Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#166

Post by wm » 08 Aug 2017, 15:23

DavidFrankenberg wrote:Sid, do you recognize the will to kill all Germans in Namibia ? the Maharero's order ? the beginning of application of that order ? the 123-150 germans killed in the first days of the war when the Herero were successful ?
Have you any doubt that if Herero had kept on winning, they would not have kept of killing Germans ?
"the Tribunal’s Statute, like the Genocide Convention, covers certain acts done"
no acts = no genocide

Yes, I have doubts that they "would killed them all", those people weren't that different from us.
Actually I'm ready to believe that the Germans severely abused them and raped their women at will - without any proof. I know how the Germans (but others too, even more) treated their farmhands in Eastern Europe at the same time. And I recognise the patterns of abuse, they are not that different.
And that the attack was an understandable act of vengeance by desperate people who had their land and their cattle stolen.
Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind as the Bible says.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#167

Post by Sid Guttridge » 08 Aug 2017, 16:38

Hi David,

You ask, "do you recognize the will to kill all Germans in Namibia ? the Maharero's order ?"

As I have said before, Yes. However, even Maharero, who seems to be the only Herero you implicate, did not carry the order out. We know that only about 5% of the Germans in SWA were actually killed, that most of the Germans killed were soldiers, that very few women (three) and children (?) were killed, that others (and missionaries) were released on Maharero's instructions, that the Herero would have been happy if the Germans had just gone home and that 99.99% of all Germans were beyond reach.

You ask, "Have you any doubt that if Herero had kept on winning, they would not have kept of killing Germans ?" Yes, because they released some Germans when they were still winning.

However else you may wish to characterize Herero actions, they were far short of genocide.

Cheers,

Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 08 Aug 2017, 18:33, edited 1 time in total.


Puck
Member
Posts: 1252
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 14:54
Location: Germany

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#168

Post by Puck » 08 Aug 2017, 17:57

Some parts from
Kriegsbewältigung und Geschichtsbewußtsein: Realität, Deutung und Verarbeitung des deutschen Kolonialkriegs in Namibia; 1904 bis 1907
by Gesine Krüger

http://digi20.digitale-sammlungen.de/de ... 00001.html
(page 61)
The Herero did not fight against all whites, but they waged a struggle against the German settlers, against the practices of the traders, and against the growing contempt and undermining of the authority of their chiefs. Not only did they protect women and children, missionaries and non-Germans, also in some cases respected German settlers and traders.
(Page 63)

The war aims and warfare of the Herero differed fundamentally from those of the German military. While the German side, at the latest since the change of commander, had been pursuing the destruction of the Herero as a warlike target, Herero's aim was to postpone the power relations in favor of the chiefs, who saw the vital basis of their society within colonial society.
(Page 104)

Already in the first reports on the outbreak of the war, the colonial propaganda claimed that all farmers with their wives and children had been "slaughtered", which was not true.
Although there was a telegram from Governor Leutwein to the Reichstag, which explicitly stated that Herero spared women and children, rumors of the alleged killing of defenseless women and children were spread over and spread among the soldiers on the ground.
The propaganda in the German public had already ideologically prepared the soldiers in the homeland to clean up in the protected area with savages and to revenge. Another important function of the rumors was to justify to the German public the extraordinarily high expenditure that was necessary to bring the 'insurgents' to the rage.
In order to compensate for the impending loss of prestige of the German Reich after the first defeats of the Schutztruppe, the enemy had to be described at least as dangerous and cruel as possible.
(Page 107)
As early as March 1904, missionary Irle had written in an article in the Reichsbote, "And as for the women who were described here as slaughtered, their belly cut open, this is proved to be inaccurate."
Two of the women allegedly murdered at the beginning of the war were Mrs. Pilet and her sister from the Fraucnstein farm. Franke reports in his estate how the story of the alleged murder spread. In January 1904, a horseman told him of Frauenstein's destroyed farm: "The man gave a gruesome description because he saw the dismembered corpses of the women. For example, The cut off breasts of the women have seen, hanging on the thornbushes in front of the house ...
A story which is perfectly useful and similar to the news of the news, which at that time in Germany caused horror and indignation against the "black beasts". The value of these rumors is the fact that a few days later I found the two women in Okahandia's fortunes undisturbed." Another source said that the women were quartered.
(Page 108)

Facing the hardships and dangers that the civilian population faces in wars, the german women in the Herero War were relatively safe. They stood under the declared protection of Samuel Maharero, and from the beginning Herero's practice showed that this protection actually existed.
During the siege of Omaruru chief Michael Tjitseseta had announced to the local missionary, "They were not thinking of peace, and had the firm intention of taking the fortress; But before that we should remove the women and children from whom the chief wanted to be sent safely to the coast. He said, "I do not wage war with women and children, only with men!" This statement is confirmed by missionary Kuhlmann, who had been in a Herero camp during the war: "It seems to many people that three white women were killed by the Herero. They repeatedly assured me: "We do not kill women, kill women is equal to the extermination of a people." In many cases, Herero warriors had escorted women, children, and missionaries to the neighborhoods, personally taking a great risk on. This attitude of an enemy, who had supposedly unleashed a vengeful and barbarous insurrection solely by revenge, hardly aroused astonishment, and often came only indirectly. The salvation of women, on the other hand, was often felt and described as a deliberate humiliation by the Herero.
Regards Puck

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#169

Post by Sid Guttridge » 08 Aug 2017, 18:33

Hi Puck,

Very interesting.

Which leads to the question as to whether Maharero really said the things alleged?

What, one wonders, is the source for the story that he ordered all Germans killed and what is its reliability?

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#170

Post by wm » 08 Aug 2017, 19:42

what was going on in Germany at the same time:
debate about what happened in the African colonies also took the form of more formal political controversy, in particular in the Reichstag, the parliament of the day. Here, the Social Democrats and the Centre Party representing Catholic petty bourgeoisie and workers, at least potentially were in the majority, and they castigated colonial excesses, if not colonialism as such. In particular August Bebel, the Social Democrat patriarch and parliamentary leader, dubbed the struggle of the Ovaherero as a ‘fight in despair’, immediately when the war had begun. This was precisely on account of their loss of ‘their former independence and freedom’, and Bebel likened this struggle to that of Arminius, styled at the time as a German national hero for his victory over the Romans in 9 AD. Referring to the execution of Ovaherero leaders he exclaimed: ‘But this is the world turned upside down. In truth, the Herero defend the country which has been theirs for centuries, which they view as their heritage given to them by the Gods, and which they are obliged to defend by employing all means at their disposal.’ (Bebel 1904: 581, 584). Roughly a year later, Bebel slashed out at von Trotha’s conduct of the war likening it to that of ‘any butcher’s henchman’, a ‘barbarous kind of war making’, unfit to lay claim to civilisation (Bebel 1905: 697).
The parliamentary conflict came to a head when in late 1906, the Imperial government used a procedural issue to resolve the Reichstag, claiming the majority had un-patriotically withheld the funds from the soldiers fighting for the fatherland in South West Africa. The tactics of snap elections, along with a reshuffle of German parliamentary politics was successful, reducing the number of Social Democratic deputies and forging a new broad alliance supporting the government of Count Bülow (cf. Crothers 1941). This success was predicated, besides using features of the electoral system, on an unprecedented mobilisation of right wing civil society organisations (cf. Wehler 1995: 1079-80; Nipperdey 1998: 601; Sobich 2004; 2006). Still, Social Democrats also retorted by electoral propaganda strongly critical of the war and its conduct (cf. Short 2004).From the vantage point of today this attests to entangled history.
Entangled History and Politics: Negotiating the past between Namibia and Germany by Reinhart Kössler
Unfortunately the rest of the paper isn't very interesting.

But this seems to be a reasonable source:
The Herero were a very traditional community often misunderstood by their colonizers. In warfare for example, they were seen as cruel and without honor by the German colonizers. As I.V. Hull (2005) illustrates by quoting August Kuhlmann, a missionary who inspected German missions in SWA (1904):

They took no prisoners. They used large knives or clubs (kirris) to kill wounded enemy soldiers.
When they lacked bullets, they made their own out of bits of scrap metal and glass, which left jagged, often fatal, wounds. They ritually mutilated enemy corpses, which caused the German to surmise (probably incorrectly) that they had tortured the wounded. They stripped the dead of their uniforms and wore these themselves. Herero women hid in thorn bushes and encouraged their men folk with chants, which German soldiers found chilling and which fed the myth that Herero women participated in killing.
In this period of time, there were internal wars taking place between native tribes, in particular the Nama and the Herero, thus one must remain aware that the Germans were not the only factor causing unrest. It was merely this which led the Herero chief of Okahandja, Maharero, to sign a protection treaty with the Germans (1885), to prevent the Nama Chief Hendrik Witbooi’s regular attacks on Herero cattle posts. The Germans saw this treaty as their claim to SWA. The Herero realized this only later and annulled the treaty 3 years after it had been signed (1888).
However the Herero from Okahandja continued to be in regular contact with the Germans and especially with their missionaries, some of them adopting Christianity and setting up churches. It was Hendrik Witbooi who in 1890 wrote to Samuel Maharero, Kamaharero’s son and successor, stating: “You will eternally regret that you have given your land and your right to rule into the hands of the whites.”Nonetheless in that same year Samuel Maharero renewed the protection treaty. As a result he was to be recognized as supreme Herero leader by the Germans to the exclusion of other Herero leaders. The Germans were thus of importance to the Herero, in the same way they were to the Germans.
According to Zimmerer (2003) we should be aware of the fact that most African groups had forged tactical alliances with the Germans and we cannot see them as passive victims of colonial politics. As Zimmerer writes:
There is also considerable evidence that the African chiefs and captains viewed the so-called ‘protection treaties’ less as subjugation to some abstract German state personified by the Kaiser than as alliances between states. That is another reason why it is erroneous to represent the war of 1904 to 1907 as an ‘uprising’ or ‘rebellion’. That corresponds to the perception of the colonial powers who had, for the most part, reached agreements about the possession of territory at internal conferences, but it is not at all the African perspective. It is therefore more appropriate to speak of war.
Concentration camps were the German’s reaction of dealing with the survivors of the battles.
After the fighting between the Germans and Herero had ended a campaign of extermination had begun. Survivors were killed or left to starve. This was abruptly ended with the successful protest of Mission Societies in Germany. Missionaries were employed to incite Herero to surrender, and those who did surrender, were housed in concentration camps.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 11 May 2016, 02:09
Location: Earth

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#171

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 08 Aug 2017, 23:14

wm wrote:
DavidFrankenberg wrote:Sid, do you recognize the will to kill all Germans in Namibia ? the Maharero's order ? the beginning of application of that order ? the 123-150 germans killed in the first days of the war when the Herero were successful ?
Have you any doubt that if Herero had kept on winning, they would not have kept of killing Germans ?
"the Tribunal’s Statute, like the Genocide Convention, covers certain acts done"
no acts = no genocide
Are you pretending there were no killings of germans ? there was no war ? No order of extermination ? Those are no "acts done" for you ?
There were acts, there was a genocide.

Yes, I have doubts that they "would killed them all", those people weren't that different from us.
Actually I'm ready to believe that the Germans severely abused them and raped their women at will - without any proof. I know how the Germans (but others too, even more) treated their farmhands in Eastern Europe at the same time. And I recognise the patterns of abuse, they are not that different.
And that the attack was an understandable act of vengeance by desperate people who had their land and their cattle stolen.
Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind as the Bible says.
I wasnt talknig about "germans killin all Hereros"... but about Herero killin all Germans if they had won the war. For sure they would ; dont forget, they killed all germans on the first days of the war, when they were victorious. No doubt they would accomplish Maharero's order : kill all germans.
Last edited by DavidFrankenberg on 09 Aug 2017, 00:03, edited 1 time in total.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 11 May 2016, 02:09
Location: Earth

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#172

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 08 Aug 2017, 23:39

wm wrote: But this seems to be a reasonable source:
The Herero were a very traditional community often misunderstood by their colonizers. In warfare for example, they were seen as cruel and without honor by the German colonizers. As I.V. Hull (2005) illustrates by quoting August Kuhlmann, a missionary who inspected German missions in SWA (1904):

They took no prisoners. They used large knives or clubs (kirris) to kill wounded enemy soldiers.
When they lacked bullets, they made their own out of bits of scrap metal and glass, which left jagged, often fatal, wounds. They ritually mutilated enemy corpses, which caused the German to surmise (probably incorrectly) that they had tortured the wounded. They stripped the dead of their uniforms and wore these themselves. Herero women hid in thorn bushes and encouraged their men folk with chants, which German soldiers found chilling and which fed the myth that Herero women participated in killing.
In this period of time, there were internal wars taking place between native tribes, in particular the Nama and the Herero, thus one must remain aware that the Germans were not the only factor causing unrest. It was merely this which led the Herero chief of Okahandja, Maharero, to sign a protection treaty with the Germans (1885), to prevent the Nama Chief Hendrik Witbooi’s regular attacks on Herero cattle posts. The Germans saw this treaty as their claim to SWA. The Herero realized this only later and annulled the treaty 3 years after it had been signed (1888).
However the Herero from Okahandja continued to be in regular contact with the Germans and especially with their missionaries, some of them adopting Christianity and setting up churches. It was Hendrik Witbooi who in 1890 wrote to Samuel Maharero, Kamaharero’s son and successor, stating: “You will eternally regret that you have given your land and your right to rule into the hands of the whites.”Nonetheless in that same year Samuel Maharero renewed the protection treaty. As a result he was to be recognized as supreme Herero leader by the Germans to the exclusion of other Herero leaders. The Germans were thus of importance to the Herero, in the same way they were to the Germans.
According to Zimmerer (2003) we should be aware of the fact that most African groups had forged tactical alliances with the Germans and we cannot see them as passive victims of colonial politics. As Zimmerer writes:
There is also considerable evidence that the African chiefs and captains viewed the so-called ‘protection treaties’ less as subjugation to some abstract German state personified by the Kaiser than as alliances between states. That is another reason why it is erroneous to represent the war of 1904 to 1907 as an ‘uprising’ or ‘rebellion’. That corresponds to the perception of the colonial powers who had, for the most part, reached agreements about the possession of territory at internal conferences, but it is not at all the African perspective. It is therefore more appropriate to speak of war.
Concentration camps were the German’s reaction of dealing with the survivors of the battles.
After the fighting between the Germans and Herero had ended a campaign of extermination had begun. Survivors were killed or left to starve. This was abruptly ended with the successful protest of Mission Societies in Germany. Missionaries were employed to incite Herero to surrender, and those who did surrender, were housed in concentration camps.
Of course, Herero way of war was not modern but rather medieval and even prehistorical... they had no pity, this was tribal war, like the cruel wars Namas and Hereros fought in the past... mutilating bodies was usual etc.
Remember Herero invaded the country in the 17th century, not peacefully, but by war. When Namas came, later, Hereros went on war with them and successfully defeated them. Namas became like slaves for Herero. Herero had many ennemy in the tribes around, and indeed some of these tribes didnt join the Herero war, they helped Germans to seek and destroy Herero groups. When Germans came in 1886, they brought peace, cause there was a lot of tribal wars before. see Bridgman p.30 and followings

When Herero faced the terrible plague which killed almost all of their cattles (80-90%, Bridgman p.50) in 1897, their conditions became poorer and poorer... they became jealous about the Germans because they were living so well compared to them. They were blaming Germans instead of blaming the plague. Terrible mistake which leads them to the unnecessary war of 1904.

It reminds me the Nonqawuse story in South Africa 1856-7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongqawuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... 54-1858.29
Last edited by DavidFrankenberg on 09 Aug 2017, 00:03, edited 1 time in total.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 11 May 2016, 02:09
Location: Earth

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#173

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 09 Aug 2017, 00:02

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi David,

You ask, "do you recognize the will to kill all Germans in Namibia ? the Maharero's order ?"

As I have said before, Yes.
Good.
If they intended to kill all Germans, you are also reconizing it was a genocide.

About the 3 dead german women, but what about them Sid ? I wd ask the same question to Puck who quoted the historian Gesine Krüger. They were "collateral damages" ?

3 is probably too low, like the 123, since other estimates 150 deads more probable.

Sid, Maharero was the Hereo King, he decided the war, he gave order to "kill all Germans"... they bean to do so. So Sid, was it or not a genocide ?

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#174

Post by wm » 09 Aug 2017, 00:21

DavidFrankenberg wrote:Of course, Herero way of war was modern but rather medieval and even prehistorical... they had no pity, this was tribal war, like the cruel wars Namas and Hereros fought in the past... mutilating bodies was usual etc.
Remember Herero invaded the country in the 17th century, not peacefully, but by war. When Namas came, later, Hereros went on war with them and successfully defeated them. Namas became like slaves for Herero.
Are you saying you have the right to rob, kill, rape people because ten generations ago their forebears did that too? Well happy raping :)
But I think thousands and thousands of East Europeans would want to take advantage of the same right against the Germans.


And nothing about the invasion here:
The origin of the Herero has been a mystery to many; however what has been confirmed is that they most likely may have descended from the Bantu peoples in Central East Africa. A pastoral, nomadic people, a part of their group is said to have entered SWA in the 17th century.
By the 19th century when Europeans had penetrated the interior of SWA the Herero had established their own land from the Western Kalahari to modern-day Botswana’s border in the east. They also dominated the Windhoek area, the present day capital of Namibia, after some pressure from the Oorlams and until the arrival of the Germans. The Herero people were divided into several tribes and it was in pre-colonial times that they interested European discoverers due to their strong decentralization. By the 1830’s they had however experienced problems with Oorlam raiders and lost much of their cattle and land. The tensions with the Oorlam people continued until 1863, when the Herero had defeated their enemies and approaching what is referred to as their ‘golden age’. The Herero were in regular contact with Europeans by this time, trading and often acting as middlemen between the Ovambo kingdoms and the Cape.
Jan van Mil, The African Reich’ - Germany’s Imperial Campaign in Africa (1880-1914)
With tensions starting in the late 19th century and minor wars taking place between the Germans and the native groups, as well as the native groups with each other, violence was not uncommon. Just not of such a severe scale. With the Herero fearing more loss of their land, and perhaps as a result the diminishing of their tribes they were determined to relinquish the territory of German presence. According to many historians this revolt was a well planned and premeditated insurrection against the Germans by the Herero. As a result, on 11 January 1904 the war broke out.
Rumors about the death of hundreds of German men, women and children at the hands of the Herero spread across the territory. Later it became that clear only 123 Germans had perished under Herero attacks, not including any women or children. Nevertheless, this was the catalyst for a war against the Herero and what later became genocide. Why the Herero attacked the Germans has been disputed, however it is Zimmerer (2003) who notes the outbreak of Rinderpest as a leading factor. As Zimmerer demonstrates, with the outbreak of Rinderpest in 1896, the Herero had seen great losses of cattle and infected springs due to rotting animal corpses. As a result Herero saw their economic and patrimonial systems collapse, which affected them socially and politically. Thus results of the Herero attacks were “in protest against the appropriation of their land, the deaths of many cattle through epidemics, and hostile treatment by German settlers and administrators.”
Jan van Mil, The African Reich’ - Germany’s Imperial Campaign in Africa (1880-1914)

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 11 May 2016, 02:09
Location: Earth

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#175

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 09 Aug 2017, 01:05

wm wrote:
DavidFrankenberg wrote:Of course, Herero way of war was modern but rather medieval and even prehistorical... they had no pity, this was tribal war, like the cruel wars Namas and Hereros fought in the past... mutilating bodies was usual etc.
Remember Herero invaded the country in the 17th century, not peacefully, but by war. When Namas came, later, Hereros went on war with them and successfully defeated them. Namas became like slaves for Herero.
Are you saying you have the right to rob, kill, rape people
I dont.
because ten generations ago their forebears did that too?
It was their way of war. They did it for centuries, milleniums... They did it in 1904 against the Germans.
Well happy raping :)
:roll:
But I think thousands and thousands of East Europeans would want to take advantage of the same right against the Germans.
Well, it seems that is what happened in Germany somehow in 1945. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_duri ... of_Germany
And nothing about the invasion here:
The origin of the Herero has been a mystery to many; however what has been confirmed is that they most likely may have descended from the Bantu peoples in Central East Africa. A pastoral, nomadic people, a part of their group is said to have entered SWA in the 17th century.
By the 19th century when Europeans had penetrated the interior of SWA the Herero had established their own land from the Western Kalahari to modern-day Botswana’s border in the east. They also dominated the Windhoek area, the present day capital of Namibia, after some pressure from the Oorlams and until the arrival of the Germans. The Herero people were divided into several tribes and it was in pre-colonial times that they interested European discoverers due to their strong decentralization. By the 1830’s they had however experienced problems with Oorlam raiders and lost much of their cattle and land. The tensions with the Oorlam people continued until 1863, when the Herero had defeated their enemies and approaching what is referred to as their ‘golden age’. The Herero were in regular contact with Europeans by this time, trading and often acting as middlemen between the Ovambo kingdoms and the Cape.
Jan van Mil, The African Reich’ - Germany’s Imperial Campaign in Africa (1880-1914)
Who are the "many" ? Let's count them.
Bridgman and others are not one of them. Read my previous posts.
With tensions starting in the late 19th century and minor wars taking place between the Germans and the native groups, as well as the native groups with each other, violence was not uncommon. Just not of such a severe scale. With the Herero fearing more loss of their land, and perhaps as a result the diminishing of their tribes they were determined to relinquish the territory of German presence. According to many historians this revolt was a well planned and premeditated insurrection against the Germans by the Herero. As a result, on 11 January 1904 the war broke out.
Rumors about the death of hundreds of German men, women and children at the hands of the Herero spread across the territory. Later it became that clear only 123 Germans had perished under Herero attacks, not including any women or children. Nevertheless, this was the catalyst for a war against the Herero and what later became genocide. Why the Herero attacked the Germans has been disputed, however it is Zimmerer (2003) who notes the outbreak of Rinderpest as a leading factor. As Zimmerer demonstrates, with the outbreak of Rinderpest in 1896, the Herero had seen great losses of cattle and infected springs due to rotting animal corpses. As a result Herero saw their economic and patrimonial systems collapse, which affected them socially and politically. Thus results of the Herero attacks were “in protest against the appropriation of their land, the deaths of many cattle through epidemics, and hostile treatment by German settlers and administrators.”
Jan van Mil, The African Reich’ - Germany’s Imperial Campaign in Africa (1880-1914)
The 123 figure is challenged by a higher one : 150. Read my previous posts.

I agree with van Mil when he says the plague that killed almost all the Herero cattle in 1894 led to the 1904 war (one again, read my previous posts). It is already quite clear if you read Bridgman (1981) indeed.

Puck
Member
Posts: 1252
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 14:54
Location: Germany

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#176

Post by Puck » 09 Aug 2017, 01:57

DavidFrankenberg wrote:The 123 figure is challenged by a higher one : 150. Read my previous posts.
My question always is "Cui bono?"...

So what is the purpose to argue about 123 or 150 victims, in my opion every victim is too much. Or is there a propably a relation between the number of german victims and the validity of justification of the following genocide against the Hereros.
DavidFrankenberg wrote:It is already quite clear if you read Bridgman (1981) indeed.
if you read your Bridgman, why do you consequently ignore that Bridgman also describes that woman and children were exempted from killing.
Bridgman wrote:...no women or children were killed...

It should be noted that a number of women an childrem were allowed by Hereros through their lines into towns, and that also the Heroro in command of the forces near Okahandja offered to allow all women and children to leave the fort and return to Germany.
This is definitly far away from the intent of a genocid, did you read this also?

Regards Puck

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 11 May 2016, 02:09
Location: Earth

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#177

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 09 Aug 2017, 03:17

Puck wrote:
DavidFrankenberg wrote:The 123 figure is challenged by a higher one : 150. Read my previous posts.
My question always is "Cui bono?"...

So what is the purpose to argue about 123 or 150 victims, in my opion every victim is too much. Or is there a propably a relation between the number of german victims and the validity of justification of the following genocide against the Hereros.
There are different estimates about the number of victims. You choose one and ignores the other. I dont.
DavidFrankenberg wrote:It is already quite clear if you read Bridgman (1981) indeed.
if you read your Bridgman, why do you consequently ignore that Bridgman also describes that woman and children were exempted from killing.
Maybe because, at least 3 women were killed ?
Bridgman wrote:...no women or children were killed...
It should be noted that a number of women an childrem were allowed by Hereros through their lines into towns, and that also the Heroro in command of the forces near Okahandja offered to allow all women and children to leave the fort and return to Germany.
I wonder what are his sources concerning that.
This is definitly far away from the intent of a genocid, did you read this also?

Regards Puck
Well. Not far at all. Genocide is the intent of extermining a group in whole or in part. If you spare women but kill all men, i guess it is still a kind of genocide. cf my earlier post quoting Judgement about Srebrenica genocide.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#178

Post by Sid Guttridge » 09 Aug 2017, 11:36

Hi David,

You ask, "Are you pretending there were no killings of germans ?" No. That should be obvious from my earlier posts.

You ask ".....there was no war ?" Again, no. That should also be obvious from my earlier posts.

You ask, "Those are no "acts done" for you ?" Clearly acts were done and Germans killed. However, not all "acts done" are necessarily genocide. People can be killed in multiple ways without it being genocide - war, murder, homicide, etc., etc. Just because Germans are killed doesn't automatically promote the action to genocide.

However, when you ask "No order of extermination ?" I have to note that I have now asked twice for the source of the alleged quote by Maharero and received no reply.

On the other hand we do know that Maharero did release German women, children and missionaries.

So I have to ask again, what is the source of the alleged quote by Maharero?

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Can we have the text of Maharero's letter? I can only find four lines from it on the internet and these are only instructions on who NOT to attack.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 09 Aug 2017, 11:57, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#179

Post by wm » 09 Aug 2017, 11:38

DavidFrankenberg wrote:Genocide is the intent of extermining a group in whole or in part.
Not true, the "in part" has a legal meaning and an ordinary meaning. Its legal meaning eludes you.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Germany committed the first act of genocide against blacks

#180

Post by Sid Guttridge » 09 Aug 2017, 12:07

Just to add a general point I have raised before.

In 1914 Germany itself had about twenty times the population of its colonies.

France had about the same population as its colonies.

Britain had about a tenth of the population of its colonies.

I don't think the Germans were necessarily inherently nastier than anyone else, but they were in a much better position to overwhelm their few colonial subjects by brute force. The British, on the other hand, had to be far more subtle in their dealings with their far more numerous colonial subjects. I suspect it was this differential that allowed the Germans to be more heavy handed in their colonies than the British and gave rise to their particular reputation for brutality.

Sid.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”