY Times or Washington Post or any major paper that one might read, if one digs deep into it and reads it very carefully, that is. Of course, the fact that such information isn't prime time news in every outlet in the land reveals how supinely our media elevate obedience above truth. Our media pundits are seeing the AID and UN reports and calls for a bombing halt I mentioned above, they are seeing stories about these in newspapers from Scotland to India, of course, and they are simply excluding the information from U.S. communications. Yet even with this massive media obfuscation, which says volumes about our society, how hard is this war to comprehend, supposing one actually tries to comprehend it? [...]
(end of excerpts)
From: Alan Jacobs
H-Genocide, Editor
ajacobs@mail.h-net.msu.edu
-----
Dear Adam,
I checked with the editorial board on the last message of your, the one almost the same as this one. The overwhelming opinion was that we were not going to publish a message that escalated the human tragedy that is developing to the status of genocide. This was seen by them a rather large error.
As I recall, you said you would not press the matter further.
Best
Jake
23 October 2001
Dear Alan,
I would have thought that the question of whether the Allied (and Taliban) actions in Afghanistan were potentially genocidal was one that should appropriately be discussed and debated on this list, not settled out of hand by a bunch of editors. I think this is political censorship, pure and simple; and I think you and the editors may come to regret it as the current situation unfolds, though I hope not.
I will continue to attempt to post on this subject.
Sincerely,
Adam
In the last week-and-a-half or so, I have twice attempted to post messages to this list exploring the impact of Allied bombing on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. I cited statements from humanitarian agencies that the bombing campaign (along with Taliban harassment and seizures) is severely impeding the delivery of urgently-needed aid to the civilian population, and that, as a result, millions of people were at risk of starving to death in Afghanistan this winter. I then asked whether the intentional infliction of such massive human suffering could be considered genocidal (Rummel's "democidal" might also serve) if it resulted in largescale mortality. I did not personally offer a verdict, but stated my conviction that "profound questions" needed to be asked, by genocide scholars and others, about the military campaign now unfolding.
Both attempted posts have been rejected by the list editors. After the most recent rejection, I was informed (by Alan Jacobs) that the editors' "overwhelming opinion was that we were not going to publish a message that escalated the human tragedy that is developing to the status of genocide. This was seen ... [as] a rather large error."
There seems to me a fundamental question to be asked here. Is it up to the list editors to decide what can legitimately be considered a genocide and which interpretations are "erroneous," and to accept or reject posts on this basis? Is not the appropriate place to discuss and debate this issue the list itself? Lively exchanges have occurred in the past on this very theme: about the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, sanctions in Iraq, Yugoslavia/Kosovo, and the indigenous populations of the Americas. This is not to mention the enduring debate over genocide itself, which remains an "essentially-contested concept" if ever there was one.
My very strong sense from interaction with the editors in recent days is that posts on the subject of the Allied military campaign in Afghanistan must first pass a basic test of pro-Americanism. That is, *they must not even raise questions* about the possibly or potentially genocidal character of Allied actions. This would appear to render one country immune to searching critical examination, at least insofar as the taboo word "genocide" is to be employed.
This is an international mailing list that claims to provide a forum for genocide scholars worldwide. In my view, the parochialism of the list editors in closing off this sensitive subject for consideration is objectionable and unacceptable.
Sincerely,
Adam Jones
CIDE, Mexico City
adam.jones@cide.edu
23 October 2001
The following is an attempted post to the H-Genocide list from this morning. If it is rejected, I would like to request that the editorial board, or a designated editor, provide me with a clear and formal statement explaining the reasons for the rejection, and how these are compatible with the stated policy of the list -- to "make every effort to encourage a free exchange of ideas and curtail only those postings that might dilute the purpose of the list and undermine the participation of experts, professionals, and others." Since the stated purpose of the list is to discuss *all* genocides, and since I do not believe the editors have reserved the right to determine what qualifies as genocide and what doesn't, the current smothering of contributions about the Allied bombing campaign in Afghanistan seems wholly unjustifiable.
I also want to suggest that a revision of the board membership be undertaken to rectify the fact that, as it currently stands, eight out of nine editors are based in the United States. For a list with international pretensions, this seems highly unbalanced. And it seems to be playing a role in the decision to reject posts critical of the U.S. bombing campaign.
Sincerely,
Adam Jones
(text of post cut)
23 October 2001
From: Alan Jacobs
H-Genocide, Editor
ajacobs@mail.h-net.msu.edu
-----
Dear Adam,
It seems as though you are saying that if the board doesn't agree with you, then we should have an expanded board? I think this is a kind of political power play. I remind you that two board members are European Holocaust survivors. And I think the first person to be sensitive to democide would be Rudy Rummel.
I don't see that you have substantiated your claims. Also, you say that you are only raising a question, but it is clear from later messages of yours that you are making a statement. I think there are some serious human tragedies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am as concerned as you. But genocide? Sorry I don't agree and the board doesn't either. Your next step will be to take it to H-Net.
Jake
Forwarded to me on 24 October 2001 BOARD RESPONSES
1. ((( I have refused to publish this message. ))
THANK YOU>
2. (I applaud your decision.
Mr. Jones,..., is a loose cannon. The institution where he presumably teaches is a hot-bed of anti-American and anti-Western thought....
It is painfully obvious that the cold-blooded murder of 5000+ innocent people in New York has not provoked any sympathy either by Mr. Jones or by the CIDE faculty, whose web-site (in Spanish) can be seen at:
http://www.cide.mx/
There is not a single mention of the New York tragedy anywhere on that site, in spite of the fact that their name in English signifies:
"The Center for Economic Research and Education." Their areas of specialization are:
Administration, Economics, International Studies, Political Studies, Law, History and associated subjects.
To know more about Mr. Jones, visit his web-site (in English):
http://www.cide.mx/index5.html
3. >In a message dated XXX writes:
>
>(( http://www.cide.mx/index5.html ))
>following to the address of Adam Jones personal site to
>http://www.cide.mx/index5.html
> I found a heading about terrorism and a picture of the Statue of Liberty with
> NY skyline ... presumably about the 9-11 attack?
[...]
I missed it the first time around. I have now seen the picture which is innocuous enough, but the article attached to it filled me with anger and revulsion. Quite apart from his libelous and disgraceful comments about John Negroponte, he has the chutzpah to state:
===========
"Over the weekend, while absorbing the coverage of walls and lampposts in New York adorned with the innocent faces of the missing, I conducted a mental experiment. I replaced those haunting faces with the imagined faces of the Iraqi civilians, about half of them young children, who have died under the sanctions regime. I wondered what the response would be, in the U.S. and around the world, if we were exposed to saturation media coverage of Iraqis' plight: the crowded morgues and graveyards, the emaciated bodies, the barely-equipped hospitals, the children drinking from streams turned into open sewers. These victims are no less innocent than those who succumbed in the terrorist horror of last week. When they die, as they have died by the hundreds of thousands in recent years, they are no less dead. They deserve to be mourned no less deeply, unless our capacity for sympathy is hopelessly distorted by our national and "civilizational" allegiances. And those still alive and suffering have no lesser claim on our solidarity."
[...]
"Lastly, the continuing tragedy in Iraq reminds us that when the United States and its allies seek to confront "dictators" and "fanatics," the main victims are likely to be thousands of innocent civilians who have no control over the actions of their governments, or the terrorist forces those governments may harbour. If, as appears likely, the richest country in the world is now prepared to unleash its military and economic might against one or more of the poorest countries in the world, we can expect the tragic death-toll of New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania to be magnified many times over, and rapidly."
==============
The last sentence in the quotations above is a chilling
example of the terrorist apologism that is unfortunately
becoming popular among the enemies of this great
country.
I seriously doubt that Mr. Jones has ever been in Iraq. If there is poverty and starvation in that country it does not appear to show in any of its leaders. Mr. Hussein, his family and their cohorts seem fat and well-fed. They live in opulence while -- if what Mr. Jones tells us is true -- their people are dying in the streets. If anyone is guilty of Iraqi genocide it is their leadership.
4. I think we fail to separate and distinguish separate problems: there is no doubt -- at least in my mind -- that the sanctions against Iraq have hurt those already badly off and have not done any harm or in any way really "disturbed" the likes of Sadam Hussein. For that reason they really "do not work". Bombing of Afghanistan is not quite the same issue -- if it is done so as to ruin military installations. There will be civilian and "innocent"! casualties which is unavoidable. There is a further problem we fail to distinguish -- the fact that the U.S. bears a good deal of guilt in allowing people like Hussein or bin Laden (or the Taliban, Noriega, etc., etc., etc.) to get where they are, the fact that we have consistently exploited the third world, enriched its already wealthy and tacitly assented to their exploiting their own people is undoubtedly true -- and it means that we ought to learn from it and try not to repeat it. But the other fact is the terrorism, the WTC, etc. -- and that means that we have to deal with the world-wide terror network effectively. Doing the latter without learning from it not to help re-create it is an exercise in futility. But having said that we must effectively deal with the current terror threat. I point to an article in the Sunday Times Magazine section a week ago Sunday and reprinted several places which in essence said: "yes, this is a religious war. But it is not Christian/Muslim or Protestant/Catholic but it is between those who believe that the state should be quite separate from the church and those who hold that the state is an instrument of the church. And that put people like Falwell and bin Laden (together with all those who believe that they hold the one great truth -- religious or secular) on the same side of the barricade. Here, by the way, is that article http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/magazine/07RELIGION.html?ex=1003663638&ei=
5. I have seen posts similar to Mr. Jones' before. Usually it is one of two contexts.
Occasionally, I have very young students who with a lack of information and still developing critical thinking skills will make such statements. They demonstrate the claim that a little bit of knowledge can indeed be a dangerous thing. Clearly these are teaching moments.
On other occasions, you will find individuals who use selected bits of truth and exaggerate for propaganda purposes. To lend further weight to their argument, they will often use an established horror such as the Holocaust or now the atrocities of 9/11 to add a "moral" weight to their cause. Unfortunately, the analogy is used inappropriately and consists of comparing apples to automobiles. The propagandist just hopes that no one notices the inappropriate comparison as they are striving for an emotional as opposed to intellectual response.
Whether Mr. Jones is simply sophomoric or is intentionally manipulative, neither type of post has a place on H-Genocide.
24 October 2001
Alan, I just saw the other message from you, with the editorial board's comments. I don't think there could be more vivid evidence of the profound defensiveness and political partisanship that underlies the decision to reject the posts. The condescending and ad hominem tone of most of the comments would be vicious if it were not so laughable. Most amusing of all is the designation of my institution as a "hotbed of anti-American and anti-Western thought." In fact, CIDE is about the most mild-mannered and mainstream institution imaginable, and I have taken a fair amount of flak on campus for giving voice to the views I have expressed on H-Genocide in the recent past. I'm sorry the powers-that-be here have chosen not to use our institutional website to post lachrymose odes to American suffering, but I don't have much control over that.
Please forgive me for declining to take any of this very seriously. If H-Genocide is one day willing to assemble an editorial board that reflects a true diversity of opinion, rather than a pro-Americanism that at times borders on fanaticism, it will go much further towards fulfilling its considerable promise.
Best wishes,
Adam
Another interesting dimension of this piece of correspondence is the reference to "Peter" reading and commenting on the wording of the ban. This is Peter Knupfer, editor of H-Net, who was supposed to be impartially adjudicating my complaint against H-Genocide. Instead, Knupfer was clearly collaborating closely with the H-Genocide editors in the process of cancelling my publishing privileges. Shame!
From: Alan Jacobs ___________________-
Sorry to send you so many messages. I sent the first vote summary today by
mistake. I meant to put it in my drafts folder... I am going to draft the
message denying him [i.e., me] publishing messages today. Peter [Knupfer -- see above] has offered to see it
and make comments. Then I will send it.
I will hold off on the cancellation of subscription for a bit. As it now
stands more than two thirds of those voting are in favor of canceling.
Unless someone makes a compelling argument against doing so, it seems as if
this is what we will do.
Jake
Vote to reinstate Dr. Adam Jones publishing privileges.:
NO:
YES
HAVE NOT VOTED
VOTE TO CANCEL SUBSCRIPTION
NO
YES
Remaining: 3
In April 2003, I noticed I was no longer receiving H-Genocide posts, and a subsequent automatic query to H-Net suggested I had been "unsubscribed" from H-Genocide. On 7 May, I wrote to list editor Jacobs requesting an explanation. His response:
From: Alan Jacobs
AJ,
The board, upon my request, voted to cancel your subscription.
The reason? Your use and support of scurrilous lies and slanders
against me
and the board. And your use of tactics outside the bounds of
editor/author
relations, and of scholarly discourse and behavior. Also your
failure do do
what you promised H-Net regarding the messages you posted to the
Internet.
Sincerely,
In an intriguing display of Jacobs's notion of appropriate "scholarly discourse and behavior," on 7 June 2005, at the business luncheon of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) conference in Boca Raton, Florida, Jacobs accosted me in a choleric rage. He launched into an obscene tirade of abuse -- calling me, among other things, a "motherfucker" and a "son-of-a-bitch," and stating his desire to take me outside "and beat the shit out of you." I had said nothing to Jacobs to provoke the assault; indeed, I had not exchanged so much as a word with him during the conference, and had had no contact with him since the above correspondence in 2003.
- end -
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:57:33 -0500
To: Discussion list for the H-Genocide Editorial Board
Subject: Vote and rational [sic] for cancellation of subscription
Jim Allen, Craig Etcheson, Helen Fein, David Fisher, Alan Jacobs,
Erich Loewy, Harry Mazal, Charlotte Opfermann,
Dennis Papazian, Rudy Rummel, Linda Woolf
Total: 11
Perhaps Joyce [Apsel] (Unclear)
Greg Stanton, Rene Lemarchand
Total: 2
Linda Woolf, David Fisher, Joyce Aspel [sic]
Total 3
Craig Etcheson, Alan Jacobs, Harry Mazel, Charlotte Opfermann
Rudy Rummel, Erich Loewy, Jim Allen, Helen Fein
Total 8
May 2003 Update:
H-Genocide, Editor
ajacobs@mail.h-net.msu.edu
-----
AJ
2005 Update:
