This is how the US military would put down an armed rebellion

• Blake Stilwell, We Are The Mighty

Members of the US Army reserve stand at attention. Getty Images / Paul J Richards
What if the “2nd amendment people” Donald Trump mentioned recently during a campaign rally were actually able to spark an armed rebellion to overthrow the United States?
In a 2012 article for the Small Wars Journal, two academics took a stab at such a scenario and tried to figure out how state and federal authorities would likely respond to a small force taking over an American town.
In their paper, retired Army colonel and University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies professor Kevin Benson and Kansas University history professor Jennifer Weber wargamed a scenario where a Tea Party-motivated militia took over the town of Darlington, South Carolina.
The circumstances may seem far-fetched, but in today’s deeply partisan political environment, it’s at least worth looking into how the feds would respond if an American town tried to go it alone.

Precedents for fighting an insurrection

Benson and Weber cite Abraham Lincoln’s executive actions during the Civil War and Dwight Eisenhower’s 1957 intervention in Little Rock, Arkansas as precedents for the executive use of force in crushing a rebellion. The President would be able to mobilize the military and Department of Homeland Security to recapture a secessionist city and restore the elected government.
The government would invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to form a response:

From Title 10 US Code the President may use the militia or Armed Forces to:
§ 331 – Suppress an insurrection against a State government at the request of the Legislature or, if not in session, the Governor.
§ 332 – Suppress unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the U.S.
§ 333 – Suppress insurrection or domestic violence if it (1) hinders the execution of the laws to the extent that a part or class of citizens are deprived of Constitutional rights and the State is unable or refuses to protect those rights or (2) obstructs the execution of any Federal law or impedes the course of justice under Federal laws.)

The Insurrection Act governs the roles of the military, local law enforcement, and civilian leadership inside the U.S. as this type of scenario plays out.
A US Soldier with the 464th Military Police Platoon fires an M9 Beretta pistol during training. Wikimedia Commons

How it could go down

An extreme right-wing militia takes over the town of Darlington, South Carolina, placing the mayor under house arrest and disbanding the city council. Local police are disarmed or are sympathetic to the militia’s cause and integrated into the militia.
The rebels choke traffic on interstates 95 and 20, collecting “tolls” to fund their arsenal and operation. Militiamen also stop rail lines and detain anyone who protests their actions.
The insurgents use social media and press conferences to invoke the Declaration of Independence as their rationale, arguing they have the right to “alter or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in the words of the Declaration, ‘shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.’”
Because of this, they enjoy a “groundswell” of support from similarly-minded locals throughout the state. The mayor contacts the governor and his congressman. The governor doesn’t call out the National Guard for fear they’d side with the militiamen. He monitors the situation using the State Police but through aides, he asks the federal government to step in and restore order, but cannot do so publicly.
The President of the United States gives the militia 15 days to disperse.

Mobilizing a response

The executive branch first calls the state National Guard to federal service. The Joint Staff alerts the U.S. Northern Command who orders U.S. Army North/Fifth U.S. Army to form a joint task force headquarters. Local units go on alert – in this case, the U.S. Army at Forts Bragg and Stewart in North Carolina and Georgia, respectively, and Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
CH-46 during exercise at Camp Lejeune October 2007 Wikimedia
The Fifth Army begins its mission analysis and intelligence preparation of the battlefield. This includes locating enemy bases, critical infrastructure, terrain, potential weather, and other important information.
Once the Fifth Army commander has a complete picture of the militia’s behavior patterns, deployments of forces, and activity inside the town, he begins a phased deployment of federal forces.

Civilian control of the military

The Fifth Army is in command of the military forces, but the Department of Justice is still the lead federal agency in charge on the ground. The Attorney General can designate a Senior Civilian Representative of the Attorney General (SCRAG) to coordinate all federal agencies and has the authority to assign missions to federal military forces. The Attorney General may also appoint a Senior Federal Law Enforcement Officer to coordinate federal law enforcement activities.
It’s interesting to note that many of the Constitutional protections afforded to American citizens still apply to those in arms against the government. For instance, federal judges will still have to authorize wiretaps on rebel phones during all phases of the federal response.
Troops on the ground will be aware of local, national, and international media constantly watching them and that every incidence of gunfire will likely be investigated.

Beginning combat operations

Combat units will begin show of force operations against militiamen to remind the rebels they’re now dealing with the actual United States military. Army and Marine Corps units will begin capturing and dismantling the checkpoints and roadblocks held by the militia members.
Cpl. Justin Dudley from Oxnard, California, with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 262 (Reinforced), 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, 3rd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, keeps watch while flying in a UH-1Y Venom during Amphibious Landing Exercise 15 at Crow Valley, Sept. 30, 2014. US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Robert Williams Jr./Released
All federal troops will use the minimum amount of force, violence, and numbers necessary. Only increasing to put pressure on the insurrectionist leaders.
After dismantling checkpoints, soldiers and Marines will recapture critical infrastructure areas in the city, such as water and power stations, as well as TV and radio stations and hospitals.
Meanwhile, state law enforcement and activated National Guard units will care for the fleeing and residents of the city. This is partly for political reasons, allowing the government most susceptible to local voters to be seen largely absent from being in direct, sometimes armed conflict with their own elected officials.

Restoring government control

Federal troops will maintain law and order on the streets of the city as elected officials return to their offices. Drawing on U.S. military history, the government will likely give individual members of the militia a general amnesty while prosecuting the leaders and those who broke the law during the uprising.

Read the original article on We Are The Mighty. Copyright 2016. Follow We Are The Mighty on Twitter.

Seattle judge upholds ATF’s decision banning ammo designed for AK-47s

Originally published August 10, 2016 at 3:22 pm Updated August 10, 2016 at 3:29 pm

The decision came in a lawsuit brought by Redmond-based P.W. Arms Inc., which obtained permits to import more than 100 million rounds of the Russian- and Eastern European-made ammunition.

By

The Associated Press

 

A federal judge in Seattle has upheld a decision by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to ban ammunition originally designed for AK-47 assault rifles.
The decision Wednesday by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour came in a lawsuit brought by Redmond-based P.W. Arms Inc., which obtained permits to import more than 100 million rounds of the Russian- and Eastern European-made ammunition known as 7N6. When the first shipments arrived in early 2014, the ATF deemed them “armor-piercing” and barred their importation for civilian resale.
The company said the agency misinterpreted the definition of armor-piercing bullets under federal law. But the judge disagreed, saying they contain a steel core and can be fired from a handgun.
Coughenour noted that P.W. Arms never disputed the bullets can pierce body armor, and he called the company’s arguments disingenuous.

Now The Obama Administration Is After Gunsmiths?

Frank Miniter ,  

Contributor

I expose the excesses of the bureaucracy.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

The gunsmith here is fixing a sight on a rifle. The Obama administration is now saying that gunsmiths are “manufacturers” who must register with the State Department and pay a $2,250 annual fee. (ATTILA KISBENEDEK/AFP/Getty Images)

My gunsmith has a lathe, a drill press, even a barrel reamer. He uses them to repair guns. To him, they are like a car mechanic’s welding equipment, drill and cutter tools. He never thought drilling out a broken-off screw or grinding down a gun part to make a rifle’s action work smoother would define him as a “manufacturer.” But now, according to the federal government, he is a manufacturer and is required to pay a $2,250 annual fee as mandated by the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) regulations. This is what the Obama administration is now saying in a rule change.
Manta lists 15,615 gunsmiths in American today. Many of these are small shops—many of them are even side businesses for people who began tinkering with guns and then went to a gunsmith school. Requiring these people to pay $2,250 every year will drive many of them out of business or underground. Perhaps that is the reason for the rule change from the Obama administration. If there is another reason, they aren’t making it public.
This “guidance” for federal regulators from the U.S. Department of State was issued on July 22.
A statement from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers, says this “‘guidance’ has created considerable and understandable confusion and concern among gunsmiths and gun owners.”
The text of the Arms Export Control Act, which these regulations stem from, uses the term “manufacture” as the dictionary defines it, not in the expansive way the government is now attempting to use it. According to the Obama administration’s new definition of what constitutes a manufacturer, everything from bicycle repair shops to carpenters would be deemed “manufacturers” and therefore be subject to regulations and fees that companies that make products and import and/or export goods are subject to. But those other businesses are not being defined as manufacturers. So, as gunsmiths are being singled out, this is obviously more gun-control politics from the Obama administration.
This $2,250 fee is designed to fund the DDTC’s export licensing system. How are gunsmiths using or burdening this system? The NSSF says, “This is even more outrageous when one considers that DDTC is sitting on at least $140 million dollars of previously paid registration fees collected over many years from exporters from many industries including ours.”
The NSSF says they are lobbying Congress to step in and fix this problem with legislation. They also say, “The Obama Administration has refused to publish and implement the regulatory changes necessary to transfer for export licensing of commercial and sporting firearms and ammunition products to the Department of Commerce from the Department of State.”
Imagine a gunsmith getting up from his bench, where he was busy tweaking a gun’s stock for a customer, to answer a call from the State Department demanding he pay $2,250 every year or face the legal consequences, and you see why this is outrageous.
As there is no known reason for burdening gunsmiths with this large annual fee, and because doing so requires a strange and expansive redefinition of the word “manufacture,” it seems clear this is just more gun-control politics from the Obama administration.

Obama Administration Releases Latest Executive Gun Control

By Dave Dolbee published on July 30, 2016 in General

It seems the closer we get to President Obama departure from the White House, the more brazen he is getting with his gun control agenda. The administration’s latest action targets small manufacturers and gunsmiths—the heart of the firearms small business community. But make no mistake; an attack on one has a ripple effect and is an attack on us all.
Here is the full release from the NRA-ILA:

On Friday, July 22, just as members of his party were gathering in Philadelphia to coronate Hillary Clinton as their presidential nominee, the Obama Administration once again released a sweeping gun control measure by executive fiat. This time the bad news came via the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), which is primarily responsible for administering the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing rules, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The upshot is that DDTC is labeling commercial gunsmiths as “manufacturers” for performing relatively simple work such as threading a barrel or fabricating a small custom part for an older firearm. Under the AECA, “manufacturers” are required to register with DDTC at significant expense or risk onerous criminal penalties.
As with prior executive actions on guns, the administration released its dictate suddenly and without advance warning to or prior input from affected businesses, completely bypassing the normal formalities associated with a significant rulemaking. The guidance is also likely to result in more confusion than clarity and may significantly chill heretofore legal conduct associated with gunsmithing.
By way of background, the AECA and ITAR concern rules by which military materiel is exported from, and imported to, the United States. The so-called “defense articles” governed by the AECA/ITAR are compiled in what is known as the U.S. Munitions List and include some, but not all, firearms and ammunition, as well as their parts and components. Thus, for purposes of the regime, a spring or floorplate from the magazine of a controlled firearm is subject to the same regulatory framework as the firearm itself.

As promised, President Obama is no longer relying on his phone, and enacting gun control with his pen through executive action.

The AECA/ITAR require anybody who engages in the business of “manufacturing” a defense article to register with DDTC and pay a registration fee that for new applicants is currently $2,250 per year. These requirements apply, even if the business does not, and does not intend to, export any defense article. Moreover, under ITAR, “only one occasion of manufacturing … a defense article” is necessary for a commercial entity to be considered “engaged in the business” and therefore subject to the regime’s requirements.
Adding to the confusion, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and its amendments (GCA) also regulate firearm manufacturing, importing, and exporting. Both of the laws also use the same or similar terms but apply them in different ways. Thus, what triggers the legal requirement for an entity to be registered as a “manufacturer” under the AECA/ITAR may or may not also bring that entity within the scope of the GCA, and vice versa.
DDTC’s new “guidance” only makes this situation worse by coming up with a confusing and counterintuitive list of activities that it considers “gunsmithing” versus “manufacturing” (despite the fact that it insists it relies on the “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning” of those terms).
For example, DDTC generally labels procedures that involve cutting, drilling, or machining of an existing firearm in order to improve its accuracy or operation or to change its caliber as “manufacturing,” even if they do not create a new and distinct firearm. This includes threading a muzzle for a muzzle brake or blueprinting that requires machining of a barrel.
On the other hand, DDTC contends that gunsmithing includes only very simple procedures, such as the one-for-one drop-in replacement of parts that do not require cutting, drilling, or machining for installation. But even then, if the parts “improve the accuracy, caliber, or other aspects of firearm operation,” “manufacturing” may occur. Finishing treatments for firearms generally are not considered manufacturing under the guidance, nor are cosmetic flourishes such as engraving. Meanwhile the mounting of a scope that involves the machining of new dovetails or the drilling and tapping of holes may or not be “manufacturing,” depending on whether the scope improves the accuracy of the firearm beyond its prior configuration.

It seems the government only wants to pass laws to strip the weapons from honest gun owners. I have yet to hear of a single law being proposed that seeks to remove guns from the hands of criminals. Have you?

For those who are confused by the guidance, DDTC offers the option of requesting an advisory opinion through the agency. The regulation providing for such opinions, however, states they “are not binding on the Department of State, and may not be used in future matters before the Department.” Moreover, the request involves typical bureaucratic hoops to negotiate, including providing both an original and seven copies of the request and supporting information in hardcopy form.
DDTC’s move appears aimed at expanding the regulatory sweep of the AECA/ITAR and culling many smaller commercial gunsmithing operations that do not have the means to pay the annual registration fee or the sophistication to negotiate DDTC’s confusing maze of bureaucracy. Like ATF’s early “guidance” this year on the GCA’s licensing requirement for firearm “dealers,” it is also likely to have a significant chilling effect on activity that would not even be considered regulated.
The administration’s latest move serves as a timely reminder of how the politicized and arrogant abuse of executive power can be used to suppress Second Amendment rights and curtail lawful firearm-related commerce. That lesson should not be forgotten when voters go to the polls this November.

What’s next? What else do you think the President will do to assault the Second Amendment before he leaves office?

Burris AR-332 — AR-15 Accuracy to 600 Yards

By CTD Blogger published on August 4, 2016 in Gun Gear, Range Reports

According to the U.S. Army Laboratory Command (Small Arms Technology Assessment: Individual Infantryman’s Weapon, Volume I, March 1990 to be specific), 98% of all targets across all terrain are engaged at less than 600 meters, 90% less than 400 meters, and in urban terrain, 90% less than 50 meters. With this in mind, we need the ability to be able to reach targets beyond the 15-25 yard lines, but it is unlikely we will ever shoot beyond 600 meters in a defensive or even hunting situation.
By Major Pandemic

Burris created a great integrated ready to mount design complete with included mounts for A2 carry handles and standard picatinny rails.

Adding even a marginally magnified optic enables more precision, faster target acquisition, and will deliver all you need to place hits quickly—even way out there when yards adds up. More than a few serviceman and Designated Marksman know that the 4X Trijicon ACOG transformed hit ratios within all ranges of combat engagement out to the 600-yard line, however it also comes with a steep $1,400 price tag—as a result, Burris has come to the rescue with a great $350 option.

Burris AR-332 3X Prismatic Optic

Burris has been famous for building rugged bulletproof optics. The AR-332 is a Mil-Spec brute of an optic that has stayed compact with a prismatic design. The design is a really nice crossover optic for CQB and scout rifle distances in a durable fixed power optic. Essentially, the AR-332 is an ACOG but for 60% less money, plus it includes a dual red/green illuminated BDC reticle. According to Burris, they have been selling truckloads of these along with their 5X model with the explosion of AR-15 sales. Based on my experience this is for good reason.

Fit, Feel, Finish & Features

Like all Burris optics, the AR-332 is excellent quality from the construction with fog and weatherproof construction through the clear optics. At first, I was wondering what I had committed to with the AR-332. However, after a couple range visits, I am sold on the design. The donut reticle definitely grows on you, and in my opinion is way faster up close and allows more precision than a duplex reticle at varied distances.

The Burris AR-332 can operate with or without power due to its etched BDC reticle design.

There are a significant number of refinements and extras on this scope. The Burris AR-332 comes ready to mount right out of the box with a Picatinny base included ($50-$100 extra on other scopes here), scope caps that flip open all the way out of field of view, and wire retained windage/elevation caps. If you have an A2 AR-15 with a carry handle, the AR-332 will work right out of the box after your unscrew the included Picatinny base. On top of those features, the AR-332 is a very clear optic with an etched reticle visible as a black reticle after the illumination is turned off. The runtime is expected into the months range, but even when the standard CR2032 battery is dead you still have 100% of the reticle to work with.

Functions

The illuminated reticle works and is brilliantly bright that can be seen in direct sunlight. The donut reticle is fast on target even at distances under 25 yards or even at 2 yards. Dedicated points from 100-500 yards can make this a bit more precise than optics with just a single duplex style reticle or wider dispersed hash marks when the yards add up. Burris also includes Picatinny accessory rails around the optic to bolt on things like red dots, lights, lasers, and tactical espresso machines.
The eye relief needs to be a bit more forgiving as it does not have a wide workable range compared to others here. Plan on mounting the AR-332 almost or at the rearmost position. My stock position is always one detent in, however for longer armed shooters, you may have to displace your rear back up sight and mount it farther back.
Burris needs to add a super low night vision setting for the illumination as even the lowest setting is still just a bit too glary after the lights go out. The reticle is still perfect for CQB ranges at night using the CQB Optic but a little annoying for shooting night dwelling critters in the pitch black. For those situations I swapped out to an old half dead CR2032 batteries for dimmer illumination. Critter hunting with the AR-332 is great way to kill off all those old CR2032 batteries.

The flip up lens caps are included along with the removable shade shown installed.

With a variety of Hornady and Winchester 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington rounds, I found the Burris delivered all shots on 12-inch steel targets out to 500 yards, however point of impact did vary based on each round. As with all BDC reticles, the aiming points will get you within a few inches but each round’s ballistics is different.
An Odd Observation – We all get older and usually with that comes deteriorating eyesight. I have been incredibly lucky that I still have fairly clear 20/20 vision, however I am starting to do that trombone move to focus in on the small print up close. The point is that magnification and sighting aids help ageing eyes. A few of my buddies clearly need magnification and this is where even just a little 3X magnification can make all the difference between making a shot and frustration at the hunt or at the range. If you are older, I recommend strongly taking a look at what low-power optics can provide you and your AR platform.
CQB Optic Tip – For low-power optics with illuminated reticles, a tip to use them in a CQB environment is to cover or close the front scope cover and shoot with both eyes open like you would with a red dot. With the scope objective cover in place, your eyes and brain will figure it out and make the illuminated reticle appear as a 1X lit reticle regardless of the magnification even if it is a 32X power scope.

Final Thoughts

Designed for a 100 yard zero with BDC index points for 100-500 yards. This is a fixed power optic that is actually exceptionally good at CQB work thanks to the glowing donut. The Burris AR-332 is a great all purpose optic for an AR owner to extend the range of their AR to allow confident placement out to 500 yards. The big glowing dot provides a great aiming point even at room-clearing distances. The more I use the AR-332 optic, the more I like it as a combat, defensive, scout optic covering the U.S. Small Arms study ranges.

Big Government How Washington Is Regulating American Indians To Death

• Big Government

How Washington Is Regulating American Indians To Death

U.S. policies have turned Indian reservations into 'small third-world countries,' Naomi Schaefer Riley claims in her latest book.

By Ramona Tausz

Most Americans take property rights and law enforcement for granted. But Americans living on Indian reservations can’t do that, according to New York Post columnist Naomi Schaefer Riley.

Riley is the author of “The New Trail of Tears: How Washington Is Destroying American Indians,” released by Encounter Books on July 26. In the book, she exposes how Washington’s regulation of American Indians has led to intense poverty and crime on Indian reservations.

“One of the tribal legislators I spoke with actually said to me, ‘We are the most over-regulated race on earth,’” Riley said at a book release hosted by the Independent Women’s Forum.

Native Americans Need Washington Approval To Buy Or Sell Land

Although American Indians on reservations technically own their land, they essentially have no property rights.

“These people have lots of land, but they have no equity, there’s nothing that they can do with this land,” Riley said, explaining that American Indians are typically required to get approval from someone in Washington before they can develop or sell any land. The result is what economist Hernando de Soto called “dead capital.” “They cannot get a mortgage on their property, because no bank could ever foreclose on property, because no banks could ever own reservation land.”

Years ago, the belief was that American Indians wanted a place primarily to farm and hunt, with no desire to develop or sell land for profit. But holding this same belief today, Riley said, is offensive and arrogant. It attempts to dictate a notion of what Indian culture is rather than listen to what American Indians want. And it assumes those wants can’t evolve over time.

“Just because your Chinese or Jewish or Russian ancestors lived a particular way, that doesn’t mean you have to today,” Riley said. “But that’s essentially what I think we’re saying to the Indians: we have this idea of what you were like 300 years ago, and let’s just stick with that.”

She noted that over the years, Washington has offered American Indians certain “loopholes” and advantages over their neighbors—the ability to sell tax-free cigarettes or liquor, or to own casinos.

“Unfortunately, the problem with a loophole economy is that the loopholes eventually get closed,” Riley said. “Then it turns out that the federal government actually wants the taxes that could come from this property, or it comes out that the state governments or federal governments realize that casinos are actually money-making businesses.”

She said New York State voted a few years ago to allow non-Indian casinos, and suddenly creating competition again. The economic “privileges” American Indians are supposed to have therefore come to nothing.

Sexual Abuse Rampant On Reservations

Not only do American Indianson reservations lack property rights, they also often lack sufficient law enforcement. According to Riley’s book, native women are two and a half times more likely to be raped than average American woman. Although the media likes to blame racism and white men for the violence, Riley said the reality is that the abuse is interracial.

“The problem is not a race problem, what you’re having is a law enforcement problem and a governance problem,” Riley said. She said she once asked three officials who worked on reservations who they would report to if they discovered a case of violence. One said he’d report it to the tribal officials, one said he’d report it to the state officials, and one said he’d report it to federal officials — suggesting an ineffective system in which people simply don’t know where to report crimes.

“The truth of the matter is, you could report it to any of those three groups and they might not do anything about it because they’d be worried about stepping on somebody else’s toes,” Riley explained.

What To Do About The Problem

So why don’t more people leave the reservations? Riley said many do, but most are simply unaware there is any other option.

“When you live 100 miles from Rapid City, South Dakota, and everyone you know is unemployed, and when everyone you know has not been to high school, you are unaware that there are any other options,” Riley said. “That is a huge influence on what people think about leaving. New York might as well be another planet when you’re talking to these kids.”

What’s the key to change in the future? Riley says it’s education. Charter schools could open up opportunities for kids on reservations. Catholic schools, like the Red Cloud Indian School that serves the Pine Ridge Reservation, are already doing great work. But unfortunately, many states with Indian reservations, such as South Dakota, have no charter school laws.

“I would really like to see charter school laws passed in all of the areas where we have American Indians,” she said. “I haven’t discussed this with the people who run KIPP [charters] or similar programs, but I’m sure that they would want to come in and open schools right next to the reservations that would allow kids to come in.”

Congress also needs to exercise more oversight of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and prevent it from expanding, she said. Long-term, the United States must pass legislation that gives Indians true ownership of their own land and the economic freedom and property rights they deserve as American citizens.

“We do not treat any other race this way,” Riley said. “It should be a deep shame that we talk about holding land in trust for American Indians as if they are mentally incompetent or children.”

Remembering the biggest mass murder in the history of the world

By Ilya Somin August 3

Chinese peasants suffering from the effects of the Great Leap Forward.

Who was the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world? Most people probably assume that the answer is Adolf Hitler, architect of the Holocaust. Others might guess Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, who may indeed have managed to kill even more innocent people than Hitler did, many of them as part of a terror famine that likely took more lives than the Holocaust. But both Hitler and Stalin were outdone by Mao Zedong. From 1958 to 1962, his Great Leap Forward policy led to the deaths of up to 45 million people – easily making it the biggest episode of mass murder ever recorded.
Historian Frank Dikötter, author of the important book Mao’s Great Famine recently published an article in History Today, summarizing what happened:

Mao thought that he could catapult his country past its competitors by herding villagers across the country into giant people’s communes. In pursuit of a utopian paradise, everything was collectivised. People had their work, homes, land, belongings and livelihoods taken from them. In collective canteens, food, distributed by the spoonful according to merit, became a weapon used to force people to follow the party’s every dictate. As incentives to work were removed, coercion and violence were used instead to compel famished farmers to perform labour on poorly planned irrigation projects while fields were neglected.
A catastrophe of gargantuan proportions ensued. Extrapolating from published population statistics, historians have speculated that tens of millions of people died of starvation. But the true dimensions of what happened are only now coming to light thanks to the meticulous reports the party itself compiled during the famine….
What comes out of this massive and detailed dossier is a tale of horror in which Mao emerges as one of the greatest mass murderers in history, responsible for the deaths of at least 45 million people between 1958 and 1962. It is not merely the extent of the catastrophe that dwarfs earlier estimates, but also the manner in which many people died: between two and three million victims were tortured to death or summarily killed, often for the slightest infraction. When a boy stole a handful of grain in a Hunan village, local boss Xiong Dechang forced his father to bury him alive. The father died of grief a few days later. The case of Wang Ziyou was reported to the central leadership: one of his ears was chopped off, his legs were tied with iron wire, a ten kilogram stone was dropped on his back and then he was branded with a sizzling tool – punishment for digging up a potato.

The basic facts of the Great Leap Forward have long been known to scholars. Dikötter’s work is noteworthy for demonstrating that the number of victims may have been even greater than previously thought, and that the mass murder was more clearly intentional on Mao’s part, and included large numbers of victims who were executed or tortured, as opposed to “merely” starved to death. Even the previously standard estimates of 30 million or more, would still make this the greatest mass murder in history.
While the horrors of the Great Leap Forward are well known to experts on communism and Chinese history, they are rarely remembered by ordinary people outside China, and has had only a modest cultural impact. When Westerners think of the great evils of world history, they rarely think of this one. In contrast to the numerous books, movies, museums, and and remembrance days dedicated to the Holocaust, we make little effort to recall the Great Leap Forward, or to make sure that society has learned its lessons. When we vow “never again,” we don’t often recall that it should apply to this type of atrocity, as well as those motivated by racism or anti-semitism.
The fact that Mao’s atrocities resulted in many more deaths than those of Hitler does not necessarily mean he was the more evil of the two. The greater death toll is partly the result of the fact that Mao ruled over a much larger population for a much longer time. I lost several relatives in the Holocaust myself, and have no wish to diminish its significance. But the vast scale of Chinese communist atrocities puts them in the same general ballpark. At the very least, they deserve far more recognition than they currently receive.

[The truth about life under Cuban communism]

I. Why We so Rarely Look Back on the Great Leap Forward
What accounts for this neglect? One possible answer is that the most of the victims were Chinese peasants – people who are culturally and socially distant from the Western intellectuals and media figures who have the greatest influence over our historical consciousness and popular culture. As a general rule, it is easier to empathize with victims who seem similar to ourselves.
But an even bigger factor in our relative neglect of the Great Leap Forward is that it is part of the general tendency to downplay crimes committed by communist regimes, as opposed to right-wing authoritarians. Unlike in the days of Mao, today very few western intellectuals actually sympathize with communism. But many are reluctant to fully accept what a great evil it was, fearful – perhaps – that other left-wing causes might be tainted by association.

China's curious Cultural Revolution

Play Video1:20

The social-political movement launched in May 1966 by Mao Zedong followed a botched industrialization campaign where millions starved. It's a sensitive period in modern China's history. That's why this museum filled with relics from China's "Red Era", is one of a kind. From busts to badges, plates to posters - Chairman Mao and his vision are everywhere. (Reuters)In China, the regime has in recent years admitted that Mao made “mistakes” and allowed some degree of open discussion about this history. But the government is unwilling to admit that the mass murder was intentional and continues to occasionally suppress and persecute dissidents who point out the truth.This reluctance is an obvious result of the fact that the Communist Party still rules China. Although they have repudiated many of Mao’s specific policies, the regime still derives much of its legitimacy from his legacy. I experienced China’s official ambivalence on this subject first-hand, when I gave a talk about the issue while teaching a course as a visiting professor at a Chinese university in 2014.II. Why it Matters.For both Chinese and westerners, failure to acknowledge the true nature of the Great Leap Forward carries serious costs. Some survivors of the Great Leap Forward are still alive today. They deserve far greater recognition of the horrible injustice they suffered. They also deserve compensation for their losses, and the infliction of appropriate punishment on the remaining perpetrators.In addition, our continuing historical blind spot about the crimes of Mao and other communist rulers, leads us to underestimate the horrors of such policies, and makes it more likely that they might be revived in the future. The horrendous history of China, the USSR, and their imitators, should have permanently discredited socialism as completely as fascism was discredited by the Nazis. But it has not – so far – fully done so.Just recently, the socialist government of Venezuela imposed forced labor on much of its population. Yet most of the media coverage of this injustice fails to note the connection to socialism, or that the policy has parallels in the history of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and other similar regimes. One analysis even claims that the real problem is not so much “socialism qua socialism,” but rather Venezuela’s “particular brand of socialism, which fuses bad economic ideas with a distinctive brand of strongman bullying,” and is prone to authoritarianism and “mismanagement.” The author simply ignores the fact that “strongman bullying” and “mismanagement” are typical of socialist states around the world. The Scandinavian nations – sometimes cited as examples of successful socialism- are not actually socialist at all, because they do not feature government ownership of the means of production, and in many ways have freer markets than most other western nations.[We ignore Venezuela’s imminent implosion at our peril]Venezuela’s tragic situation would not surprise anyone familiar with the history of the Great Leap Forward. We would do well to finally give history’s largest episode of mass murder the attention it deserves.