 to help. I'm Jay Fidel. This is ThinkTech. The handsome young man is Peter Hoppenberg. He's a professor of history at UH Manoa. We're talking about how history can help us appreciate the genocide and compare it and contrast it to the Holocaust. And that's especially appropriate this time of year. Hi, Peter. Good afternoon. How are you? I'm good. So Peter, I guess over the past few weeks when we see Vladimir Putin killing people in large numbers and using weapons that are dedicated to kill civilians, not military, when we see and hear about the atrocities, it really does sound like a determined effort to kill people. Weapons of mass destruction effectively killing masses of people. And it's inevitable to think about where else in history this has happened. I guess it's happened in Syria and Chechnya. It's happened in many places in Africa, to some extent in Latin America. And I suppose you could look through American history and find examples of the same thing where one given state or power was dedicated to killing as many people as possible. Think of Bosnia. And they may have lived together for centuries. And one of the questions is this written into the DNA? Or is this something that you can somehow electromagnetically get people to go out and kill or observe or participate in large killings? And then of course, the Holocaust, which you and I were raised to understand was the worst possible evil known to man, where we said never again, may not be prevented again. And so I think it's worth, it's a valid discussion, an important discussion to compare what's happening now and what Putin has done on other occasions with the Holocaust and find comparison points and contrast points. Have you been thinking about this? Well, you know me very well. I think about it 24-7, as my children will tell you, my bookshelf is filled with it. And I think for viewers as well, not only your excellent perceptive point about Russian Ukraine, but this is also a time where we remember the Armenian genocide, the genocide during the First World War, but also plan before the war and continuing after the war. I mean, we focus on what the Turkish forces did during the war. And this is a time in which, after a long political struggle, that is recognized as a genocide. And next Wednesday is officially Yom Ha'Shoa Day, where the sirens will waft in Israel, and folks will stop for two minutes. So if your viewers want to ever go on YouTube, you can see people stop in the middle of the road, get out of their cars, and for two minutes have a moment of silence. So this is a particularly appropriate time. And as you say, most appropriate in people's homes, because we can talk about whether what Mr. Putin is doing is genocide or not. And I think it's an important discussion. But it is certainly a war crime, and it certainly crimes against humanity. So among our discussions, they might be trying to define genocide, not in a way to limit other horrors, because you're right, there always seems to be time for killing. But genocide has a specific international legal definition. And whereas folks could justifiably, it should be upset about what they see. Reaching that decision takes research, and once that decision is made, then certain political actions actually are required. I want to look at it from the point of view of a naive person. You know, a naive person at the Passover table, for example. The fifth son, the really stupid one. You know, what's the difference? Is there some kind of demarcation between, say, 50,000 people and 6 million people? That shouldn't be a difference. You should be able to do genocide with any number of people, right? No, you're absolutely right. And that's where, when we consider whether something is a genocide, it's not the numbers. It involves intent, and look, intent can be 50,000 or 6 million. It involves intent, it involves specific targeting. So for example, what would be a genocide in Ukraine is the intentional targeting for murder, rape, separation of children from parents. Those are all considered genocidal acts, specifically because the victims are Ukrainian. So not because they live near a city, for example, or not because they're in the way of troops. But genocide requires the identification of a people, and then the intentional elimination of that people, specifically because they are that people. So it could be, look, all numbers are horrific, right? But it could be a relatively focused lethal episode, or it could be, as in World War II, across all of Europe. And the numbers don't really matter. What matters is being able to prove the intent and to prove the consequence. Why don't you read the language out of the convention? I will. I'm sorry for the audience if I have to look down a little bit. This convention was articulated by the United Nations. It was very controversial, remains controversial. I'll be happy to talk about some of the controversy. But let me just point to three articles, the first three that will help our viewers. Please remember the dates, because the dates are important. This was discussed and approved in 1948 and became international law in 1951. So when Jay says never again, there have been far too many incidents of this since 1951. Okay. Article one, and let me read slowly. I think the word is important. The contracting parties confirmed, so the contracting parties and the members of the United Nations that approved this, that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law, which they undertake to prevent and to punish. And I don't want to bore the audience with word smithing, but almost every word is important. When the term genocide was initially created as an artificial word, the understanding was that it occurred during wartime. So this is an important revision. The word was coined in 1942 and 90 years later. Very importantly, and part of the reason that it was added is there were genocides during decolonization. So for example, in the British left, India, there were genocides between and among Hindus and Muslims, but that was not technically a war. It was technically peace time, right? It was transference of power. Okay. A crime. Well, that's a bold step, and that requires you as a former lawyer. No, right? It requires statutes, requires evidence. One is innocent to proving guilty. So as much as we hate somebody and as much as we might see things on TV, there's an international court which decides. And then under international law, and that's been very controversial, for example, the United States and the Soviet Union are not signatories on a lot of these international laws. Okay. Undertaken to prevent. Well, that's a big step. We're going to try to study this. And as is debated right now, trying to, while we see something on TV, trying to prevent it from getting worse. This law requires governments to do that, not just to punish. I think most of the viewers will recognize the punishment, right? The Nuremberg trials, Milosevic from Serbia tried several of Sudanese officials tried, but that's exposed factor, right? The bodies are already dead. So it's both to prevent and to punish. So let me stop there and see if you have any questions before we go to article two. Well, I think the most, the most profound part of what you read is that the United Nations, all the members of the United Nations, I guess that was unanimously passed, said that they would, that the United Nations would prevent it in peace or war. And since then, aside from the never again statements, there have been many genocides and the United Nations has never been effective at stopping any of them. And two thoughts come to my mind about that. One is international law, as you know, is weak, hard to enforce. You know, in law school, they told us international law is kind of ephemeral. And it comes, it goes, it depends on geopolitics, sets of time, and so forth. So it's not a reliable container for a law that requires the organization to take action either by stopping a genocide or punishing a genocide. Secondly, you know, the United Nations, and what they might have done, what the world might have done was adopt statutes around the world, including in the United States, that said participating in a genocide is a crime. And if we catch you, we're going to do something to you. And they have that in Europe now, something called universal jurisdiction, where they tried a Syrian general a couple months ago and that worked. And we don't have that regrettably. The other thing is that it's a built-in flaw. You can't refer to the International Court of Criminal Justice unless you have a referral by the Security Council. And the Security Council has some bad actors on it. They're never going to refer claims against themselves. So you therefore neutralize the United Nations in the case of Russia and China. Members of the Security Council who are capable of vetoing any referral. So, I mean, I don't think it has worked. There was a time when the blue helmets went into Rwanda. And then a few days later, there was a time when the blue helmets left Rwanda, leaving it to a full-scale genocide. The other point I want to make before you go on is this. I've been wrestling and we have had many discussions on think-tack about this as to whether the human tradition includes genocide. We just get together and kill one another in large numbers every so often. And historically, as a history professor, somebody who connects the dots on this sort of thing, I'm sure that's a tantalizing theory for you. But the other theory is that it takes someone who is evil and competent and clever, like Putin, to initiate genocide. It doesn't come up as a matter of a community emergence of a need for genocide. It comes up because somebody triggers it. Somebody always triggers it with propaganda that reaches the people who would conduct the genocide. And that's clear in the case of Putin. He's doing it. He's leading it. And if you go back and look at some of the other genocides that you and I have mentioned, I think we can find that in each case, there is a person using the technology of the time to, at the scapegoatism, if you will, at the time, for political purposes to engender a genocide. So it isn't part of the natural human collective conduct. Rather, it's somebody fomenting that conduct. It always requires an activator, a trigger. Okay, those are my thoughts on what you've read so far. All right, thanks. Let me continue because we're on the clock. We can get back to some of those points as well as far as leadership or not. But let me just articulate these for our viewers. Article two, I think will be helpful because it tells you what actions are considered genocidal. And your audience will know that this has changed a bit where we've added questions of cultural genocide now, for example, forbidding a language or forbidding a traditional practice. In 51, it was pretty explicit about explicit acts, killing members of the group. That should be obvious. But again, because they're members of the group. So if I'm Russian, I kill the Ukrainian, not because they happen to be in a strategic house. I kill them because they're Ukrainian. So if the viewers have been following along, some of the evidence we've been seeing, and again, it all needs to be verified, are, for example, Russian women encouraging their men. And this is a legend. They're meant to rape Ukrainians because you're Ukrainian, right? It doesn't say go rape a Ukrainian soldier. Secondly, and I think for 1950, 4851, this is pretty perceptive, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. So I think that UN was thinking I'm the bodily one, it's obvious, but the mental harm, the use of propaganda, the physical isolation, imprisonment, I mean, imprisonment may not be bodily harm, but it's mental harm. So essentially what they're saying is these people as members of this group are not just being punished, they're being excluded from society, they're being isolated. Can I respond to some of that? Please do. Okay, I think those less murderous events within the subsequent expansion of the definition, dilute the definition. It's very interesting, but it's very hard to prove. And it doesn't rise to the same level of outrage, of crimes against society, of shocking to the conscience as murder does. So when you start throwing in all those other things, it's a kitchen sink and it dilutes the primary one, which is mass murder. That's what we're talking about. The other thing is a group. I think we've seen the world change since the Holocaust. That was certainly a group and that was what it was about, right? In the late 40s, what else would you be talking about? It's a primary object there. And in fact, I think what happens in Ukraine, what is happening right now today in Ukraine, is a strange mutation of that because the group is everyone who's Ukrainian. And how do you know? Well, it used to be 44 million people and I got 40 million people in the country. They're all Ukrainian. And if I blow up a city and destroy everything in it, and I kill everybody or most people in the city, is that not genocide? They're all Ukrainian. It's hard to apply the same standard of rooting out Jews, finding Jews, identifying Jews, and murdering Jews as Jewish when you just blow up the whole country. It almost sounds like you need a new definition. Unless one were to think of expanding it in somewhat of an existentialist way to say it is among the groups are peoplehood and that's been discussed. So the Ukrainian sense of being a people, a distinctive people within humanity are being targeted. Now, as far as the cultural editions like language, for example, or traditions, there are many folks who agree with you that those are a different type of crime and not a crime of genocide. But I think whether we, you know, re- or disagree, and it may dilute whether we disagree, that's on the agenda now, most certainly. Who's agenda, Peter? Well, I think many people's agenda. What I'm saying is that there's no particular organization looking into changing the rules that you're reading. Well, I don't think that changing the rules have has been a change of definition. But that's a change of definition, which I don't think we should be surprised at. I mean, it's been 70 years of intellectual and social sometimes change. Those also who oppose the change commit that kind of genocide. I mean, it's to the advantage of people who forbid a language to say, well, that's not really genocide. So in the, in the early discussions, you mentioned, you know, the politics of all this. Well, the politics are on the right and on the left about this. So if we close on the right, I think the left is too loose with it. And people on the left think that the right is tight with it, because by being that tight and limiting to specific acts, they're less inclined to be charged with genocide, right? So the argument works both ways politically. But if you were to argue that a group or a people are targeted, and that group or people and the source of their identity is being demolished and destroyed along with them, or even perhaps without them bodily. So for example, when Australia took for years and years and years, took Aboriginal children, took them from their homes, and basically attempted to make them white. So they go to white homes, the white families would marry them if possible to somebody white, and essentially remove their aboriginal identity. Now, yes, compared to a lot of places, Australians probably Tasmania, Tasmania is a case of genocide certainly. But you know, you would have to argue that that is a form of genocide in the sense that you are attacking and removing a people specifically because there are people. Now the thing about the Holocaust was, you know, all Jews, religious, not religious, right? Maybe people who looked Jewish. Okay, but that's on a larger scale to what was happening in Australia. So I think we can discuss more about this. But I think part of the change is the sense that today, for a whole variety of reasons, what we consider identity is wider, more diverse than in 1951, where identity seemed to be on the UN scale, religion, ethnicity, nationalism. And those are obviously very strong foundations. But I think today we could talk about other forms of identity and, you know, whether people like those forms of identity or not, that is part of humanity. And the laws should protect. Getting back to that is the idea that this law is fundamentally supposed to protect minorities in the state. Not surprisingly, right? Usually it's a majority destroying a minority. So if you take that as a principle, and that's not a principle of democracy, that's a principle of liberalism, that you need to protect minorities, then you need to respect how that minority identifies itself. Particularly, particularly right, if that identity is not a clear and present danger to the majority. And so in a way, what you can think of is these genocidal laws are on a larger scale, what a liberal society would have in its own self to protect minorities. Well, that goes back to my point about the United Nations at the inception, suggesting, encouraging, requiring member states to adopt laws within that state. There was an enforcement mechanism. And I think one of the problems about all this definitional discussion for all these years, 70 years of discussion about what it really is, the United Nations, which adopted these rules of international law or encouraged the adoption, hasn't been able to stop any genocides. They happen here, they happen there. It's almost meaningless to call it this or call it that. It's mass murder. And the United Nations has no effective way to stopping it. And if we look for reform, the reform is not necessarily in reforming the description or the definition. It's in making an organization that will have the power and physical power, steel on steel power to stop this. And the United Nations is not that organization. The reason we had the trials at Nuremberg was because the United States won that war. They subdued the Nazis. They could do what they wanted in Germany at that point. We're not in a position to do that in Russia. Or for that matter, if you take a look at the Security Council, any place. So the real problem is you need, I'm sorry to say, you need a war to stop. You need steel on steel to stop a genocide. And we don't have that. And we need to develop a new mechanism to have that and to stop the genocides. Otherwise, as now, as right now these days, I mean, really, sanctions. You know, ideally, you would have been American troops going in there and saying, no, we're the policemen at the elbow. You cannot do this in a liberal world order. It's not permitted under the rules of the United Nations. But we never got close to that miles away. We have to find a way to get close to that. Okay. That's probably another discussion, which I'd be quite happy to have with you. Let me just finish the article. I'm distinguishing the genocide in World War II, the Holocaust, with the genocides we have seen since. Right. And you're also separating the United Nations' role to prevent, rather than the United Nations' role to respond. I mean, that's an important discussion. Thank you. That's true. Okay. Because it gets back to, we can't do this today. It takes a year. But it's very, obviously absolutely essential why it happens. We haven't really gotten to that discussion. Right. And that's a full discussion is why and how. And you suggested the importance of a leader, but the leader who strikes the match has to have tenure. And so I'm happy to have that discussion with you maybe next time. Let me just finish for our viewers that the articles, because we're almost out of time. Part C of article says deliberately inflicting on the group. Right. So part of genocide has to be intense. And that has been for historians a debate which won't surprise people between intense and effect. Right. So the debate, for example, among the Spanish conquest, the Americas, the effect was genocide. The effect in Australia was genocide. You could argue the effects on the White Islands to great degree because of demographic crisis. But their historians want to contribute between intense and effect. And here, though, it says, and you're a lawyer, right, it has to have a deliberate intent of doing this. So as a lawyer, I offer you circumstantial evidence. You know, if I kill 50,000 people by sending rockets into civilian populations, it's not a mistake. It's not an accident. The OG whiz that I just killed 50,000 people by sending thousands of rockets into the civilian population, you could make a pretty good case on some circumstantial evidence that I intended to do that. Right. But if you actually have what we're trying to find, which are the emails or the orders, remember the great debate is, and it still is a debate among not serious historians, there's no text from Adolf Hitler saying kill Jews. Circumstantial evidence. I mean, seriously, that's David Irving and serious historians don't take that. But in other words, we have other things, right? We have orders from Hydra, right? We have orders from Himmler. That's that's the evidence. Okay. And let me just remind you that Nuremberg was not intended to be necessarily a war crime trial. It was it was to try or the Germans for committing atrocities, but it wasn't really a Holocaust trial. If you look at it, and so that's part of the issue, right? I mean, no people in America would not have sent troops to Europe to say Jews in the 40s. No, they wouldn't have even bombed Auschwitz to break up. Deliberately inflicting on the group, conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. This, you can see is in good part focused on political famine, right? If I don't allow food to get there, if I take food from there, that's deliberately inflicting. It's not deliberately, it's not immediately putting them to people's heads, but it's leading to their death. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. Now, anti-abortion advocates should not jump up and down. This is not, this is not about abortion. This is about sterilization, right? This is systematic sterilization or the systematic rape of women, particularly in cultures where a rape will be considered, right? An act of impurity and the woman might very well be killed and certainly the child would not be accepted in society. So during the Balkan crisis, this was a not unusual exercise in the part of serves. And you see it today, right? Intentionally raping, okay? Which is not only violence against women, which of course it is, but it's also a way of demographically eliminating a people because the child born out of this rape will not be accepted in society. And lastly, and in 51, forcibly transferring children to the group to another group. So that recalls, for example, American policy of taking Native American children and moving them outside the Native American community, or the example of Australia. Finally, because I know we're near the end, Article 3, what acts shall be punishable? Now here again, as a lawyer and those who listen are interested, I think you'll appreciate genocide, obviously, but conspiracy to commit genocide. So there we get to the sense that it is your leader, right? But it's also the minions around the leader. It is the professors I apologize who got on the radio in Rwanda, and used the radio to call for the murder of other people, their conspirators. Direct and public incitement to commit genocide. So I don't want to be held responsible for this, but for example, we'd have to ask about the Russian Orthodox Church's leadership in this, right? What are they telling their parishioners about Ukrainians? We know the Church is supporting Putin. What are they actually saying to their parishioners? Attempt to commit genocide. All right? You don't actually do it, but you try to do it. That's enough. And so that might be the case in Ukraine and Russia. It seems to be an attempt to commit genocide, complicity in genocide. So you stay neutral, right? Or if you arm in one way or another, or you allow in one way or another the genocidal state to export its oil to your country, right? And they're committing genocide, you're complicit in the genocide. So let me stop there because I know it's 1230. Any questions about those articles? And those are just more specific ones. And then not surprisingly, it goes into what you were talking about, the mechanisms of how the UN will go about determining it, what will be done specifically to the countries, etc. But I think for the viewers, the definitions are important because we have three, we really have four terms which we use, all of which are horrific. But somehow we've created a hierarchy. They are all horrific. A massacre is horrific, right? What defines a massacre? But a massacre is horrific, okay? War crimes, horrific. Primes against humanity, horrific. And genocide. So one of the issues is what is the compulsion to define something as a genocide when those three are horrible enough, right? Those are horrific. And that again, we probably don't have time to get into, but part of that includes politics and activating these laws, right? There's no law, there's no law which says that there's a massacre you have to respond. Maybe there should be. But there is a law that says if they're genocide. So the viewers will remember in the Balkans, right? The Clinton administration waited a long time to use the word genocide because that would have required some action. A couple of reactions, Peter. Number one, I go back to the notion of whatever that document says, it's only as good as the United Nations and the United Nations is impotent. It hasn't really stopped any genocides. It hasn't punished anybody. It has been useless. And I think the United Nations is over because there has to be a principal function of protecting the liberal world order or protecting the security of states and people and human rights. They haven't done it. Sorry, they haven't done it. So I think we need a new deal on the United Nations. The other thing is I really wonder whether these statements of crimes actually deter people from doing it. For example, let's say we have a tyrant, a despot, an autocrat. And he says, hmm, it's Tuesday morning. I think I'll kill all the wonkers, whoever the wonkers might be. Okay. And his Secretary of State says to him, no, no, you can't do that. That is against the resolution that Peter Haufenberg read the law of the international law the United Nations adopted in the late 40s. Do you think that ever stopped anybody from doing any of these genocides? I mean, it's possible that they said, oh, no, you can't do that. You can't do genocide. And the guy said, oh my God, I almost violated the United Nations law. How silly of me. Why did I think of that? Because they watched, they watched things, so they should have known it. Increasingly, they don't care. Increasingly, paper on which these definitions are written, the punishments are set out, are meaningless. And I think we have a world, see if you agree with me, where the amount, the quantum of genocides, of criminal, of war crimes, of atrocities, however you define them is increasing. And there's no policeman at the elbow to say, no, you can't do that. And if you do that, there are immediate and, and, and clenary sanctions on you. And I don't know what those would be, but more than what, what the coalition is doing now, because we will not permit you to do that for one day longer. That's what we need. And I think about Nuremberg, and I said before, is that it was, you know, United States had complete control. They could do what they wanted, and they chose to do that. And I guess it's satisfied a lot of people politically and ethnically. But I remind you that in the Nuremberg trials, there were 22 defendants, 19 were found guilty and 12 were sentenced to death. It's not a lot when you consider how many people died in the Holocaust. So even then, you know, there was more that could have or should have been done to deal with a country that had been largely complicit. We cannot afford to have this go on. We should have done more after the Holocaust. And I think we can do more now. So I don't think anybody who has any heart and soul would disagree that something substantially needs to be done in response. I think we need to talk about what the UN can do and has done. And I wouldn't be completely dismissive. I think statistically, you know, it's the old problem with this much information. We now know about most of the massacres that are occurring. The 20s and 30s, for example, when there's not lots of international information, horrific decade between the wars. So I entirely agree with you. Something has to be done. I entirely agree with you that there's too much of it. As a historian, I'm just going to take a little bit of the fifth as to whether things are worse or not, because they've been bad for most of the 20th century, if not previously. I think, again, we should come back and have a discussion about prevention. It seems to me that that's where the focus needs to be. I think stopping a genocide from occurring, if possible, I think that the Biden administration and others have done non-military endeavors, which are, look, I think if you respond in the way of army on army, you are creating additional carnage and additional war. I think the problem today is that, you know, India and China, et cetera, are not on board. If you could truly isolate Putin, truly, then you might be able to stop this. I think it was, in a way, unfair of the West to expect the Ukrainians to militarily stop this. There's been a lot of really hyperbole about no great success, this and that. You're not going to stop the Russian war machine by taking out some tanks for killing some generals. This is an in-balance war. So what do we do? I think we need to talk very much about prevention. And there is a think tank of nerds, well-intentioned nerds in the heart of Europe that is creating a historically-based, with additional contemporary data algorithm we wouldn't have called it that, but some of the viewers might be younger, to try as a social scientist to predict. That's still our best hope. Once these get inflamed, you are right, probably only war will respond. And once a dictator gets people stirred up, it's going to be difficult to get any of those people, anybody within a country to dissent will be arrested. So my sense is that we need to look at the causes. And the causes are varied. I don't want to take too much time. The causes begin really fundamentally with not having an open society that protects minorities. That's really where it begins. You can't ask everybody to fully assimilate and everybody to like each other. That's not going to happen. But you can create a society in which, without purging minorities, without ethnic cleansing, say Rwanda are a good example. Their minority in Burma, most of the evidence suggests there is a genocide occurring. But there are no legal protections for Rwanda and others in Burma. So I would begin with legal protections, as we talked about, right? But protections for minorities, that's really what we're, you know, essence. Secondly, we have to think about the connections around the world, which don't necessarily promote genocide, but do prevent a response. And let's be honest, I know it sounds like I'm Noam Chomsky here. But look, if you turned off the natural gas and oil pipelines to Russia, if you stopped the international arms trade, you'd really find things very different. You have to prevent, Rwanda is an interesting case because it killed with machetes, right? That's an interesting case. But where modern industrial society embarks on genocide, its coffers are usually filled with international economic wealth. Didn't take a lot of money to get machetes. Pol Pot isolated himself and killed people in traditional ways. So that's a slightly different issue. But in this case, prevention is really to cut off these regimes and these societies. And sanctions are important. I think sanctions, look, sanctions have been practiced for centuries. And particularly with an economy like Russia, which depends so very much on natural gas and oil. Okay, how else do you prevent it? Well, look, it's an old fashioned idea, but you do try to promote a political system, which is democratic and liberal, right? So democracy is rule of the majority. And we have to be careful about that, right? That the rule of majority is still with protections for minorities. Okay, I don't know if that helps or not. I can tell you, that's important that we consider all these things. I can tell you my final view. And I'm a very old fashioned guy that these are often inflamed, not just for racial reasons, but for class or social reasons. It's quite often, look, the Runga, not the wealthy people of Burma, it's quite often the poor. In Latin America, it's usually the poor who are victims of genocide, the descendants of slaves, Native Americans, the folks being murdered in the Amazon. So we really do also have to talk about societies in which resources are more equitably distributed. And we know historically, when resources are more equitably distributed, social ties are stronger and wider. It's the Adam Smith before the wealth of nations. It's the Adam Smith of moral sentiments. We don't have deep moral sentiments when we live in very unequal societies. And that's all the tender, right? I mean, the spark is, as you say, the spark is usually some charismatic leader. We might not think of him as charismatic, but the society does exploiting. I mean, very rarely do any genocidal leaders create a distinction, right? And Putin didn't create this distinction. He's drawn upon these myths and long term hatred. And the final thing I would say is we got to dump ethnic nationalism. That's okay. And the final thing I would say is we're out of time. No, thank you, Peter. I appreciate all your thoughts today. This is, of course, Think Tech Hawaii. Its history is here to help. We've been comparing and contrasting the Holocaust with other genocides and trying to get a handle on what the species can do about that. Thank you so much, Peter. Really enjoyed the discussion. Thank you. Aloha. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at ThinkTechHawaii.com. Mahalo.