" 

 :Re-inserted United States section - Cesarani agrees with Stannard in directly accusing the United States of America of Genocide. In future you'd be well advised to read the sources before you comment on what they do or do not say! ;-)  

 :I agree that the Cromwell section ought to be reduced, but I'll leave that up to someone else - I merely copied content from the main articles.  

 :With regards to whether the source accuses Cromwell's army of genocide, again, I advise you to read the source. The title of the book is Genocide in the Age of the Nation State. On page 56 Levene states: ""The fact that it did not include 'total genocide' in its remit... says less about the lethal determination of its makers and more about the political, structural, and financial weakness of the early modern English state."" He calls the 1652 Act for the Settlement of Ireland ""the nearest thing on paper"" to a ""state-sanctioned and systematic ethnic cleansing of another people"". He also says England's first Navigation Act of 1651, ""in Lemkins original 1944 prescription of the meaning of the term, count as an aspect of genocide"" (all on page 56). 

 :Your claim as to the fact that this occurred within the context of a civil war unfortunately works against precedent here, as several of the accepted entries on Genocide (Guatemala, France, Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-1995) occurred in such contexts. What counts - according to the way this article has been structured - is whether the ""mass killing"" was ""one-sided"" and sufficiently systematic. I don't make these rules. Take it up with whoever is in charge of the parameters set out in the article's introduction.  "