Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

Main Page

Ebooks Main Page

Old Articles

Forum Home > Regional History or Period History > African History

New Posts

FAQ

The myth of German genocide against the Herero

Post Reply

Page <1 234 >

Author

Share Topic

Topic Search

Topic Options

Temujin

King

Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221

Quote

Topic: The myth of German genocide against the Herero
Posted: 03-May-2009 at 20:33

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

Genocide is a specific crime with specific traits. Whether it is justifiable or not is a secondary issue. Just like how murder is a specific crime, and some people give justification for doing it. But murder is murder and genocide is genocide. Its just a word to describe a particular crime. In the case of Hereros, we know for sure what the intent of the German army was, we know many of their tactics, and we know around 80% of Hereros were wiped out, and that the remnants barely survived. The German government even admitted it.

are you crazy? you can argue weather a certain event was a genocide/murder or not but it's unquestionable that a genocide/murder is never justified in any way... coming from a trigger-happy Armenian 'genocide' fanatic this is ridiculous.

"we" know that it is estimated that 35-80% of the Hereros died, no one knows for sure...as you yourself claimed, numbers are meanignless in judging a genocide...

But judging by the casualty rates, this was hardly the case. Hereros were not even a threat to Germans in the region even if we assume most of them were fighters, because if tens of thousands of them fought and died, and were only able to kill a couple of hundred Germans, then that is not much of a military threat, and such a difference in force of arms would have been made obvious to the Germans prior to their actions (and more so during).

German casualties are above 1000 and the German Schutztruppe was initially outnumbered by the Hereros until reinforcements arrived.

On the other hand, if we assume most of them were not fighters, not only would it help explain the casualty disparity, but it would make sense statistically, because you would have to be out of touch with reality to think that 80% of any ethnic group are able-bodied, much less in a position to stand up to imperial soldiers.

most Hereros died not in combat but to disease and starvation, we already had that...that could explain to those out of touch with reality why there were more Herero than German casualties.

So the commander of the forces AND the governor of the province intended to exterminate the Hereros, but this is not considered a government organized genocide? Just because the orders didn't come from the highest authority in the German imperial system, doesn't mean it cannot be considered a state-sponsored genocide. If a genocide is made possible by forces within the state, then its a state-sponsored genocide. The state is responsible for the actions of their subbordinates.

of course you jump at every bone i throw at you do you? LOL Leutwein was on friendly terms with the Hereros and that's why he actually resigned from his post as governor in 1905 because he disagreed with Trothas policy...

the state is kept responsible for the wrongdoings of their subordinates but that doesn't make them guilty unless prooven the subordinate carried out higher orders as opposed to his own personal intention. that would make it a massacre, ask the Plains Indians.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Leutwein.png

here's governor Leutwein together with Samuel Maherero, amongst others....

So we have to assume one of two things: Despite having no realistic chance, Herero women and children decided to provoke the German soldiers, which warranted a response from them (which is basically what you're saying).

well, consdidering you're so eagerly particpipating in this thread, one would assume you're familiar with the actual events... just as an interlude, are you, at all? I mean what's your point coming here to argue, Mr. Armenian Genocide? it was a draught that killed the Herero lifestock (that was supposedly already stolen by Germans! LOL ) that got their uprising started, amongst other things. they started off by killing over hundred civilians mostly males on their farms, which resulted in Germans responses in form of reinforcements.

Or, the German forces carried out announcements their commander made about killing all Hereros, which they were quite capable of doing, and in fact, they DID end up doing. I'll leave it to the reasonable reader to figure out which scenario is more plausible.

OR, you actually inform yourself first before making akward conclusions. i'll leave it to the dedicated reader to figure out if that scenario is plausible

No, we are not on the same page. When I said that only certain groups have the ability to commit genocide on others, I am referring to power. For example, a relatively weak/powerless minority or tribe cannot commit genocide against a formidable state. However, the formidable state, under certain circumstances, can commit genocide relatively easily on the weak/powerless minority or tribe. This doesn't imply that all powerful states are genocidal or evil, and it does not imply that all weaker peoples are perpetual victims.

Ok, now let's assume we have three powers here, a large power, a mediocre power and a small power. the small power is separated by the two states. now let's assume the foremost power wages war on the medicore power with the support of their part of the small power, and that small power helps their oppressed mates in the mediocres powers domain to slay their oppressors. is it then still not possible that small powers can comitt crimes as well towards superior powers? i mean with the toleration of the foremost power in whose backwater of offense they operate, staying with your example.

There are a lot of grey areas in many realistic cases. But, being able to justify the invasion does not make up the whole picture--- more important is the intention and conduct of invading forces during the conflict. If the invading force is massacring all innocents in sight within the occupied country, then I don't think you can justify that, whatever the reason for the initial invasion might have been (whether it was noble or heinous). But if they simply secure resources with minnimum collateral damage, then many people can argue that its justified, depending on one's views about ownership and theft.

how can we judge who's innocent? what if one Vietcong is hidden and protected in the mass of a village, how to figure out who is it and who's not. how do you know he's still in the village at all? what if weaposna re foudn and no one in the village claims they know where they come from? it is not very easy to do the right thing in such cirumstances. and are those villagers who hide VC innocent themelves, that's the big questionmark here. i personally don't believe in genuine innocence and wouldn't throw around with such words easily. actually i don't easily throw around with absolutes at all, only Sith believe in absolutes, you know...

If there is an intent and ability on the part of the perpetrator to effectively wipe out an ethnic or national group, then its genocide. Its very distinct from a massacre or a warcrime, which is either intended to terrorize the public into submission, or is the result of lack of discipline.

who is an ethnic or national group? this seems an odd question but think about it. how many Germans did the Germans put in death camps? sounds odd? no let's put it that way: how many Jews have the Nazis put in Death Camps? looks better? ok, can a German be a Nazi, can he be a Jew? yes to both, and it was more than one "Jew" who got killed who didn't considdered himself a Jew but German. so in an odd way, we can say Germans killed Germans (gypsies were also citizens of Germany afterall). it all ends up to who are the perpetrators and their perception. hold this thought for oen secodn until....

Theoretically, numbers have nothing to do with genocide. Genocide simply describes a particular crime--- intent and action of wiping out an ethnic or national group.

(bolded for the first quote)

In the case of the Chinese examples, I agree with you, it can't be considered genocide. Its just a civil war on a much bigger scale. And this is a very crucial point for us to fathom if we want to understand each other--- The same way we have small-scale and large-scale civil wars, there are small-scale and large-scale genocides. The rate of casualties does not define the particular scenario... the intent and actions of the forces involved defines the scenario. So a civil war cannot be considered anything but a civil war, even if 100 million people die. But a genocide cannot be considered anything but a genocide, even if a few thousand people die.

...now! so, you maintain we don't have a genocide if the same ethnic group kills each others. then, according to you the Holocaust was a mere Civil War, which was terribly one-sided? rather not....so where does that leave us? can certain ethnicites and nationalities have differences in themselves? yes they do, and it's up to the perpetrators apparently to descide who is and who isn't. the Herero were removed their status as Imperial vassals by Trotha so he could execute his orders, so we are in a position to say this was clearly no civil war foremost! this leads us to the point where we can say this was a war between the regular colonial and naval forces of Germany as well as the Herero tribe as a whole. this was the secodn phase. the first phase was the Hereros uprising as Imperial subjects vs German Civilians. now the only relevant phase to our question of genocide or not leaves us with phase three, the internment of the Hereros in Concentration Camps again as Imperial subjects.

Germans seizing or "buying" Herero cattle from 1890-1904 is a very realistic claim. Its the main reason some Hereros decided to rebel in the first place.

argument dismissed, see above

This is irrelevent in terms of treatment of Hereros by Germans.

this is relevant in regards to the allegations of genocide by the Germans and what i've started to discuss above in regards to percieved ethnos and natonality. if there was a racial attitude towards the hereros why were not all "black" irregardeless of their tribal affiliation singled out for a program of genocide?

Its interesting how the Herero did quite alright in this "inhospitable area" during the few centuries before the Germans showed up. But in the 14-year window of German involvement, they were the victims of a severe "draught", and the size of their cattle (their main mode of survival) decreased significantly each year after the German appearance. I'm sure this was plain coincidence, absolutely nothing to do with German wishes of starting an empire in Africa at the expense of the natives, in order to rival the British.

many people do alright in inhospitable lands like Inuit, as long as everything is normal. a draught is not normal and subsequently there were troubles. that has happened before but this time around there were German neighbours which were better prepared for such situations, which led to a certain jealousy and the demand for help. this is what caused the uprising as described above.

So according to you, despite the fact the commander of German forces made it clear he wanted to exterminate ALL Hereros, despite the fact the governor was probably involved, and despite the fact that innocent Hereros were systematically rounded up into camps where most of them died, all these deaths happened by accident?

Again, the reasonable reader can discern whether or not your scenario is plausible.

after all i brought up insofar as your pathetic allegations are concerned, i'll leave it to the bored reader to read a more interesting thread...

For this to happen, you would have to assume that everyone in a particular army, independently and simultaneously, suddenly manifests an intent and will to wipe out a particular ethnic or national group. Not likely. For genocide to occur, there has to be a high level of collusion, which is only possible with strong central command.

incorrect, for this to happen it needs a determined invasion army and an opponent whose (small) population throughout all classes and genders is willing to fight for their freedom under all circumstances till death. in this case there is no announcement nor intention of genocide but due to the subbornness of the defenders, everyone's death.

ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down

Chieftain

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460

Quote

Posted: 03-May-2009 at 22:37

Originally posted by Temujin

are you crazy? you can argue weather a certain event was a genocide/murder or not but it's unquestionable that a genocide/murder is never justified in any way... coming from a trigger-happy Armenian 'genocide' fanatic this is ridiculous.

I never said it is. I said some people give justification for murders/genocides, which doesn't imply that I give justification for them.

Originally posted by Temujin

"we" know that it is estimated that 35-80% of the Hereros died, no one knows for sure...as you yourself claimed, numbers are meanignless in judging a genocide...

Yes, theoretically, numbers don't define whether it is a genocide. But if you kill most members of an ethnic group, the numbers back up the point.

Originally posted by Temujin

German casualties are above 1000 and the German Schutztruppe was initially outnumbered by the Hereros until reinforcements arrived.

Okay, the casualties are around 1,000 Germans and around 65,000 Herero. Forgive me...

Originally posted by Temujin

most Hereros died not in combat but to disease and starvation, we already had that...that could explain to those out of touch with reality why there were more Herero than German casualties.

In many genocides, disease and starvation are employed, because its much easier to starve out a population than slaughter them one by one. Quarantining a weak population and starving them out is not difficult for a competant and formidable army. We know the Germans quarantined Hereros around the desert, including women and children, and that the Germans were ordered to shoot any Herero who didn't want to live in the desert, and we know many of them starved as a result.

Originally posted by Temujin

of course you jump at every bone i throw at you do you? LOL

Leutwein was on friendly terms with the Hereros and that's why he actually resigned from his post as governor in 1905 because he disagreed with Trothas policy...

Its already obvious whats going on if the commander of the forces wants to exterminate all members of a group. The issue of the governor is secondary, but I addressed it since you brought it up.

Originally posted by Temujin

well, consdidering you're so eagerly particpipating in this thread, one would assume you're familiar with the actual events... just as an interlude, are you, at all?

So we would also have to assume you're familiar with the events surrounding Armenians? Sorry, I can't make that leap of faith.

And I will be the first to say that I am obviously not an expert in the Herero case. However, with some sources and some common sense, along with hearing the arguments from the other side, I can sketch my own opinion.

Originally posted by Temujin

OR, you actually inform yourself first before making akward conclusions. i'll leave it to the dedicated reader to figure out if that scenario is plausible

Which part of my comment did you disagree with? The fact that the German commander announced he wanted to wipe out all Hereros? The fact that they actually did wipe them out to a large extent?

Originally posted by Temujin

how can we judge who's innocent? what if one Vietcong is hidden and protected in the mass of a village, how to figure out who is it and who's not. how do you know he's still in the village at all? what if weaposna re foudn and no one in the village claims they know where they come from? it is not very easy to do the right thing in such cirumstances. and are those villagers who hide VC innocent themelves, that's the big questionmark here. i personally don't believe in genuine innocence and wouldn't throw around with such words easily. actually i don't easily throw around with absolutes at all, only Sith believe in absolutes, you know...

Look at the wider context. Vietcong were fighting against an occupying army that they had no quarrel with prior to the invasion. Every member of an invading army is liable to get shot, but this doesn't give the invading army carte blanche to blow villages to smithereens in order to kill their "enemy". They have no business on those shores in the first place, much less with automatic rifles and chemical weapons. If you think differently, then oh well.

Originally posted by Temujin

Ok, now let's assume we have three powers here, a large power, a mediocre power and a small power. the small power is separated by the two states. now let's assume the foremost power wages war on the medicore power with the support of their part of the small power, and that small power helps their oppressed mates in the mediocres powers domain to slay their oppressors. is it then still not possible that small powers can comitt crimes as well towards superior powers? i mean with the toleration of the foremost power in whose backwater of offense they operate, staying with your example.

And how does that apply in this case?

Originally posted by Temujin

...now! so, you maintain we don't have a genocide if the same ethnic group kills each others. then, according to you the Holocaust was a mere Civil War, which was terribly one-sided? rather not....so where does that leave us? can certain ethnicites and nationalities have differences in themselves? yes they do, and it's up to the perpetrators apparently to descide who is and who isn't. the Herero were removed their status as Imperial vassals by Trotha so he could execute his orders, so we are in a position to say this was clearly no civil war foremost!

The Holocaust was a civil war? Germans, Jews and Slavs are all different nations, even if you define them all as "European" or "German citizens".

Originally posted by Temujin

if there was a racial attitude towards the hereros why were not all "black" irregardeless of their tribal affiliation singled out for a program of genocide?

Genocide doesn't have to be "racial". It can be "national". There are different African nations (or tribes).

Originally posted by Temujin

many people do alright in inhospitable lands like Inuit, as long as everything is normal. a draught is not normal and subsequently there were troubles. that has happened before but this time around there were German neighbours which were better prepared for such situations, which led to a certain jealousy and the demand for help. this is what caused the uprising as described above.

Just earlier you said:

Originally posted by Temujin

Germans also constructed a lot of infrastructure and brought other advances of civilization previously unknown to the country, from which Namibia still profits today. if anyhting was stolen then land, which was never marked by the Herero nor any other tribal people for that matter.

So Germans came to their shores and brought "advances of civilization"... only to be used by Germans? This is as clear an indicator as any that German colonists (and the army) drew sharp lines between themselves and the Herero. This is a common theme in all cases of genocide, a notion of "us" and "them", along with realistic barriers which demarcate the notion in a real and practical way.

Originally posted by Temujin

after all i brought up insofar as your pathetic allegations are concerned, i'll leave it to the bored reader to read a more interesting thread...

All you brought up? The most notable thing you brought up was, despite the killing orders, despite the actual deaths of the vast majority of Hereros, and despite the admittance of the German government, these deaths were "accidental".

Ya, its MY allegations that are pathetic

Originally posted by Temujin

incorrect, for this to happen it needs a determined invasion army and an opponent whose (small) population throughout all classes and genders is willing to fight for their freedom under all circumstances till death. in this case there is no announcement nor intention of genocide but due to the subbornness of the defenders, everyone's death.

Wrong. The invading army, by definition, always has a choice to leave. If they stick around and kill all the members of a group, then this is obviously because they were commanded to do so. If they leave, its not like the much weaker enemy is going to follow them home and be a threat to them.

Originally posted by Temujin

I mean what's your point coming here to argue, Mr. Armenian Genocide?

You mean aside from the bestowment of humorous titles?

Interestingly enough, the reason I got involved was to find out what your point was in denying something the German government admitted, when there was no pressure on them to do so.

Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։

Temujin

King

Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221

Quote

Posted: 04-May-2009 at 18:58

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

Yes, theoretically, numbers don't define whether it is a genocide. But if you kill most members of an ethnic group, the numbers back up the point.

so we DO have a Paraguayan genocide afterall?

Okay, the casualties are around 1,000 Germans and around 65,000 Herero. Forgive me...

again, why playing with numbers if they're not relevant, according to you?

this is funny because many nations own soldiers die of starvation and disease without their government wanting so, look for example at teh British Invasion of Afghanistan in the late 19th century, which is near contemporary. i ask you to lay down here your sources to proove that those deaths were not accidental. i also want to point you out that thread in the early modern forum about the alleged Irish genocide by British in the 19th century to get a bigger picture of the situation in the 19th cenutry. if even a "colony" like Ireland so close to Britian could be accidentally starved, how is it impossible that those far away from the motherland starved in ill-maintained camps by accident/negligence/carlessness?

Its already obvious whats going on if the commander of the forces wants to exterminate all members of a group. The issue of the governor is secondary, but I addressed it since you brought it up.

so that makes it a massacre not a genocide to which i agree. funny enough, you still conventiently ignore that the leader fo the Herero (which makes him the "government" of his people) wanted to exterminate all Germans. i demand you to comment on that and stop beign one-sided.

So we would also have to assume you're familiar with the events surrounding Armenians? Sorry, I can't make that leap of faith.

i don't have many factual evidence and i can read neither Turkish nor Armenian, but you certainly know there are also German sources from military advisors etc? i've made up my opinion primarily of the militarical events in the Caucasus as well as your famed common sense and historical precedences.

but you say quite often "we know" and "it's obvious". while even i don't know everything and nothing in this case is really obvious but obscure. then you address the readers and want to make them conclusions, like you're standing in front of a fictional court and want to impress non-existing jury. where does that coem from?

Which part of my comment did you disagree with? The fact that the German commander announced he wanted to wipe out all Hereros? The fact that they actually did wipe them out to a large extent?

the fact that the Hereros started killing Germans? the fact that Samuel Maherero announced to kill all Germans which would make it a genocide of its own? that other tribes of Namibia supported the Schutztruppe vs the Hereros (until they've gone bad)? all interesting facts that hold on to an alleged Herero genocide theory.

i should have said "in a south vietnamese village". the VC were not North Vietnamese regular soldiers but south vietnamese "rebels" and the US had to protect their allies people while at teh same time figuring out which of those allies is an enemy. you see this is getting complicated.

The Holocaust was a civil war? Germans, Jews and Slavs are all different nations, even if you define them all as "European" or "German citizens".

no, Jews are not an ethnicity, they were Germans with Jewish faith, or their ancestors that were jewish, that was enough for the nazi to considder one racial unpure. i already said it's not up to your own perception but those of the perpetrators if you're a target ethnicty or not. Catholic Germans with a single ancestor that was Jewish were killed in Camps. the Slavs of Germany (Sorbs) were completely left alone while other slavic people like Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians were slauthered to the millions. does that make much sense? no, but it happened that way. Nazis don't make sense anyways.

Genocide doesn't have to be "racial". It can be "national". There are different African nations (or tribes).

in africa at that tiem there was hardly any nation at all. even the herero tribe had sub-tribes and the western hereros used to kill their eastern brothers. think of Hutu & Tutsi in Uganda & Rwanda.

just a few lines above you said the natvies are allowed to fence off any invader and suddenly the Hereros are Imperial subjects like any other, you obviously change opinion as it fits the situation. you have to finally descide if they were subdued people or subject people.

Ya, its MY allegations that are pathetic

i mean besides you switching opinions whenever you want, not knowing exact facts despite you claiming to do so, deliberately ignoring new facts that are against your viewpoint, allwoing yourself to be misinformed, yet drawing "obvious conclusions", trying to manipulate the opinions of casual readers....should i go on?

if the government says "invade this country, i want those rich gold mines at all cost and don't return without them!", then there's no option to simply retreat. they NEED to stick around until all opposition is fought off. what if every man, woman and child (i don't need to mention child soldiers and female suicide bombers again, do i?) is determined to hold on to their own source of income and life (let's say exploiting the mine requires to destroy the fields) then you ahev exactly this scenario. oh btw, and if they can just simply move out, i guess you should tell that to those GIs in Iraq and Afghanistan, that surely helps! Star

You mean aside from the bestowment of humorous titles?

Interestingly enough, the reason I got involved was to find out what your point was in denying something the German government admitted, when there was no pressure on them to do so.

now tell me you don't like that title? Clown

oh and btw, i couldn't care less what the german governmennt admits and what not. they are not historians and diplomatically it was certainly smart to justs ay so, that improves relations at no cost, as they refuse to pay anythign to Hereros to this day. cool, isn't it? my rant goes on: would the german government ever admit they were incompetent, power-hungry morons that ruin the country? probably not, does that mean it didn't happened? Wink

Carcharodon View Drop Down

Baron

Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 486

Quote

Posted: 05-May-2009 at 11:51

Strange, it always seems to be someone that for some dubious reason is prepared to defend or deny whatever genocide one can find in the history book. There are people who defend the genocide against the indigenous peoples of America, of the aborigines of Australia, of the Armenians, of the hereros (and others) in Africa, of the Jews and so on and so on. It´s difficult to understand these peoples reasoning and what they get out of it.

Constantine XI View Drop Down

Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711

Quote

Posted: 05-May-2009 at 13:57

Originally posted by Carcharodon

Strange, it always seems to be someone that for some dubious reason is prepared to defend or deny whatever genocide one can find in the history book. There are people who defend the genocide against the indigenous peoples of America, of the aborigines of Australia, of the Armenians, of the hereros (and others) in Africa, of the Jews and so on and so on. It´s difficult to understand these peoples reasoning and what they get out of it.

What is your definition of genocide?

Reginmund

Arch Duke

Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943

Quote

Posted: 05-May-2009 at 14:18

There are also those who profit from assuming the role of the victim, so we shouldn't automatically dismiss opposing arguments in their favour.

Mortaza

Tsar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711

Quote

Posted: 05-May-2009 at 14:33

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

We can call every mass murdering as genocide(Intention for killing part of an ethnicity.)

Infact, It is a weird crime If You ask me.

If aim was to kill whole ethnicity, That make more sense.

b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

So maybe USA is doing a genocide in iraq? They are harming prisoners mentally with forcing them to listen bad and loudy music?

ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down

Chieftain

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460

Quote

Posted: 05-May-2009 at 19:17

Originally posted by Temujin

so we DO have a Paraguayan genocide afterall?

If there was an intent to try and kill them all, then yes. Genocide has two components: intent and action. I don't think thats what happened in Paraguay though.

Originally posted by Temujin

again, why playing with numbers if they're not relevant, according to you?

You corrected me on the German casualties. So I'm clarifying figures, so you can correct me again if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Temujin

this is funny because many nations own soldiers die of starvation and disease without their government wanting so, look for example at teh British Invasion of Afghanistan in the late 19th century, which is near contemporary. i ask you to lay down here your sources to proove that those deaths were not accidental. i also want to point you out that thread in the early modern forum about the alleged Irish genocide by British in the 19th century to get a bigger picture of the situation in the 19th cenutry. if even a "colony" like Ireland so close to Britian could be accidentally starved, how is it impossible that those far away from the motherland starved in ill-maintained camps by accident/negligence/carlessness?

This is revealing. Why would a regime set up camps, supposedly to protect "enemy" civilians, if they know, chances are, they are going to be "negligent", "careless" and prone to "accidents"?

Originally posted by Temujin

so that makes it a massacre not a genocide to which i agree. funny enough, you still conventiently ignore that the leader fo the Herero (which makes him the "government" of his people) wanted to exterminate all Germans. i demand you to comment on that and stop beign one-sided.

The Herero couldn't massacre all Germans, not even all of the ones in their region. There was only a small fraction of Germans where the Hereros were, and it was their decision to be in this foreign and "inhospitable" land. Its not like the Germans in this region were refugees from some conflict... they were agents of the imperial government with an agenda to conquer.

Originally posted by Temujin

but you say quite often "we know" and "it's obvious". while even i don't know everything and nothing in this case is really obvious but obscure. then you address the readers and want to make them conclusions, like you're standing in front of a fictional court and want to impress non-existing jury. where does that coem from?

Well, there are some facts that are pretty much solidified. Maybe instead of "obvious" I should have said "evident".

And I don't think a lot of people have noticed this, but many times I make bold statements in order to provoke a response of sources. My opinion is not as immovable or as absolute as I make it seem.

I could have simply asked neatly and nicely, but then these forums would be boring.

Originally posted by Temujin

the fact that the Hereros started killing Germans? the fact that Samuel Maherero announced to kill all Germans which would make it a genocide of its own? that other tribes of Namibia supported the Schutztruppe vs the Hereros (until they've gone bad)? all interesting facts that hold on to an alleged Herero genocide theory.

Thats good--- now we need to find out if Hereros actually mobilized to do this, and if they attacked civilians, and in what capacity. Remember, many "civilians" in a colony double as soldiers.

Originally posted by Temujin

i should have said "in a south vietnamese village". the VC were not North Vietnamese regular soldiers but south vietnamese "rebels" and the US had to protect their allies people while at teh same time figuring out which of those allies is an enemy. you see this is getting complicated.

Yep.

Originally posted by Temujin

no, Jews are not an ethnicity, they were Germans with Jewish faith, or their ancestors that were jewish, that was enough for the nazi to considder one racial unpure. i already said it's not up to your own perception but those of the perpetrators if you're a target ethnicty or not. Catholic Germans with a single ancestor that was Jewish were killed in Camps. the Slavs of Germany (Sorbs) were completely left alone while other slavic people like Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians were slauthered to the millions. does that make much sense? no, but it happened that way. Nazis don't make sense anyways.

I didn't say Jews are an ethnicity. I said they are a nation. Nations can be defined by religion.

Originally posted by Temujin

in africa at that tiem there was hardly any nation at all. even the herero tribe had sub-tribes and the western hereros used to kill their eastern brothers. think of Hutu & Tutsi in Uganda & Rwanda.

One example is killing all Poles. Sure, you didn't kill all Slavs, but you targetted and killed a distinct group of them. A group so distinct, that they consider themselves, and so do those around them, a different entity or nation.

Originally posted by Temujin

just a few lines above you said the natvies are allowed to fence off any invader and suddenly the Hereros are Imperial subjects like any other, you obviously change opinion as it fits the situation. you have to finally descide if they were subdued people or subject people.

I didn't change my opinion...You said it yourself just above--- I said that natives have the right to bar invaders from entering, but I didn't say this is necessarily what the Hereros did. However, these semantics are irrelevant. Being subdued or subjected doesn't mean genocide cannot take place.

Originally posted by Temujin

i mean besides you switching opinions whenever you want, not knowing exact facts despite you claiming to do so, deliberately ignoring new facts that are against your viewpoint, allwoing yourself to be misinformed, yet drawing "obvious conclusions", trying to manipulate the opinions of casual readers....should i go on?

Switching which of my opinions?

Trying to manipulate the opinions of readers.... don't all of us do this either intentionally or unintentionally, simply by posting anything? Do you really think if someone cared enough about this issue, that they would base their opinion solely around what I say, even after I said I'm clearly not an expert?

Originally posted by Temujin

if the government says "invade this country, i want those rich gold mines at all cost and don't return without them!", then there's no option to simply retreat. they NEED to stick around until all opposition is fought off. what if every man, woman and child (i don't need to mention child soldiers and female suicide bombers again, do i?) is determined to hold on to their own source of income and life (let's say exploiting the mine requires to destroy the fields) then you ahev exactly this scenario. oh btw, and if they can just simply move out, i guess you should tell that to those GIs in Iraq and Afghanistan, that surely helps!

Well lets take your hypothetical scenario. If the government says they need to secure the resources at all costs, and the army goes and sees the native nation of that region up in arms, they will report back the facts of the ground to their government. If the government simply says "I said at ANY cost!", then the government themselves are implying that they need to commit genocide if necessary. And if they end up attempting genocide by targetting all members of the group, then its genocide.

Intent to destroy a group, and taking steps to fulfill that aim, is genocide, no matter if its for resources or whatever.

Originally posted by Temujin

now tell me you don't like that title?

oh and btw, i couldn't care less what the german governmennt admits and what not. they are not historians and diplomatically it was certainly smart to justs ay so, that improves relations at no cost, as they refuse to pay anythign to Hereros to this day. cool, isn't it? my rant goes on: would the german government ever admit they were incompetent, power-hungry morons that ruin the country? probably not, does that mean it didn't happened?

So your theory as to why the German government admitted their guilt is....

Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։

ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down

Chieftain

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460

Quote

Posted: 05-May-2009 at 20:03

Originally posted by Mortaza

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

We can call every mass murdering as genocide(Intention for killing part of an ethnicity.)

Infact, It is a weird crime If You ask me.

If aim was to kill whole ethnicity, That make more sense.

They included "in part" in order to close the loophole that every genocidal regime would use--- namely, to say, "We didn't kill them all, so it can't be genocide". I don't think there is ever a genocide where every single member is wiped out, but there are plenty that have knocked off 3/4 or more of the population, and would have succeeded completely if the circumstances allowed.

Plus, you wouldn't be convicted of genocide for killing part of an ethnic/religious/national group, unless there was also an intent to kill all the members.

Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։

Mortaza

Tsar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711

Quote

Posted: 05-May-2009 at 20:55

So your theory as to why the German government admitted their guilt is....

They did not admit anything. As temujin said, It cost nothing. It is public relation. No country will accept that he committed a genocide If there is a price. Infact, genocide itself is just a political mean..

Infact, If you ask me, Apologising is becoming absurd after pope apologised for crusaders. what the hell.

"Genocide" crime is prepared for punishing germans, nothing more. (Like others did not committed mass murdering. isnt droping a bomb over a city means intent to kill a part of an ethnic.) and In reality, It is nothing more than an agreement between nations.(Russia refused that mass killing a political group is not genocide)

Bulldog

Caliph

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800

Quote

Posted: 06-May-2009 at 03:50

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

If this is the case, practically every war ever fought has actually been a genocide.

�What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.�
Albert Pine

Constantine XI View Drop Down

Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711

Quote

Posted: 06-May-2009 at 04:43

Originally posted by Bulldog

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

If this is the case, practically every war ever fought has actually been a genocide.

I agree, this is merely one of a number of definitions of the word that just makes me think 'so even pirates on the high seas are now classed as genocidal'. Under the UN definition in particular, almost any act of aggression is simultaneously an act of genocide.

Genocide in the common mind conjurs up images of Auschwitz or Rwanda. I don't think we should class every other conflict on the planet under that category - we need to have a sense of scope and proportion when applying the term.

Carcharodon View Drop Down

Baron

Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 486

Quote

Posted: 06-May-2009 at 14:27

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

There are some genocides that are so obvious that they fullfill all the above mentioned criteria and also some other that has been forwarded. Such genocides are for example the extermination of the Tasmanian natives, the extermination of the native inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego, the extermination of most of the indignous people of Argentina (an extermination that was in part whitnessed by Charles Darwin), the extermination of many north American indigenous groups as the Susquehannocks, the extermination and enslavement of the so called Hottentotts in south Africa and many more. The Herero genocide also fits most definitions of genocide. As I mentioned it seems really strange that there are people that vastes energy on trying to deny or defend such acts and through semantics tries to diminish them. Is it really so hard to call things with their right names???

Temujin

King

Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221

Quote

Posted: 06-May-2009 at 21:11

there've been some posts i want to reply to in detail even though there's nothing much left to talk about because most if not everything has been said yet. i'm busy next couple of days and only free end of next week. hold your breath, i'm trying to reply asap.

ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down

Chieftain

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460

Quote

Posted: 08-May-2009 at 19:23

Originally posted by Bulldog

If this is the case, practically every war ever fought has actually been a genocide.

Originally posted by ConstantineXI

I agree, this is merely one of a number of definitions of the word that just makes me think 'so even pirates on the high seas are now classed as genocidal'. Under the UN definition in particular, almost any act of aggression is simultaneously an act of genocide.

Genocide in the common mind conjurs up images of Auschwitz or Rwanda. I don't think we should class every other conflict on the planet under that category - we need to have a sense of scope and proportion when applying the term.

I agree with you guys, generally speaking. However, most legal experts do not interpret genocide in the way you guys are thinking. If you simply intend to kill part of a national group (which technically includes any act of war), then that by itself is not considered genocide. But, if you intend to exterminate a national group, and only manage to kill a significant part of them, then that is genocide. This is how the legal definition is applied (as far as I know). Remember, genocide is made of two components: Intent (to wipe out an ethnic/national/religious group), and action (killing a significant part of them).

My opinion is they needed to include "in part" because it closes a major loophole. If you think about it, even in the Holocaust, there were many Jews who survived. So does this mean it was not a genocide, just because all Jews were not exterminated? Of course not, the Nazis intended to kill all Jews, but only managed to kill part of them (a significant part).

Originally posted by Mortaza

"Genocide" crime is prepared for punishing germans, nothing more. (Like others did not committed mass murdering. isnt droping a bomb over a city means intent to kill a part of an ethnic.)

Thats interesting, you don't seem to disagree on the definition of genocide, you seem to be arguing that there is no such crime as genocide. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But its not true, it was not created for "punishing Germans". And as for dropping a bomb over a city, read my previous posts.

If you want to get into the background of the creation of the crime of genocide, then we would have to refer to its founder, Dr. Raphael Lemkin. He became interested in the study of genocide when he heard about Soghomon Tehlirian, an Armenian student in Germany, who shot dead Talaat Pasha, one of the architects of the Armenian genocide. Lemkin thought it was absurd that Tehlirian could go to jail for killing one person, while Talaat killed an entire nation and was living as a free man.

The crime of genocide was created in order to criminalize the murder of nations, the same way that murder of individuals is criminalized.

Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։

gcle2003

King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035

Quote

Posted: 08-May-2009 at 19:29

I always regret that the term used for only killing a part of a population in an attempt to kill them all wasn't simply 'attempted genocide', with 'genocide' kept for the successful deliberate extermination of a population.

Then it would be like 'murder' and 'attempted murder', where the distinction is clear. enough.

Mortaza

Tsar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711

Quote

Posted: 13-May-2009 at 22:51

Thats interesting, you don't seem to disagree on the definition of genocide, you seem to be arguing that there is no such crime as genocide. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It is a political crime. It is a crime because to punish germans.

Lets not forget, because Russia refused "political" part. You can kill a political group and dont be accuse with genocide. It is an agreement between state.

But its not true, it was not created for "punishing Germans". And as for dropping a bomb over a city, read my previous posts.

But, if you intend to exterminate a national group, and only manage to kill a significant part of them, then that is genocide.

I think only hitlers(because of his hate against jews.) did this. States generally had reason for mass murdering an ethnic.

isnt lemkin called mass killing at africa as "modernization of Africa"

The crime of genocide was created in order to criminalize the murder of nations, the same way that murder of individuals is criminalized.

Than It is interesting only germany is guilty from this crime.(And most probably, only germany would be guilty.)

Omar al Hashim View Drop Down

King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697

Quote

Posted: 14-May-2009 at 06:33

Originally posted by gcle2003

I always regret that the term used for only killing a part of a population in an attempt to kill them all wasn't simply 'attempted genocide', with 'genocide' kept for the successful deliberate extermination of a population.

Then it would be like 'murder' and 'attempted murder', where the distinction is clear. enough.

Aren't all genocides 'attempted genocides' then? I mean even some Tasmanian Aborigines managed to escape the net. Surviving on the periphery or with sealers. We even had a tasmanian aboriginal AE member a couple of years back.

gcle2003

King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035

Quote

Posted: 14-May-2009 at 12:05

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Then it would be like 'murder' and 'attempted murder', where the distinction is clear. enough.

The Prussian Balts? I'd agree that pretty well all genocides fail. As a further point, genocide could be carried out without killing anyone by sterilising all members of a race, or otherwise preventing them having children.

Carcharodon View Drop Down

Baron

Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 486

Quote

Posted: 27-May-2009 at 02:20

Originally posted by Reginmund

There are also those who profit from assuming the role of the victim, so we shouldn't automatically dismiss opposing arguments in their favour.

Not automatically but many of the genocides are rather well documented. And there is not so much to gain from the role of the victim, at least not so much that it outweighs the suffering that the genocide caused.

Post Reply

Page <1 234 >

Forum Jump

Forum Permissions View Drop Down

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum