Essay On The German-Herero War

Brigitte Lau argues that the image of German turn-of-the-century soldiers as plotters of Herero “genocide” is inappropriate and certainly inaccurate. I, for one, certainly do not agree with Lau’s statement. I will be discussing the recent work of Casper Erichsen and a few other writers and scholars to support my argument: The German-Herero war of 1904-8 was genocide.
The concept of genocide is a widely debated topic. The determination of genocide within the German-Herero war of 1904-8 has to start with the study of the definition. According to the Readers Digest Illustrated Dictionary the term genocide is defined as the mass extermination of human beings, especially of a particular race or nation. The initial term was invented by Raphael Lemkin
in 1943/4 and a few years later the UN general assembly recognised genocide under international law. The Greek word “genos” meaning tribe/race and the Latin word “caedere” meaning to kill were merged together to create the term. Alexander Laban Hinton gives a more well-defined definition by analysing the origins of the term from an anthropological perspective and describes genocide as being “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group such as: (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 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. All three sources come down to the same notion of genocide: the killing of a certain racial group or culture in large numbers.
Lau studies the lack of evidence within the archives regarding documentations that could support the concept of genocide during the German-Herero war. Lau states that “considerable amounts of official documentation were destroyed” and argues that the applicability of the concept of genocide regarding the German-Herero war should certainly be questioned if evidence is not available. There are many other writers and scholars that provide corresponding amounts of evidence. Gerhardus Pool , Tilman Dedering , Jan-Bart Gewald and Horst Drechsler , just to name a few, provide substantial and reliable evidence within their work which relate to one another. Gewald declares that there are “… diaries, letters, and photographs of contemporaries [that] graphically portray the indiscriminate shootings, hangings, and beatings...”which he includes in his work. Even if the evidence is “weak” and “fragmented” as Lau maintains, we have to work with what is available to us as history cannot be re-written.
Life within the concentration camps for the Herero people was cruel. They were treated harshly and ruthlessly. Deaths and brutalities occurred from the instant they were captured. After the Waterberg battle new orders were presented which stated that the “surrendering Herero should be placed in concentration camps in various locations in the territory…” Two days thereafter “Von Trotha issued a memorandum to all districts, relaying the orders, which spelled out the modus operandi for the erection of concentration camps. These camps were to be populated and in order to do so “Trotha launched raids (…) where they were to locate and capture Herero men, women and children…” and these “raids were carried out in brute force and at times resulted in wholesale massacres”, Erichsen explains. Trotha stepped down at the end of 1905 and Friedrich von Lindequist was appointed in his place. Lindequist did not waste any time and merely continued what Trotha had left behind. Mortality rates simply increased due to not improving conditions in the camps and accelerating the collection efforts. The collections proceeded and for it to be more effective ‘loyal’ Herero were sent with. “However, not everyone was convinced about the integrity of the militia and it was not uncommon for shots to be fired against them” , Erichsen explains. With regards to the concentration camps Erichsen concludes that Lindequist and his government did not make any effort to prevent the obvious mass dying in the camps firstly made evident through Throta’s actions and then that of his own and can be seen as a tolerated outcome. Deaths in mass figures are marked here. Pool also writes in support of the figures.
Maltreatment during the journey to the camps, the mental and physical aftermath of the war and the period of abuse and negligence within the camps caused many Herero deaths. With regards to disease it definitely had an impact on the figures of the Herero people and can also be seen as one of the contributors that concluded in genocide. Erichsen studies the “German Sanitaets-Bericht” and explains with relation to the report that diseases such as scurvy, pneumonia, influenza, syphilis and other STD’s caused by circumstances within the concentration camps are another reason for the large amounts of deaths. Erichsen argues that even if the prisoners had arrived in ill state before entering the camps the conditions that awaited them were so dire that few would even recuperate and that the “food rations were of such insufficient nutritious value that basic sustenance, even for healthy prisoners, was difficult”. Erichsen adds that there was a lack of medical attention, the living quarters were unhygienic, the prisoners had insufficient clothing and due to the high concentration of people diseases were given most favourable conditions for spreading. Pool, too, states the above mentioned in his work that supports the idea of the evidence being sufficient. Even if the prisoners may have acquired these diseases before entering the camps, the people in charge did not do much about the situation and allowed them to die as it is evident that health in general was poorly prioritized. More deaths due to thoughtless, inconsiderate and negligent behaviour are manifested here.
Woman and children were also treated badly within the camps. They settled in the camps with the other men under conditions such as bad sanitation, disease and malnutrition. Even under those circumstances the woman had to do hard labour and also had to cope with beatings and general maltreatment , with migrant workers from the cape supporting the occurrences . Drechsler explains that “…the majority of [the Herero] [were] beset with disease to such an extent that they cannot be expected to produce healthy offspring.” Further he adds that “there is little hope in the foreseeable future (…) from among the ranks of the Herero…” Although they did not physically partake in the war they suffered the aftermath, which is slow deaths and it in turn results in the inability of population growth, supporting the definition of genocide in this regard.
With regards to numbers and figures of the Herero people before and after the war Lau studies the inaccuracy thereof and argues that no exact estimate could be made as the evidence available does not add up and is contradictory and confusing , fair enough. But with regards to war and genocide one can surely never have exact estimates of deaths and atrocities as such evils are committed during chaotic circumstances. As mentioned before, we have to work with the evidence available and make calculations from there on. Lau herself does some math and states that it “brings the figure of survivors to just under 20,000” , approving the idea that the majority of Herero’s were wiped out during the periods of the war and the aftermath such as the camps and disease. This idea is supported by many other writers, scholars and historians. In Gewald’s work he states that “[w]hen the war finally ended, no fewer than 80 per cent of the Herero had lost their lives.” Dedering comments on Lau’s argument and states that the “customary figures given in various records are 80,000-100,000 Herero before the war and approximately 16,000 survivors after the war.” Dedering’s estimates support the idea of more than 80 per cent of the population was killed. Pool also gives selected estimates regarding certain deaths recorded and here one can see the incline concerning the figures of deaths. Erichsen studies the figures and gives logical reasons for the figures not accounted for supported with evidence. He further argues that the estimated 80 percent was not made up from only pre-war figures but the deaths during the camps also contribute to the percentage. It is evident here that many writers, historians and scholars have similar estimates concerning the numbers and figures of the population pre and post war. When all added up one may maintain that 80 percent or the majority of the Herero nation was destroyed as a result of the war and its aftermath thereof and in turn it connects to the definition of genocide that was previously provided.
In relation to General von Trotha’s Extermination Order Lau argues against it by explaining how Karla Poewe challenged the Order and problematized the word “extermination” together with arguing that the Order was only issued after the war.
The order reads: “I, the great General of the German Soldiers, address this letter to the Herero people. The Herero people are no longer considered German subjects. (…) The Herero people will have to leave the country. Otherwise I shall force them to do so by means of guns. Within the German boundaries, every Herero, whether found armed or unarmed, with or without cattle, will be shot. I shall not accept any more woman and children. I shall drive them back to their people- otherwise I shall order shots to be fired at them. These are my words to the Herero people.” According to the Readers Digest Illustrated Dictionary the term “exterminate” can be defined as to “destroy utterly (especially something living).” The word cannot be problematized if the definition defines exactly what von Trotha’s intentions were and also defines exactly what he caused. Gewald explains that “the majority of the Herero have been killed, driven off their land, robbed of their cattle, and banished to near-certain death…” He further explains that “In a conscious policy of genocide, German soldiers and settlers sought, shot, beat, hanged, starved, and raped Herero men, woman, and children. These parts of work portray exactly what von Trotha had intended to
do to the Herero’s and well he did. Erichsen explains that “The Extermination Order was an official canonisation of murder that basically mandated German troops to execute Herero men on sight and to shoot at woman and children.” Dedering brings across a logical point by Henning Melber stating “that genocide is not only about high or low numbers of victims, but is also reflected in strategy and tactics employed by the perpetrators.” Why would many others write about and provide evidence of the intentions of von Trotha if it was not so? Why did the majority of the population of the Herero die if it was not his intention? The Extermination Order issued by General von Trotha is actual evidence of what followed after the war was genocide.

In the light of Erichsen’s recent work one can see many evident points that contest Lau’s arguments.
The battle at the Waterberg, the expedition in the desert and the Extermination Order all added up to what we may call genocide. During the war itself German settlers and soldiers carried out a shoot-to-kill policy, conducted extrajudicial killings, established concentration camps and employed forced labour. With all these mistreatments and atrocities exactly how can it not be called genocide? Lives were lost with the intent for it to be so. Circumstances and deaths in the camps, disease that caused deaths, deaths and mistreatment among the woman and children, the numbers and figures which support these deaths, and again, the extermination order of General von Trotha which clearly states his intentions and that is exactly what he and his troops had done to the Herero people. And still many argue it was not genocide? How does one build a culture or nation without woman and children? Some may argue that what happened during the war can be seen as mere casualties. Not agreed, mass killings cannot be called casualties. Although the initial intention was to claim the land and not to kill the Herero, killing them was what it finally resulted in. Everything draws back to the definition of the term genocide and the evidence that links with it. These arguments by Erichsen and the other writers, historians and scholars, excluding Lau, all draw to the idea of the applicability of the
concept of genocide during the German-Herero War and its aftermath.