Valuing Genocide

[Rodion Romanovich]

Genocide has been the probably least effective way of waging war throughout history, always resulting in more or less genocide or assimilation of the aggressor once he has finally been defeated. To be a ruthless conqueror makes it a necessity for neighbors who value their lives to form strong alliances against you. I can't think of a single genocidal civilization which hasn't been genocided back, ruthlessly assimilated or otherwise got more back of their own medicine than they gave in the first place. Even when they get clementia when defeated, they've lost so many healthy soldiers from fighting hordes of enemies, that they can't prevent their women from being taken by those who finally defeated them. Genocide removes the fools from populations: namely, those fools who think they'll gain anything from carrying out genocide. The guilty suffer more than the victims.

Example, ww2:
Allied side casualties: 50M, divided over populations of around 1,500M persons = 3%
Axis side casualties: 12M, divided over populations of around 150M persons = 8%
Because of uncertainties in the figures I've biased them towards the opposite of the point I'm making. Still, they support my point very clearly: if you as leader think you'll help your country by genocide you're wrong, and if you as voter are considering to support a genocidal maniac leader, think again.

The sad thing is how skilled genocidal maniacs are at hiding what they're doing, and hiding their itentions when they are to be elected, so that even non-fools end up giving them the crucial early support they need to succeed in their undertakings.