In an attempt to bridge the gap between theories of violent escalation and those of genocide, this paper theorizes genocide to be a strategic choice by leaders in response to a situation which they perceive to lack alternatives. This situation is expected to evolve out of a violent escalation, more precisely civil war. The empirical test consists of a structured focused comparison of one positive and one negative case; namely the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the conflict in Georgia over the region Abkhazia. The finding gives some evidence to the theory, however a more adequate theory needs to also involve a theorization of the ability to perpetrate genocide and not only of a lack of other alternatives. The study builds on previous research on the relationship between violent escalation and genocide, and findings are in line with existing research.