By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad, the discovery of mass graves in Syria reveals evidence of widespread atrocities, with former U.S. war crimes ambassador Stephen Rapp estimating over 100,000 victims of a state-run “machinery of death.” Rapp, citing visits to mass graves near Damascus, compared the scale of abuses to Nazi-era crimes. Images from the sites, including those released by the White Helmets, depict numerous recovered remains, corroborating past satellite imagery suggesting large-scale burial activities. This evidence contributes significantly to ongoing efforts to document Syrian war crimes.
Read the original article here
Syrian mass graves are revealing evidence of horrific atrocities, a top international war crimes prosecutor has stated, describing the scale of the abuses as among the worst since the Nazi regime. The sheer number of victims, potentially exceeding 100,000, is staggering. But the prosecutor’s focus extends beyond a simple body count. The claim isn’t just about the quantity of deaths, but also the systematic and industrialized nature of the killing.
The systematic nature of the killings is what truly sets this apart, the prosecutor emphasizes. It wasn’t simply random violence; instead, a well-organized system was in place, encompassing secret police who abducted citizens, jailers and interrogators who subjected prisoners to torture and starvation, and those who disposed of the bodies. This created a terrifying “machinery of death,” a chillingly efficient system for eliminating opponents. This is the key aspect drawing comparison to the Nazi regime’s systematic approach to mass murder. The focus isn’t on a competition of suffering but rather on the horrifying similarity in methodology.
The comparison to the Nazi regime is certainly jarring, but the prosecutor’s point is not to diminish the suffering caused by other horrific events in history. The intent is to highlight the calculated, industrialized nature of the Syrian regime’s actions. This is not about creating a hierarchy of suffering; it is about accurately describing the scale and method of the atrocities. Discussions of other genocides and mass killings are valid and shouldn’t be dismissed, but they do not negate the unique horror of what occurred in Syria.
The intense reactions to the prosecutor’s statement—from outrage to indignant counter-arguments—reveal a deeper issue. Perhaps the reflexive tendency to rank historical atrocities, to attempt to determine “which was worse,” is itself a symptom of our collective failure to fully grapple with the scale of human cruelty. Every genocide, every act of mass murder, represents an unimaginable depth of human suffering. Instead of engaging in a fruitless competition of horror, it’s crucial to acknowledge the immense pain caused by each individual tragedy.
It’s true that other instances of mass violence – such as those in Rwanda, Cambodia, or during the Holocaust – resulted in significantly higher death tolls. However, this doesn’t diminish the profound brutality of what occurred in Syria. The focus isn’t simply on sheer numbers; it’s on the systematic, industrialized nature of the Assad regime’s violence, echoing the methodical horror of the Nazi regime’s “machinery of death.” This is a key element that demands attention and understanding.
Furthermore, the controversy surrounding the prosecutor’s statement highlights the dangers of minimizing suffering by engaging in debates about relative magnitude. Every instance of mass violence deserves recognition for the individual lives destroyed, the families torn apart, and the lasting trauma inflicted upon entire communities. Instead of engaging in unproductive arguments, we should focus on acknowledging and remembering the victims of each tragedy.
The prosecutor’s statement sparks important discussion regarding the role of the media and the responsibility to accurately portray historical events. The headline’s phrasing, and the subsequent re-phrasing of it, might contribute to misinterpretations of the claim, thus highlighting the challenges of disseminating complex information effectively while avoiding sensationalism or unintended minimization. Nuance and precision are vital, especially when addressing traumatic and sensitive historical events.
In the end, discussions that aim to minimize or downplay the severity of the atrocities in Syria, comparing and contrasting them to other historical atrocities, fail to recognize the significance of the event and the need for justice. While other genocides and events of mass violence were equally horrifying, they don’t invalidate or lessen the severity of what transpired in Syria. The aim should be to prevent similar tragedies in the future and to ensure accountability for those responsible.