This article seeks to examine the mass violence unleashed by Joseph Stalin and his regime against the USSR's ethnic Germans.
This article examines a topic worthy of investigation and study. The journal itself covers a topic, genocide, which is certainly worthy of further study. The thing that worries me though, and I must admit I've never even heard of the journal until just now and consequently have never read a single article, is whether the existence of a journal devoted to the study of genocide won't, in some fashion, dilute the power of the word.
For instance, was Stalin's goal to wipe out all the ethnic Germans in the Soviet Union? If not, then I have trouble calling it genocide. Now, I realize the definition many use is similar to the first sentence of the Wikipedia article:
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
But that's too loosey-goosey for me and I'm not sure that systematic oppression should be called genocide. I'm not questioning that the injustice of what may have occurred. I just don't know enough about it, but it's certainly reasonable to me that Stalin would have done some seriously bad shit to ethnic Germans. The question though is whether what is described is genocide. From the abstract, I'd say no. Then the question for me becomes whether publishing this in a journal with genocide in the title doesn't somehow undermine the word genocide?
It's a small, pedantic, esoteric linguistic-political point, but that's how I roll. All told, I'd must rather prefer people studying these crimes than worry about what the journal they publish in is called.