Ladies and
Gentlemen. My talk will be divided into two main topics: First
I would like to talk about ‘The Absence of intellectual
freedom in the Federal Republic of Germany. Then I shall
introduce you to the latest historical lie against Germany and
the German people: The alleged Atrocities committed on the
Herero people during the suppression of their uprising in
German South West Africa 1904-1907.
There is no doubt
that both freedom of speech and freedom of scientific enquiry
are constitutionally guaranteed in the Federal Republic of
Germany (FRG). The decisive question, however, is to which
degree these basic rights are also respected in practice.
Without the
fundamental basic right to freedom of opinion - which includes
the freedom of information, freedom of scientific enquiry and
freedom of the press as crucial elements, among other things -
no freedom of decision or free will can exist for any person.
Freedom of opinion is therefore the highest good of the
citizens in a free society; and the degree to which freedom of
opinion is curtailed indicates the degree of subjugation or
lack of personal emancipation. Only opinions which are
contrary to those held by the people in authority need to be
protected by the right to freedom of opinion. He who talks
apologetically of state authority needs no protection. He is
not threatened and only the opponent is threatened.
The freedom of
expressing an opinion, i.e. freedom of speech, assumes a
prominent place among human rights. It needs extensive
protection, which should only in exceptional cases be
appropriately infringed. Such exceptional cases occur when,
for example, children, youths or the people at large need to
be protected against publications, sound recordings, »art« or
other forms of opinion expression. This may happen in the case
of propagation of violence, perversity, criminal acts, sadism,
treason or terrorism. However, in practice the measures of
censorship intended to protect youth are especially employed
against dissident political authors and students of
contemporary history.
According to the
official German censorship authority, the so-called
Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften (BPjS) or
Federal Office for the Investigation of Publications
Endangering the Youth, the measures of censorship are meant to
protect children and youth against media output that could
negatively influence them in their moral and social growth.
The concept »dangerous to youth« is vague and in the FRG tends
to assume a general character. It is not to be understood as a
religious or moral definition, but has to be regarded
specifically as a political concept.
Already during
the sixties The sociologist Ulla Otto focused attention on the
fact that this concept is closely associated with the
accusation of being »of a pseudo-scientific nature«, which is
frequently applied to »undesirable publications«, »which
should preferably be eliminated«. Whereas alchemy, astrology,
parapsychology, spiritism and the study of UFOs were, for
example, in previous times accused of »being of a
pseudo-scientific nature«, this label is at present mainly
attached to »revisionist« opinions and literature.
Publications branded with this label, and therefore considered
being of a questionable nature, are banned from German
research libraries. In contrast books of an anarchistic,
Marxist or communist nature are freely sold. The label
‘pseudo-science’ catches dissenting publishers who are then
excluded from the public debate in advance. This exclusion
follows in most cases an indexing or prohibition of the works
published, and of stigmatizing the author. In this way not
only is the freedom of the press infringed, but more
significantly the freedom of scientific enquiry, research and
education is impaired.
The question
arises as to whether the acts of indexing works as practiced
by the BPjS actually protects children and youth, or whether
the concept of »protecting youth« is not employed as a
disguise to hide infringements of the freedom of scientific
enquiry and opinion. This question assumes all the more
relevance in view of the fact that it has never been
scientifically proven that a child or youth had been »socially
and ethically disoriented« by a specific book or displayed
deviant behaviour as a result of being exposed to a specific
publication - in complete contrast to being exposed to videos
containing violence and horror. In any event, the BPjS makes
it all too easy for itself by arguing in generalist terms that
publications »antagonistic to the constitution« are »socially
and ethically disorientating«. The problem concerning the
above is clear: Who determines the qualitative or judgmental
basis that results in material being judged as of a »morally
endangering nature?
We have just
mentioned the term »revisionist«. What does that term actually
mean? The term revision is derived from the Latin word
revidēre, meaning »looking at anew« or »looking back« in
the sense of »to examine«. »To look anew at« or »to examine«
matters is the foremost and most natural task of all
scientists. It is the duty of all historians always and
repeatedly to re-examine and, if need be, revise written
history in the light of new insights, discoveries and research
results. However, Germany’s political police -
Verfassungsschutz - or »protector of the constitution« - cares
little about scientifically based definitions. Objectively
seen, the term ›revisionism‹ is a concept free of value. The
term assumes an entirely different meaning in their eyes:
»[The] aim of ›revisionism‹, which is one of the most
important fields of agitation of right-wing extremism, is the
rehabilitation of National Socialism in order to make the
latter acceptable again to society«. Another office of the
Verfassungsschutz even indicates the following as revisionism:
»The politically motivated attempt to play down or deny the
German crimes committed under National Socialist rule«. The
completely value-free academic term of revisionism is
therefore without further ado smeared by secret agents as
»detestable expression of right-wing extremism«. Such logic
assumes that correcting errors in historiography was the sign
of an inferior political attitude!
Almost daily new
insights are won not only in the natural sciences and in the
field of technology, but also in the social sciences. In fact,
science just like human life is not like a video tape you can
stop or wind forward or backward as you like it, but goes on
continuously and bears unforseenable developments. At the
start of the research, the scientist has doubts regarding or
examines matters as they stand and considers the existing
state of knowledge, before embarking on a further search for
new facts or insights which may possibly lead to new
conclusions. It is only logical that what applies to, for
instance, paleontologists, archeologists, geneticists, nuclear
physicists or any other researcher, of course, also applies to
the historian.To work in a revisionist manner is therefore
nothing dishonourable. Rather the opposite is true. Despite
this, the originally value-free term of ›revisionist‹ is today
mainly applied to those researchers critically studying the
history of the Third Reich or the Second World War.
Conveniently smearing the revisionists as »right-wing
extremists« has nothing to do with either a factual evaluation
of their work or the necessary criticism expressed in a debate
within scientific and research circles. It is exclusively
politically motivated and revolves around the defamation of
those considered to be political opponents.
Let us now have a
closer look on a couple of examples of oppressing freedom of
speech in the FRG.
Circumstances
surrounding instructions to remove important passages from the
book Geschichte der Deutschen - History of the Germans
by the historian Prof. Dr Hellmut Diwald from Erlangen caught
media attention during the eighties. A widely published
historical falsification connected to German concentration
camps and the so-called final solution was rectified by the
author on pages 163 to 165 of this book. This did not meet
with approval from the opinion cartel. Although Diwald
personally had retracted none of his written words - and later
even broke off the relationship to his publisher, the latter
had the following editions of the work edited by third parties
and removed the passages which contradicted accepted dogma.
Diwald confronted these Stalinist-like acts of censorship in
the book – Mut zur Geschichte - Courage in Historical
Matters – which appeared in 1983. He quite rightly accused
a considerable number of his colleagues of one-sidedness and
betrayal of the scientific ethos.The book Auge um Auge,
a German translation of the factual treatise by the American
journalist John Sack which originally appeared under the title
An Eye for an Eye, was scheduled for publication by the
Piper-Verlag during 1995. The publisher had already advertised
the book in the press when it was suddenly withdrawn.
According to the head of the firm, Viktor Niemann, this was
done to prevent provoking »any misunderstandings« during the
fiftieth commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz. The 6
000 copies of the first edition were destroyed without further
ado. This shameful behaviour was justifiably criticized, e.g.
in a letter by Christian Riester which appeared in the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 21 February 1995. This
reader was of the opinion that »The argument of the Piper-Verlag
for not distributing the book by John Sack is already an
astonishing construction. Discussions are thus to be managed,
and that in the right direction. Does one proceed from the
premises that the citizen has in the meantime been so
distracted by the daily flood of reports on the subject of
dealing with the past that he is no longer in a position to
recognize and evaluate historical facts? I think one should
describe the actions of the Piper-Verlag for what it is:
Censorship«.
The former
scientific director at the Institute for Research into
Military History in Freiburg (now located at Potsdam), Dr
Joachim Hoffmann, recorded his insights in a document titled
Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945 - Stalin's War
of Destruction 1941 – 1945 – during 1995. In this work the
scientist took little cognisance of persisting taboos, dogmas
and prohibited ideas, but all the more tried to analyze all
the actions of all those concerned in the outbreak of the
»Great Patriotic War«, as Soviet propagandists liked to call
the war between Germany and the Soviet Union. In this
groundbreaking work Hoffmann provided evidence that, contrary
to the views expressed in prevailing contemporary
historiography, this war actually did start as a preventative
blow by the Germans. According to his research, the German
campaign came just in time to thwart a planned Soviet invasion
of Germany. Hoffmann's superiors, Wilhelm Deist and Manfred
Messerschmidt, demanded that the Soviet contributions to the
invasion be deleted. They expected Hoffmann to delete all
references to the shared responsibility of the Soviet Union
and Germany for the destruction of Poland in 1939, as well as
the deletion of all references to Soviet methods of waging a
war of destruction. In other words, historical facts had to be
hidden from the public and history falsified. In reaction to
this, Hoffmann wrote in his foreword that »Contrary to the
letter and spirit of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom
of scientific research, it is today unfortunately to be
recommended that many passages of historiographic text be
submitted for examination to determine a possible
›contravention of the law‹ - which is a most degrading state
of affairs«.
Facing these kind
of doubtful measures of censorship, we have to ask whether
historical truth can be proscribed by law.
The acting
director of the Hannah Arendt Institute in Dresden, Prof. Dr
Uwe Backes, dared to utter a statement which, basically,
should be considered a matter of course, namely that »More
than 50 years afterwards it should be possible for the
generations since born to also ask unconventional questions in
a sober and objective way during the scientific discourse.
Young scientists have to be allowed to tackle uncomfortable
topics«. Nothing wrong with this opinion, one would think.
Reality, however, is something else.
During April 1994
the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed that those people
questioning the »Auschwitz lie«, and therefore the killing of
millions of Jews by means of poison gas during the time of the
Third Reich, would no longer be protected by the
constitutional guarantees regarding freedom of expression.
This decision was confronted with harsh criticism worldwide.
The second largest human rights organisation after AMNESTY
INTERNATIONAL, namely HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, commented as follows
on the court's ruling: »The court's ruling appeared to unduly
restrict the protected right to free speech and expression«.
As a direct result of the court's decision, the Bundestag on
20 May 1994 passed an »Auschwitz Lie Act«. In § 130 paragraph
3 of this law it is explicitly stated that »Whoever publicly
or in a meeting condones, denies or minimizes an act described
in § 220a paragraph 1 [›Genocide‹] performed under the reign
of National Socialism in a way that could disturb the public
peace, is liable to be sentenced to five years imprisonment or
a fine«. Even the Süddeutsche Zeitung, untainted by any
revisionist ambitions, took note of the new turn of events. On
8 October 1998 it justifiably reported that the Federal
Constitutional Court had established that »not only valuable,
but also false, even objectionable opinions are protected«.
»It would actually be absurd for the state to determine which
opinions enjoyed freedom of expression. However, this is
exactly what happens in the new paragraph 130 III of the
criminal code. The law-maker determines historical facts and
threatens with prosecution not only those denying these, but
also any attempt at the re-interpretation of such facts.«
Prof. Dr
Gottfried Dietze, expert on human rights at the John Hopkins
University, expressed the opinion that paragraph 130 of the
criminal code goes against the »tried and trusted judicial
protection of freedom of expression and thereby disregards the
framework of what is generally acknowledged.« He then proceeds
to ask »whether it also falls outside the framework of the
constitution and has to be declared unconstitutional. The
establishment of the constitution was a praiseworthy decision
against the National Socialist authoritarian state. Measures
at that time taken to prevent a relapse into dictatorship are
understandable, even if these restricted fundamental rights in
this regard. Whether, in view of the fact that the danger of
such a relapse does no longer exist, provisions like those
contained in par. 130 of the StGB (criminal code) are
justified half a century later is doubtful and I want to
negate this«.
The »truth
paragraph« – paragraph 130 III of the criminal code – means
nothing less than the short-circuiting of intellectual debate
by the state and thereby prevents the development of free
political expression, which is unworthy of an actually
freedom-loving state, as this is repeated ad absurdum. The
increasing measure that sanctions special laws, then are
sanctioned and applied against the public uttering of opinion
to enable the prosecution of authors, editors, publishers and
scientists, is a clear indication of the one-sided curtailment
of the freedom of the press, opinion and scientific enquiry in
the FRG, and consequently is a curtailment of intellectual
freedom in that state.
Dr Rolf Kosiek, chairman of
the Gesellschaft Für Publizistik –
Society for the
Freedom of Publication – wrote in a circular released on 6
April 1999 that it has for some time become a matter of
concern that judicial action against publishers and authors
were increasingly being taken on the basis of the
strengthening of the Special Law for the Inhibition of the
Freedom of Speech and the Press in the Field of Contemporary
History (discussed in more detail in the next section of this
report), which had come into effect during December 1994.
Kosiek also criticized the »disproportionately high fines or
jail sentences« with which the vocational classes concerned
are threatened. This kind of judicial persecution represents a
new attempt, against the spirit of the constitution, »at
abolishing freedom of speech and the press, with the aim to
silence right-wing publications and economically ruin them«.
In much the same vein the EUROKURIER already two years
earlier had focused attention on the judicial prosecution of
unwanted publishers. The increased political pressure on
dissident publishing houses and measures against books from
the right-wing were, according to this news magazine on
current affairs surrounding books and publishers, evidently
intended to destroy independent publishing houses striving
towards freedom in political and ideological matters.
This leads us to
our conclusion: The theoretically guaranteed intellectual
freedom in the FRG is in practice severely restricted and
subjected to tightly-woven blocking mechanisms of a
party-political and media nature, as well as to judicial
restrictions. The realisation of intellectual freedom has not
been achieved: In the FRG books are censored and placed on the
index, while opinions are increasingly being suppressed and
»banned«.
Personal
integrity and courage are clearly needed to express an opinion
in the FRG, especially as far as matters outside the currently
acceptable taught opinion or contrary to published opinion are
concerned. »The other side«, especially dissident political
and historiographical opinions, is not really heard in this
state. The opposite is rather true. The latter kind of
opinions are often distorted, ignored or the authors thereof
even criminally prosecuted. Especially since the 1990s
thousands of incarserations — »preventative arrests« — there
have been ten thousands of in the meantime severely increased
fines and prison sentences, both suspended and otherwise, and
an uncountable number of bannings of meetings have been
experinced mainly by conservative, nationally inclined or
revisionistically active Germans. At the same time almost no
such measures have been taken against the representatives of
other political opinions, for example like those of a
communist or anarchist nature. Nowadays more political
prisoners are imprisoned in the »democratic« FRG than were
previously imprisoned in what was known as the communist GDR –
German Democratic Republic – or so-called East Germany):
According to the German daily Die Welt of 7 April 1997,
for instance 5800 people in that year alone were criminally
prosecuted in connection with the uttering of forbidden
opinions, especially on matters of contemporary history. This
figure has in the meantime almost doubled for the past years.
NB: These individuals were not convicted as the result of
having committed terrorism or any other condemnable act, but
simply because they were guilty of presenting contrary
opinions or harbouring »thought crimes«.
In practice the expression of
political and historiographic opinions by dissidents does not
enjoy the theoretical judicial protection of freedom of
expression guaranteed by the fifth clause of the German
constitution – and this at the cost of the dignity and honour
of those involved. Political justice applied with regard to
personal inclinations and a one-sided curtailment of the
freedom of opinion, including the freedom of information,
scientific enquiry and gathering, have meanwhile become the
order of the day in the FRG where hundreds of books,
newspapers and magazines are forbidden just for expressing
opinions which do not suit the authorities. Dozens of authors,
booksellers, journalists, publishers, editors, scientists and
even ordinary individuals of any age are imprisoned or
sentenced to pay severe fines. Due to the increasing
restrictions on the constitutionally guaranteed right to
freedom of opinion the political and intellectual climate in
contemporary Germany has become unbearable.
T
he
intellectual and political repression in the FRG has for years
been increasing in intensity. For this reason it is necessary
to deliver a clear plea for the authentic democratic
constitutional state. »A free state system is inter alia
distinguished by the fact that its citizens possess the right
to [freely] express their opinions verbally or in print, as
well as the right to physical integrity and dignity. Opinions
can never be uniform in a genuinely pluralistic state. Only
from continuing conflict of opinions can a free system develop
the ability to find solutions to the always continuing search
for answers to various questions. Arguments and
counter-arguments are the point around which such a free
system revolves and in which it is anchored - also and
especially if opinions may deliberately be kept controversial
and are allowed to be sharply formulated.« However, a system
which disguises policy on opinion by means of liberal
pretexts; moralistically applies the »stick of Fascism«
against political dissidents and attempts to shut them out of
the process of public opinion formulation; which vilifies them
in public; which implements the banning of opinion and
prohibits people from pursuing their chosen careers; which
infiltrates agents provocateur and spies into organizations
belonging to potential political adversaries and uncomfortable
opposition parties, often with the aim of activating third
parties to commit criminal transgressions, »in reality
represents totalitarianism. In this sense the FRG is a
totalitarian state«.
This brings
me to the second part of my talk.
Now, I would like to talk about the
latest accusations against Germany: the alleged atrocities
committed on the Herero people in German South West Africa in
1904. According to the allegations, the Kaiserliche
Schutztruppe – Imperial Protection Force, had hunted down the
Herero after «a battle of encirclement» at Waterberg on 11
August 1904 by forcing them «systematically and mercilessly»
into the waterless Omaheke desert preventing them from
escaping and, thus, sentencing them to die atrociously from
hunger and thirst. Tens of thousand of Herero people were
supposed to be killed. To some extent, the advocates of this
allegation state, this «genocide» would have been manifested
by the «infamous proclamation» by General Lothar von Trotha,
then commander-in-chief of the Schutztruppe in German South
West Africa. Are these accusations based on the historical
truth? Let us examine the facts!
In September 2001 a claim on ‹compensation› was made on behalf
of the Herero people of South West Africa, now Namibia, by
controversial chieftain Kuaima Riruako and even more
controversial Member of Parliament Mburumba Kerina. By means
of legal action before an American court, he intended to claim
four billion US$ in damages from the Federal Republic of
Germany and two German firms for slavery, genocide and theft.
The chance to be successful, he characteristically estimated
to be «possible, because we are following the same path as
that of the Jews. The genocide against our people was a
precursor of the Holocaust.» Riruako argues, «that since
Germany has paid reparations to Jews for their suffering in
the Nazi Holocaust, his tribe should also receive German
compensation.» This strong statement deserves to be analysed
in detail, particularly, in the view of the fact that Riruako
has already threatened in public, in case his people were not
paid «reparations for crimes committed against his people
during the colonial era», they would forcefully «repossess»
farms. «Germany owes us reparations, or otherwise the only
road left for us as Africans will be the Zimbabwe way.»
Lots of exterminationist publications are saturated with
overused and worn out shut-up words such as ‹genocide›,
‹brutality›, ‹fascism›, ‹German tyranny›, ‹extermination
politics› and of course ‹Holocaust›. No wonder, that even
so-called acaemic books you can find sentences like this one,
for example: «For von Trotha the uprising was nothing but a
horde of wild ‹niggers›, whose rebellion could only be
effectively punished through extermination.»
According to the German Christian weekly Das Sonntagsblatt,
the German Imperial «Afrikacorps» [sic!] committed the first
genocide of the 20th century. The Schutztruppe had forced the
Herero into the waterless desert, where four fifths of the
Herero people would have died of thirst. The African
Unification Front describes the degree of this alleged
atrocity: «The Herero and Nama women and girls were interned
in concentration camps and raped by German troops, while the
men and boys were tortured and murdered. This treatment of the
Africans was later applied to Jews and other enemies of the
Nazi regime in Germany, by the same units of troops that had
practised their deadly craft on Africa.»
Enzo Traverso, who teaches political science in France,
alleges: «The Herero people numbering more than 80,000 at the
begin of 1904 has been decreased to 8,000 at the end of that
year due to systematic actions of persecution, destruction and
deportation to the desert, which was classified as
‹deliberative politics of genocide› by some historians.« Peter
Carstens of the University of Toronto whole-heartedly agrees,
although his numbers significantly differ: »When the rebellion
was suppressed in 1907, their numbers in the colony had been
reduced from 100,000 to 25,000.« The London-based Peace Pledge
Union asserts, the German soldiers were paid well to pursue
the Herero into this treacherous wilderness. They were also
ordered to poison the few water-holes there. Others set up
guard posts along a 150-mile border: any Herero trying to get
back was killed.
No allegation seems to be too grotesque, no accusation too
absurd. In 1998, well-known American journalist of the Dallas
Morning News, Todd Bensman, wrote without any shame: «From
1904 to 1915 [!], the Kaiser’s troops systematically
exterminated as many as 80,000 Herero, a scarcely known
slaughter of Teutonic efficiency that produced forced labor
camps, sex slaves and the first academic ‹studies› of supposed
Aryan superiority.» The Socialist writer Tom Sanders states:
«Oral histories say men slit the throats of cattle to drink
the blood. […] Some Hereros cut open the bellies of the dead
to drink the liquid from their stomachs. Men who escaped the
desert were lynched in Ku Klux Klan style.« Although this
allegation is purely subjective, it nevertheless enjoys
international mainstream support! A couple of years ago, the
BBC seriously stated, the «Germans drove the Herero into the
Omaheke desert, sealing the last water holes off before
erecting a fence to keep them out.»
The advocates of the extermination thesis state, «the
annihilation of the Hereros» was actually «the first genocide
of the 20th century». It would now becoming increasingly clear
that this «merciless German undertaking in Namibia, sowed the
first seeds from which Adolf Hitler plucked ideas for his
racial experiments against the Jews in the Nazi holocaust that
came 40 years later.» No wonder, that the human rights group
Society for Threatened Peoples - Gesellschaft für bedrohte
Völker could seriously proclaim: «Judged by all historic
criteria the Herero’s claim is the same claim as that of the
Jews.»
As in many others cases regarding demands for «reparation»,
also here the number of the alleged victims seems not to be
too unambiguous. Riruako figures quite adventurously:
«According to research, today we would have been a people of 2
million souls, in place of the 400,000 to 500,000 we are
today.» Well, this is amazing! According to official
statements, Namibia today has a total population of some 1.8
million people of which just about 100,000 are Hereros. In
January 2004 Riruako even broadcasted «there was an additional
number of «about 500,000 people of Herero origin living in
Germany.»
There has never been an official counting of the population
before the Herero uprising. 100 years ago, Missionary
Friedrich Bernsmann estimated the strength of the Herero
people just before their outbreak to 35,000. He, furthermore,
guessed that of these 23,000 to 25,000 Hereros survived the
uprising Although theses figures are based on estimations
only, Bernsmann’s statements are fairly true. According to
declarations made by the Rheinische Mission, the main
Christian mission in German South West Africa, in the entire
Herero/Damaraland about 4,400 natives, 3,000 of them Herero,
had been baptized at the end of 1901. If one agrees with the
respective documentation that at the time of the outbreak
about 10% of the indigenous population had been christianised,
then this calculation results in about 30,000 kinsmen of
Herero people.
Furthermore, the former Judge of the Supreme Court of South
West Africa, Israel Goldblatt, evaluates in his book History
of South West Africa that in 1921 – about 15 years after the
war – number of Herero population was just above 31,000.
Within the next four decades it rose to just above 35,000.
This natural growth rate clearly indicates that it is
biologically impossible for the «Herero survivors» to triple
or even quadruple within not even one generation, what they,
however, must have achieved, if the numbers given by the
exterminationists were true.
Based on demographic facts we can trust, there were at the
most 30,000 Herero in 1904. Not all of them did participate in
the uprising. At Waterberg about 22,000 Herero assembled,
inclusively women and children. These are the realistic
numbers that we have to deal with and not the astronomically
exaggerated and politically motivated allegations offered by
the advocates of the legend of the genocide.
Nevertheless, chieftain of the Hereros, Kuaima Riruako,
unashamedly preaches the suppression of the uprising would
have been «a war of genocide» in which over 80,000 Hereros
were decimated in a «Nazi-Jews style of killing». Without
inhibition he compares this, what he titles, «German cruelty»
to «the Holocaust» and proclaims: «We’re equal to the Jews who
were destroyed. […] The Germans paid for spilled Jewish blood.
We say, ‹Compensate us, too!› It’s time to heal the wound.»
So what are the historical facts? In August 1904 about
22,000 kinsmen of the Herero people – children and women
inclusive – came together at Waterberg. They were by no means
defeated, neither did they intend to surrender. Under historic
view, it is not true to pretend on 11 August just one decisive
battle would have taken place. In fact, there were a couple of
battles and skirmishes separated from each other up to 50
kilometres in distance. The biggest of all was that one at the
waterholes of Hamakari which almost ended up in a disaster for
the Germans. During all battles, the Hereros never gave up the
initiative. Undefeated and without being ultimately
threatened, their leader, chieftain Samuel Maharero, however,
took a fatal decision that following night. The Hereros
scattered in all directions, most of them south-easterly
towards the Omaheke. The Imperial troops were incapable to
hinder them from doing so, particularly it was impossible for
them to follow. Both, horses and men, were totally exhausted.
German patrols that tried to follow the Hereos had to return
after a few days only. So, the Hereros were able to move off
in segments and bunches of people fast, but quite undisturbed
by the Germans.
Only weeks later the German military forces were able to
follow. This was not a hunt, but rather a strenuous following
on the tracks of the Hereros. There was no «forcing them aside
the Sandfeld» like the exterminationists state. When the
Germans finally reached Osombo Windimbe, the place where
General Lothar von Trotha declared his proclamation to some
Herero late-comers and stragglers on 2 October, the Herero
were dispersed all over the entire area for a long time.
Samuel Maharero and his followers were safe in British
Bechuanaland since the last week of September, for example.
Others had made it southwards and went back to their homelands
even up to Walvis Bay. Others again had fled northwards to
Ovamboland. Most of them had disappeared into the bush. It is
complete nonsense to assume, the Hereros on that stage were
still in the Omaheke. There was not the slightest possibility
that they might «flow back» from the desert «into the German
lines».
What about the general treatment of the Herero by the Germans?
In a letter to the editor of the Windhoek daily Allgemeine
Zeitung dated 28 July 1961, Mr. R. Sarnow, a former soldier
who served in the Schutztruppe during the Herero uprising,
confessed: «…that every Herero man, woman or child who
surrendered, was sent to the mission station and provided for.
[…] We German soldiers were no undisciplined soldateska who
senselessly murdered, but we were an absolutely disciplined
troop, who did not harm any unarmed Herero.» Marxist
historians, of course, know better. Well-known Communist
historian Horst Drechsler, for example, claims: «In reality
the different treatment of men on the one hand and women and
children on the other was not made. All Herero, irrespective
of men, women and children, were killed whenever they fell
into the hands of German soldiers.» Such assertions, sold as
historical facts, are continuously found in the media. The
German leftist paper junge Welt, for instance, wrote: «Mass
shootings of prisoners and decimation of wounded Herero
warriors was the order of the day. Even women and children
were killed during such battles, sometimes even burned alive.»
Those of you, ladies and gentlemen, who know history, and
mainstream historiography in particular, are reminded here of
the propaganda horror stories of World War One – children with
chopped-off hands – or reminded of the Iraq-Kuwait war –
babies torn out of their incubators. The truth-content of
these stories is akin to that of the gossip the Germans were
butchering the Herero.
Nobody else than Colonel Deimling, who after World War One
became a leftist pacifist, confirmed that in spite of the
bestial rawness, that the Herero displayed towards wounded
German soldiers, thousands of Herero were made prisoners and
treated with humanity: «Innocent, defenceless prisoners and
women were treated humanely and with the utmost patience;
often I saw how our people shared with the prisoners what
little water and food they had.»
Indeed, in authentic primary sources we again and again come
across accounts that German soldiers, especially towards
children, were humane in the truest sense of the word. Captain
Bayer, for instance, has reported another classic example that
arose during a hot pursuit of the Herero and that can be taken
to be typical of such a behaviour: «A Herero child about 4
years of age sat at a waterhole and looked at us with
wide-open, surprised eyes. We had to stop there for a moment.
Our troopers stood around the baby and wondered how it could
be saved from certain death. Finally someone decided: ‹We need
to find this baby a mother.› Quickly a few riders ran into the
bushes and finally found an old Herero woman, a shrivelled old
woman, whom they placed the child on her lap. Then they got a
goat and someone began to milk it. The almost empty udder
yielded a quarter cup of milk, which they gave to the child.
They tied a rope around the goat’s neck and handed the end to
the old woman. It was a wonderful picture: the old smiling
Herero woman, the child and the milk goat; in front of them
our soldiers who enjoyed this peaceful scene.» Lieutenant
Erich von Salzmann reported another characteristic example.
Near to the water-hole Owikokorero the Germans detected two
indigenous women. The one »had a baby about one week of age
and looked incredibly pitiful. She soon noticed that we had
compassion for her, since she was quite successful in her
attempts of begging. We gave her corned-beef and she filled up
her stomach very quickly.«
The humane attitude of the German soldiers was well-known
amongst the Hereros who gave up fighting or were taken
prisoners. There are even some remarkable and authentic Herero
sources proofing this fact. The honourable evangelist Andreas
Kukuri, for instance, who was among those who made it through
the Omaheke desert in September 1904, confessed, when he and
his segment were captured they were sent to missionary Eich
who said «Let’s make true peace!» and then «we returned to our
regions and territories.» Quite
similar are the announcements made by prominent Herero wise
men in interviews made by the Michael Scott Project during the
early eighties. Perhaps most impressive of all, is the
testimony of Amanda, the well-bred literate daughter of
Captain Zacharias from Otjimbingwe. She admitted to have
handed in herself to the Germans, because she knew the Germans
would do Herero women no harm. These provable historical
facts, ladies and gentlemen, doubtlessly indicate the
blameless attitude of German soldiers, who en gros never
enchanted to brutal maltreatments or even worse towards native
people in German South West Africa.
Hans Germani, world famous journalist of the German daily Die
Welt, spoke to Chief Clemens Kapuuo, the leader of the Herero
in the seventies. Germani asked the prominent Herero what his
attitude towards Germans was, who were blamed to have had
committed genocide on his people: «You know, this is actually
nonsense. Both of us are martial people, the very best here in
South West Africa. At that time we fought each other, you have
been the stronger one. Sure, lots of us died on the run
through the desert – but what is that supposed to mean? We
should avoid digging in old graves, because that will never
create a future. Take a look on my Herero. At their annual
celebrations they wear old German uniforms and decorate
themselves with military ranks [that are directly rooted from
German terminology, for example] ‹Leutnanti›, ‹Oberleutnanti›,
‹Hoppmann›, ‹Majora›. In a fundamental manner we have a deep
respect for the Germans.» Kapuuo, however, expressly excluded
the Federal Germans («Bonner Deutsche»).
Ladies and gentlemen, let me finish my expositions with a last
striking argument. During the uprising the British military
attaché Colonel Trench accompanied the German high command
during its military actions. He became acquainted with
basically all German officers and all places of military
action. He was the neutral eyewitness par excellence. Who – if
not this British officer! – would have made detailed reports
about violations of human rights? However, in none of the
essential archives (neither in Windhoek nor in London nor in
Pretoria) are there to be found any documents, that might give
the smallest hint that this qualified officer had made any
negative reports to his superiors in London. This fact is of
vital importance, since it is to be taken for granted that –
if there were any incidents, which were to be connected with
even the slightest suspicion to be regarded as maltreatment or
even genocide – Trench would certainly have reported such
illegal acts and crimes to his superior office. He would
certainly never had concealed them. The fact that there is no
such report is logical, because there was nothing to report in
that direction, since the Germans have not committed any
atrocities or even genocide on the Herero people in 1904.
FOOTNOTES
and additional information:
For further information please consult
the two standard books on this topic written by Dr. Nordbruch:
- Claus Nordbruch, Sind
Gedanken noch frei? Zensur in Deutschland, München
Universitas, 2nd, enlarged and revised edition
2001.
- Claus Nordbruch, Der Angriff.
Eine Staats- und Gesellschafskritik an der »Berliner Republik«,
Tübingen Hohenrain 2003.
You are also welcome to visit Dr.
Nordbruch’s homepage in this regard:
www.nordbruch.org
Die Welt, 8
September 2001.
Massacre returns to haunt Germans, in
The Sydney Morning Herald, 28
July 1990.
Land pressure mounting in Namibia, in
www.bbc.co.uk, 28 August
2002.
Wolfgang Mayer (et al.):
Schwarz-Weiß-Rot in Afrika, Puchheim 1985, p. 183.
Thomas Bastar,
Länder, die im dunkeln bleiben, in Das
Sonntagsblatt, 4 April 1997.
www.africanfront.com
Enzo Traverso, Die Moderne und die
Barbarei, Sozialistische Zeitung, 7 December 2000.
Encyclopaedia Americana, Vol. 14, New York
1971, p. 137.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_namibia1.html
Todd Bensman, Forgotten Victims: African
Tribe Wants Apology, in Dallas Morning News, cited from
http://www.pewfellowships.org/stories/namibia/forgotten_victims.html
Tom Sanders, Imperialism and Genocide in
Namibia, in: Socialist Action, Vol. April 1999.
Tax wars, in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/11chapter10.shtml
The tribe Germany wants to forget, in:
New African, Vol. March 2000.
German Government must apologise for
genocide of the Herero (Namibia), Press release 31 August
2001.
Herero-Häuptling fordert von Deutschland
Entschädigung, in Die Welt, 3 September 2001.
http://www.namibian.org/travel/namibia/population/
Namibia recalls Herero uprising, in Argus (Cape Town)
10 January 2004.
See attachment No. 3 of the conference of
Herero missionaries in Otjibingue in September 1906, (Archives
of the Rheinische Mission, Barmen) quoted in N.
Mossolow, Waterberg, Windhoek, 2nd ed., pp.
42.
See Berichte der
Rheinischen Missions-Gesellschaft 1902, Barmen o. J., p.
228. This
relativeness seems to be true. The then-Government secretary
of the Imperial Colonial Office (Staatssekretär des
Reichskolonialamts) Wilhelm Solf referred to statistics of
both Christian missions that indicate that in 1914, i.e. 10
years after the war, some 32.200 natives had been
christianized.
(See. Wilhelm Solf, Die Missionen in den
deutschen Schutzgebieten, Berlin 1918, pp. 43.)
I. Goldblatt,
History of
South West Africa,
Cape Town/Johannesburg 1971, p. 265.
Quoted from Todd Bensman, Forgotten
Victims: African Tribe Wants Apology, Dallas Morning News,
http://www.pewfellowships.org/stories/namibia/forgotten_victims.html
Horst Drechsler, Aufstände in
Südwestafrika, Berlin 1984, p. 81.
Gerd Bedszent, Terror und Enteignung, in
junge Welt,
13 March 1998.
Berthold von Deimling, Aus der alten in
die neue Zeit, Berlin 1930, p. 69.
Maximilian Bayer, Mit dem Hauptquartier
in Südwestafrika, Leipzig 1909, 2nd ed., p.
164.
Erich von Salzmann, Im Kampfe gegen die
Herero, Berlin, 1905, 2nd ed., p. 186.
See Andreas Kukuri, Herero-Texte
(translated into German and edited by Ernst Dammann), Berlin
1983, pp. 51.
See Annemarie Heywood (et al.) (ed.):
Warriors leaders sages and outcasts in the Namibian past,
Windhoek 1992.
See Claus Nordbruch, Der Hereroaufstand
1904, Stegen 2002, p. 114.
Hans Germani, Rettet
Südwest, Munich/Berlin 1982, pp. 74.
(My translation).
See, i.e., Maximilian Bayer, Mit dem
Hauptquartier in Südwestafrika, op. cit., p. 269.
For further information
please consult the two standard books on this topic written by
Dr. Nordbruch:
- Claus Nordbruch, Der
Hereroaufstand 1904, Inning Vowinckel 2001.
- Claus Nordbruch, Völkermord
an der Herero in Deutsch-Südwestafrika? Widerlegung einer Lüge,
Tübingen Grabert 2004.
Dr. Nordbruch’s homepage:
www.nordbruch.org
