Geskiedenis Podcasts

Duitse gruweldade

Duitse gruweldade

Dit was eers toe die Rooi Leër gebied wat voorheen deur die Duitse Weermag beheer was, herwin het, dat die Sowjetregering ten volle bewus geword het van die gepleegde oorlogsmisdade. Sowjet -soldate wat gevange geneem is, is doelbewus van honger dood. Van die 5 170 000 soldate wat deur die Duitsers gevang is, het slegs 1 053 000 oorleef.

Vroue en kinders is ook in groot getalle vermoor. Die Jode was altyd die eerste wat tereggestel is, maar ander groepe, veral die Russe, is ook doodgemaak. Duitse soldate het die instruksies gekry dat die 'Joods-Bolsjewistiese stelsel vernietig moet word'. Adolf Hitler was bewus daarvan dat die beheer van die groot bevolking van die Sowjetunie altyd 'n uiters moeilike taak sou wees. Sy manier om die probleem te hanteer, was deur massa -uitwissings.

Sowjet -owerhede skat dat altesaam meer as twintig miljoen van hul mense tydens die Tweede Wêreldoorlog dood is. Daar word egter aangevoer dat Hitler se beleid om die Sowjet -volk uit te roei, sy nederlaag gewaarborg het. Verhale van Duitse gruweldade het gou die soldate van die Rooi Leër by die front bereik. In die lig van die keuse om tereggestel te word of om gedood te word, het die oorgrote meerderheid laasgenoemde gekies. Anders as die meeste ander soldate, het die Sowjet -leër selde oorgegee toe hulle in die geveg met 'n nederlaag te kampe gehad het.

Dit was ook waar van burgerlikes. Toe die Duitse leër grondgebied inneem, het vroue, kinders en ou mans weggekruip en guerrilla -eenhede gevorm. Hierdie groepe, wat toegespits was op die ontwrigting van die Duitse toevoerlyne, was 'n konstante probleem vir die Duitse magte.


Duitse gruweldade, 1914: 'n geskiedenis van ontkenning

Is dit waar dat die Duitse leër, wat België en Frankryk in Augustus 1914 binnegeval het, wrede gruweldade gepleeg het? Of is die berigte oor die dood van duisende ongewapende burgers bloot versinsels wat deur fanaties anti -Duitse geallieerde propagandiste gebou is? Gebaseer op navorsing in die argiewe van België, Brittanje, Frankryk, Duitsland en Italië, onthul hierdie baanbrekende boek die waarheid van die gebeure van die herfs van 1914 en verduidelik hoe die politiek van propaganda en geheue radikaal verskillende weergawes van die waarheid gevorm het. Horne en Kramer myn militêre verslae, amptelike en private rekords, getuienisbewyse en oorlogsdagboeke om die misdade te dokumenteer wat geleerdes lankal ontken het: 'n veldtog van brutaliteit wat gelei het tot die dood van ongeveer 6500 Belgiese en Franse burgerlikes. Hedendaagse Duitse verslae het daarop aangedring dat die burgers guerrilla's is, tereggestel weens onwettige verset. In werklikheid het hierdie eis ontstaan ​​in 'n groot kollektiewe dwaling van Duitse soldate. Die skrywers bepaal hoe hierdie mite ontstaan ​​het en hoe dit werk, en hoe teenoor Geallieerde en Duitse sienings van gebeure in die propaganda -oorlog gebruik is. Hulle spoor die herinnering en vergeet van die gruweldade aan beide kante tot en met die Tweede Wêreldoorlog na. Hierdie boek word noukeurig nagevors en oortuigend aangevoer en heropen 'n pynlike hoofstuk in die Europese geskiedenis, terwyl dit bydra tot breër debatte oor mites, propaganda, geheue, oorlogsmisdade en die aard van die Eerste Wêreldoorlog. Wenner van die Fraenkel -prys vir kontemporêre geskiedenis in 2000.


Die Europese gruweldaad waarvan u nooit gehoor het nie

Die geskreeu wat deur die donker verduisterde beeswa gelaai was, propvol afgevaardigdes, terwyl dit vyf aande voor Kersfees oor die ysige Poolse platteland ruk, was die enigste manier waarop sy pasiënt opgespoor kon word. Die dokter, voorheen hoof mediese beampte van 'n groot stedelike hospitaal, was nou besig om te klouter oor hope bagasie, medepassasiers en emmers wat as toilette gebruik is, net om sy pad te vind, geblokkeer deur 'n ou vrou wat sy versoek om eenkant toe te skuif, geïgnoreer het. By nadere ondersoek het hy ontdek dat sy doodgevries het.

Uiteindelik het hy die bron van die gille opgespoor, 'n swanger vrou wat voortydig kraam en baie bloeding kry. Toe hy probeer om haar te beweeg van waar sy in 'n gemakliker posisie was, het hy gevind dat 'sy met haar eie bloed op die vloer vasgevries was'. Behalwe dat die bloeding tydelik gestuit is, kon Loch niks doen om haar te help nie, en hy het nooit geleer of sy gelewe of gesterf het nie. Toe die trein sy eerste stop maak, na meer as vier dae se reis, is 16 rypbedekte lyke uit die waens gehaal voordat die oorblywende gedeporteerdes weer aan boord gesit is om hul reis voort te sit. 'N Verdere 42 passasiers sou later swig voor die gevolge van hul beproewing, waaronder Loch se vrou.

Hoover Institution Archives

Ongeveer 500 000 mense sterf tydens die georganiseerde uitdrywings, en oorlewendes is in Duitsland deur die geallieerde besette agtergelaat om vir hulself te sorg.

Tydens die Tweede Wêreldoorlog was tragiese tonele soos dié alledaags, aangesien Adolf Hitler en Joseph Stalin in die hele bevolking soos stukke op 'n skaakbord rondbeweeg en probeer het om die demografiese profiel van Europa na hul eie voorkeure te hervorm. Wat egter anders was oor die deportasie van Loch en sy medepassasiers, was dat dit op bevel van die Verenigde State en Brittanje sowel as die Sowjetunie plaasgevind het, byna twee jaar na die vredesverklaring.

Tussen 1945 en 1950 was Europa die grootste episode van gedwonge migrasie, en miskien die grootste bevolkingsbeweging in die geskiedenis van die mens. Tussen 12 miljoen en 14 miljoen Duitssprekende burgers-waarvan die oorgrote meerderheid vroue, bejaardes en kinders onder 16 was-is met geweld uit hul geboorteplekke in Tsjeggo-Slowakye, Hongarye, Roemenië, Joegoslavië en wat vandag die westelike distrikte van Pole. Soos Die New York Times in Desember 1945 opgemerk, was die aantal mense wat die Geallieerdes voorgestel het om binne 'n paar maande oor te dra, ongeveer dieselfde as die totale aantal immigrante wat sedert die begin van die 20ste eeu in die Verenigde State toegelaat is. Hulle is onder die ruïnes van die geallieerde besette Duitsland neergesit om so goed as moontlik vir hulself te sorg. Die getal wat gesterf het as gevolg van hongersnood, siektes, slae of volslae teregstelling is onbekend, maar konserwatiewe ramings dui daarop dat minstens 500 000 mense tydens die operasie hul lewens verloor het.

Die verontrustendste van alles is dat tienduisende omgekom het as gevolg van mishandeling terwyl hulle as slawe -arbeid (of, in die siniese bondgenote van die Geallieerdes, “herstel in natura”) in 'n groot netwerk van kampe wat in Sentraal- en Suidoos -Europa strek, gebruik het— waarvan baie, net soos Auschwitz I en Theresienstadt, voormalige Duitse konsentrasiekampe was wat jare ná die oorlog in bedryf was. Soos sir John Colville, voorheen die privaat sekretaris van Winston Churchill, in 1946 aan sy kollegas in die Britse buitelandse kantoor gesê het, was dit duidelik dat "konsentrasiekampe en alles waarvoor hulle staan, nie tot 'n einde gekom het met die nederlaag van Duitsland nie." Ironies genoeg, die oorlewende Nazi -leiers, wat nie meer as honderd kilometer weg was van die kampe wat vir hierdie nuwe gebruik aangewend is nie, word in die hofsaal in Neurenberg deur die Geallieerdes verhoor op 'n aanklagbrief waarin 'deportasie en ander onmenslike dade gepleeg word' enige burgerlike bevolking ”onder die opskrif“ misdade teen die mensdom ”.

In elk geval was die uitdrywings na die oorlog 'n mensgemaakte ramp en een van die belangrikste voorbeelde van die massale skending van menseregte in die onlangse geskiedenis. Alhoewel dit in lewende geheue, in vrede en in die middel van die digste bevolkte kontinent ter wêreld voorgekom het, bly dit alles behalwe onbekend buite Duitsland self. In die seldsame gevalle dat hulle meer as 'n voetnoot in handboeke uit die Europese geskiedenis beoordeel, word dit algemeen as 'n geregverdigde vergelding vir Nazi-Duitsland se gruweldade beskou, of as 'n pynlike, maar noodsaaklike hulpmiddel om die toekomstige vrede in Europa te verseker. Soos die historikus Richard J. Evans beweer het In Hitler se skaduwee (1989) die besluit om die kontinent van sy Duitssprekende minderhede te suiwer, bly in die lig van die Holocaust 'verdedigbaar' en het getoon dat dit 'n suksesvolle eksperiment is om 'etniese teenstrydighede te ontbind deur die massa-oordrag van bevolkings'.

Selfs destyds was nie almal dit eens nie. George Orwell, 'n uitgesproke teenstander van die uitsettings, het in sy opstel "Politiek en die Engelse taal" daarop gewys dat die uitdrukking "oordrag van bevolking" een van 'n aantal eufemismes is waarvan die doel "grotendeels die verdediging van die onverdedigbare was." Die filosoof Bertrand Russell het suur gevra: "Is massa -deportasies misdade as hulle deur ons vyande tydens oorlog gepleeg word en regverdigbare maatreëls vir maatskaplike aanpassing wanneer hulle deur ons bondgenote in vrede uitgevoer word?" 'N Nog ongemakliker opmerking is gemaak deur die linkse uitgewer Victor Gollancz, wat geredeneer het dat "as elke Duitser inderdaad verantwoordelik was vir wat in Belsen gebeur het, dan is ons as lede van 'n demokratiese land en nie 'n fascistiese sonder 'n vrye pers nie. of die parlement, was individueel sowel as gesamentlik verantwoordelik ”vir wat gedoen is aan nie -strate in die geallieerdes se naam.

Dat die uitsettings noodwendig op groot skaal die dood en ontbering sou veroorsaak, is ten volle erken deur diegene wat dit aan die gang gesit het. In 'n aansienlike mate het hulle daarop gereken. Vir die verdrywende lande-veral Tsjeggo-Slowakye en Pole-was die gebruik van terreur teen hul Duitssprekende bevolkings nie net bedoel as wraak vir hul slagoffers in die oorlog nie, maar ook as 'n manier om 'n massale stormloop oor die grense te veroorsaak en uiteindelik hul regerings te bereik ' vooroorlogse ambisie om etnies homogene nasiestate te skep. (Voor 1939 het minder as twee derdes van die bevolking van Pole, en slegs 'n effens groter deel van Tsjeggo-Slowakye, bestaan ​​uit heidense Pole, Tsjegge of Slowake.)

Vir die Sowjets, wat Pole “vergoed” het vir sy territoriale verliese aan die Sowjetunie in 1939 deur sy westelike grens meer as 100 myl binne die Duitse gebied te verskuif, die opruiming van die nuut “Poolse” westelike lande en die storting van hul miljoene ontheemde inwoners te midde van die ruïnes van die voormalige Ryk, het Stalin se tweeledige doelwitte gedien om Duitsland se naoorlogse herstel te belemmer en die moontlikheid van 'n toekomstige Pools-Duitse toenadering uit te skakel. Die Britte beskou die wydverspreide lyding wat die uitsettings noodwendig sou bywoon, as 'n heilsame vorm van heropvoeding van die Duitse bevolking. "Alles wat die volledigheid en onherroeplikheid van hul nederlaag by die Duitsers tuisbring," het adjunk -premier Clement Richard Attlee in 1943 geskryf, "is uiteindelik die moeite werd." En die Amerikaners, soos Laurence Steinhardt, ambassadeur in Praag, opgeteken het, het gehoop dat die Verenigde State sy simpatie met die lande kan toon deur 'n 'begrip' en samewerkende houding te toon ten opsigte van die begeerte van die verdrywende lande om van hul Duitse bevolking ontslae te raak. nasionale aspirasies en verhoed dat hulle in die kommunistiese wentelbaan dryf.

Die Geallieerdes het toe bewustelik 'n koers gevolg wat, soos die Britse regering in 1944 deur sy eie paneel kundiges gewaarsku is, 'groot leed en ontwrigting sou veroorsaak'. Dat die uitdrywings nie gelei het tot die ergste gevolge wat verwag kan word uit die chaotiese veebedryf van miljoene verarmde, verbitterde en wortellose afgevaardigdes na 'n oorlogsverwoeste land wat hulle nêrens kon plaas nie, was te wyte aan drie hooffaktore.

Die eerste was die vaardigheid waarmee die naoorlogse Duitse kanselier, Konrad Adenauer, die verdrevenes in die algemene politiek ingetrek het, wat die bedreiging van 'n potensieel radikale en ontwrigtende blok ontwrig het. Die tweede was die bereidwilligheid van die meeste verdrevenes - ondanks die soms kras of oniplomatieke verklarings van hul leiers - om afstand te doen van die gebruik of dreigement van geweld as 'n manier om hul griewe reg te stel. Die derde, en verreweg die belangrikste, was die 30 jaar lange “ekonomiese wonderwerk” wat die behuising, voeding en werk van die grootste hawelose bevolking waarmee enige nywerheidsland ooit te kampe gehad het, moontlik gemaak het. (In Oos -Duitsland, aan die ander kant, het die feit dat die lewenstandaard vir die inheemse bevolking alreeds so laag was, beteken dat die ekonomiese gaping tussen hom en die vier miljoen aankomende uitstoters makliker oorbrug kon word.)

Die nadeel van 'ekonomiese wonderwerke' is egter dat, soos hulle naam suggereer, nie op hulle kan staatmaak om saam te kom waar en wanneer dit die nodigste is nie. Deur buitengewone geluk vermy die Geallieerdes die oes van hul eie roekeloosheid. Die uitdrywings het egter tot vandag toe 'n lang en bale skaduwee oor Sentraal- en Suidoos -Europa gegooi. Hulle ontwrigtende demografiese, ekonomiese en selfs - soos Eagle Glassheim aangedui het - bly steeds meer as 60 jaar later omgewingsgevolge. Die oornag transformasie van sommige van die mees heterogene streke van die Europese vasteland in virtuele etniese monoliete het die baan van binnelandse politiek in die verdrywende lande op beduidende en onvoorspelbare maniere verander. Kultureel was die poging om elke spoor van honderde jare van Duitse teenwoordigheid uit te wis en dit op te skryf uit nasionale en plaaslike geskiedenis wat ontstaan ​​het onder die nuwe Poolse en Tsjeggiese setlaarsgemeenskappe in die skoongemaakte gebiede wat Gregor Thum beskryf het as 'n toestand van 'geamputeerde geheue' . ” Soos Thum toon in sy baanbrekende studie van die naoorlogse Wroclaw-tot 1945 en die verwydering van die hele bevolking, die Duitse stad Breslau-is die uitdaging om die moeilike verlede van hul tuisdorp te konfronteer, wat post-kommunistiese Wroclawiete eers onlangs aangeneem het. In die meeste ander dele van Sentraal -Europa het dit amper nie eers begin nie.

Nog minder in die Engelssprekende wêreld. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat die uitsettings geensins vergelyk kan word met die volksmoord -Nazi -veldtog wat dit voorafgegaan het nie. Maar ook nie die hoogste gruweldaad van ons tyd kan 'n maatstaf word waarmee growwe skending van menseregte nie erken kan word vir wat dit is nie. In stryd met die geallieerde retoriek wat beweer dat die Tweede Wêreldoorlog veral geveg is om die waardigheid en waarde van alle mense te handhaaf, het die Duitsers ingesluit, duisende Westerse amptenare, dienspligtiges en tegnokrate het ten volle deelgeneem aan die uitvoering van 'n program wat, toe dit uitgevoer is, deur hul vyande in die oorlog, het hulle nie gehuiwer om dit as in stryd met alle beginsels van die mensdom aan te kondig nie.

Die mate van kognitiewe dissonansie waartoe dit gelei het, word geïllustreer deur die loopbaan van kolonel John Fye, hoof skakelbeampte van die Verenigde State vir die uitsetting van aangeleenthede na die Tsjeggo -Slowaakse regering. Hy erken dat die operasie wat hy gehelp het om uit te voer, 'onskuldige mense wat nog nooit soveel as 'n woord van protes teen die Tsjeggo -Slowaakse mense opgetel het nie'. Om dit te bereik, is vroue en kinders in aanhoudingsgeriewe gegooi, “waarvan baie weinig beter was as die voormalige Duitse konsentrasiekampe”. Tog het hierdie wroeging van onrus Fye nie verhinder om 'n versiering van die Praagse regering te aanvaar vir wat die amptelike aanhaling openlik as sy waardevolle dienste beskryf het "om Duitsers uit Tsjeggo -Slowakye te verdryf nie."

Vandag het ons nie veel verder gekom as wat Fye gedoen het in die erkenning van die deurslaggewende rol wat die Geallieerdes gespeel het in die bedinking en uitvoering van 'n operasie wat die gewelddadige opbreek van Joegoslavië in die 1990's oortref het nie. Dit is onnodig om dit toe te skryf aan enige 'taboe' of 'sameswering van stilte'. Wat eerder ontken word, is nie die feit van die uitsettings self nie, maar die betekenis daarvan.

Baie Europese kommentators het volgehou dat om die aandag daarop te vestig die afgryse verminder wat behoorlik vir die Holocaust en ander Nazi-gruweldade gereserveer moet word, of dat dit 'n selfbejammerende "slagoffer" -mentaliteit onder die huidige generasie Duitsers kan veroorsaak, vir wie die oorlog 'n toenemende herinnering is. Tsjeggies, Pole en burgers van ander uittredende state vrees die wetlike gevolge van 'n herondersoek van die manier waarop miljoene voormalige burgers van die lande hul nasionaliteit, vryheid en eiendom ontneem is. Tot op hede bly die naoorlogse verordeninge oor die onteiening en denationalisering van Duitsers in die statuutboek van die Tsjeggiese Republiek, en die wettigheid daarvan is onlangs deur die Tsjeggiese konstitusionele hof bevestig.

Enkele noemenswaardige uitsonderings opsy, soos T. David Curp, Matthew Frank en David Gerlach, Engelssprekende historici-hetsy begryplike simpatie vir die slagoffers van Duitsland of onwilligheid om die vertelling te bemoeilik van wat steeds met reg as 'n 'goeie oorlog' beskou word- was ook nie te gretig om die geskiedenis van 'n morsige, komplekse, moreel dubbelsinnige en polities sensitiewe episode te verdiep nie, waarin min of nie een van die betrokkenes in 'n geloofwaardige lig verskyn nie.

Al hierdie bekommernisse is geensins onwaardig nie. Maar dit is ook nie 'n geldige rede waarom hulle nie ernstig met 'n episode van so 'n ooglopende belang belangstel nie en dit integreer in die breër verhaal van die moderne Europese geskiedenis. Vir historici om te skryf - en, nog erger, om te onderrig - asof die uitdrywings nog nooit plaasgevind het nie, of wat plaasgevind het, geen besondere betekenis het vir die gemeenskappe wat daardeur geraak word nie, is intellektueel en pedagogies onhoudbaar.

Die feit dat bevolkingsoordragte tans 'n terugkeer op die wetenskaplike en beleidsagenda maak, dui ook daarop dat ons die mees uitgebreide eksperiment wat tot dusver met hulle gedoen is, met sorg moet ondersoek. Ondanks die grusame geskiedenis, gaan geesdriftiges voort met die spook van 'menslike' massa -deportasies as 'n manier om onlosmaaklike etniese probleme op te los. Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, in 'n baie aangehaalde studie, het bevolkingsoordragte as 'n waardevolle hulpmiddel bepleit, solank dit 'op 'n menslike, goed georganiseerde manier uitgevoer word, soos die oordrag van Duitsers uit Tsjeggo-Slowakye deur die Geallieerdes in 1945-47 . ” John Mearsheimer, Chaim Kaufmann, Michael Mann en ander het dieselfde gedoen.

Min oorloë vandag, hetsy binne of tussen state, het nie 'n poging van een of albei partye om feite ter plaatse te skep deur die minderheidsbevolkings wat as vreemd vir die nasionale gemeenskap beskou word, met geweld te verplaas nie. En hoewel die Rome -statuut van die Internasionale Strafhof probeer het om hierdie neiging te beperk deur massa -deportasies te verbied, beweer Elazar Barkan dat sulke beskuldigings ver van absoluut is, en dat "daar vandag nie 'n enkele internasionale reg is wat bevolkingsoordragte uitdruklik verbied nie. wat die beskerming van groepe of individuele regte betref. ”


Koloniale volksmoord in Duitsland in Namibië

Die Herero -bevolking van 80 000 is tot 15 000 gedekimeer en die Nama -bevolking is van 20 000 tot 10 000 verminder.

Herero -vroue voor die Duitse besetting (foto deur Ulstein) gepubliseer in Berliner Illustrirte Zeitung in 1904

Ketting Herero -gevangenes onder Duitse koloniale besetting (foto Ulstein)

Vir dekades lank was die koloniale geskiedenis van Duitsland nie van belang nie, aangesien dit relatief van korte duur was (1884-1919) en as onmerkbaar beskou is. Geleerdes het die invloed wat sosiale darwiniste en eugenici in die laat 19de eeu gehad het, geïgnoreer deur nuwe waardes van totalitêre oorheersing te skep, gebaseer op Darwin seOor die oorsprong van spesies, met sy wrede weergawe van die natuur as 'n mededingende gewelddadige stryd om oorlewing. Duitsland het hierdie waardes wreed in die Afrika -kolonies toegepas.

Toe 'n nuwe generasie Duitse historici die geskiedenis van die Duitse kolonialisme in Suidwes -Afrika (vandag Namibië) begin ondersoek, het die volksmoord van die Herero -mense uit die vergetelheid ontstaan. Die kolonies van Duitsland in Suidwes -Afrika was 'n toetsgrond vir Darwiniese rasse -wetenskap en volksmoord.

Suidwes-Afrika onder Duitse bewind, 1894-1945 deur Helmut Bley wat in 1968 in Duits gepubliseer is, het die ras-gemotiveerde volksmoord (1904-1907) gedokumenteer teen die inheemse plaaslike bevolking-die stamme van Herero en Nama wat in opstand gekom het teen die Duitse koloniale onteiening van hul weiveld in Suidwes-Afrika (vandag se Namibië ).

In 1904 het Duitsland 'n rassistiese beleid in sy kolonie aangeneem en 'n bevel uitgereik wat 'n nuwe Duitse regsbegrip bekendgestel het - Rassenschande (rasse -besmetting). Die bevel verbied ondertrouery tussen Duitse koloniste en Afrikaners. Hierdie beleid is gevolg deur 'n rassebeleid van vernietiging -Vernichtung - 'n dekade voor die Eerste Wêreldoorlog

In 1904 is ongeveer 150 Duitse setlaars tydens die Herero -opstand dood (hoewel historikus Peter Gay opgemerk het) "galant genoeg het hulle vroue, kinders en ander buitelanders gespaar. ” Die Duitse reaksie het Herero -vroue en kinders nie gespaar nie. Generaal Lothar von Trotha, 'n harde Pruisiese weermagoffisier, was in beheer. Hy noem die opstand:die begin van 'n rassestryd”En het 10 000 tot 14 000 troepe gelei, sy doel was die uitroei van die Herero -nasie:

'Dit was en is my beleid om geweld te gebruik met terrorisme en selfs brutaliteit. Ek sal die opstandige stamme met riviere van bloed en riviere van goud vernietig. Eers na 'n volledige ontworteling sal iets na vore kom. ” (Riviere van bloed, riviere van goud deur Mark Coker, 2001) ['n Ander vertaling: "Ek weet dat Afrika -stamme slegs toegee aan geweld. Om hierdie geweld met gewelddadige terrorisme en selfs gruwelikheid uit te oefen, was en is my beleid. ” (Richard Evans, Die Derde Ryk in geskiedenis en geheue, 2015)

Nadat hy die Herero -mag by Waterberg verslaan het, het Trotha aangekondig dat enige Herero 'binne die Duitse grens gevind word, met of sonder 'n geweer of beeste sou tereggestel word. ” Herero-veewagters wat in die aksie vasgevang is, is op die plek doodgemaak en kinders en kinders is in die woestyn gedryf om van hongersnood dood te gaan. Hy het selfs beveel dat hulle watergate vergiftig moet word.

Betogings van godsdienstige faksies in Duitsland het gelei tot 'n beleidsverandering, die inboorlinge is in 'konsentrasiekampe' gedryf - Konzentrationslager - waar hulle as slawe -arbeiders gemartel en uitgehonger is. Die geskatte Herero -bevolking is verminder van 80 000 tot 15 000 en van die 20 000 Nama -stam het slegs 10 000 oorleef. Daar was 'n terugslag en Trotha is in 1905 na Duitsland teruggeroep.

Lothar Trotha gedenk in Hamburg

Nieteenstaande die betogings, die amptelike publikasie van die Duitse staf, Der Kampf, verwys na Trotha se veldtog van “uitwissing van die Herero -nasie"As 'n 'briljante' prestasie. Na die oorlog het die koloniale bewind reisbeperkings opgelê en moes alle inheemse mense bo die ouderdom van sewe 'n metaalskyf met 'n genommerde identifikasie dra. Bley het hierdie ras-gemotiveerde volksmoord (1904-1907) gedokumenteer en opgemerk dat eugenetika as die regverdiging daarvan aangevoer word. Hy het voorgestel dat die Herero/Nama -volksmoord die prototipe vir die Holocaust was.

Die 1960's was 'n era van ontkenning en vergeet dat dit beskryf is as 'die Groot Stilte', 'n tyd waarin geen Duitser daarin wou belangstel in gruweldade wat deur die Duitse regering gepleeg is nie - nie die Joodse Holocaust of die een in die voormalige Afrika -kolonie . Die kwessie van vergelykings bly dus tot in die negentigerjare onaangeraak.

Toe die belangstelling in die Duitse koloniale geskiedenis in die negentigerjare herleef het, het koloniale oorsprong van raswetenskap en die geskiedenis van Duitsland se koloniseringservaring skielik vir historici van die Nazi -era irrelevant gelyk. Bley se boek is in 1996 weer uitgegee in 'n hersiene Engelse uitgawe (Namibië onder Duitse heerskappy) en daar is sedertdien talle boeke en artikels geskryf oor die politiek van ras, wat prominent in die Duitse kolonialisme in Suidwes -Afrika en Oos -Afrika verskyn het. Duitse koloniste het 'n totalitêre regime opgelê op die veeteeltstamme, Herero en Nama, volgens Darwin Oorsprong van spesies en die oortuiging dat die natuurlike orde 'n mededingende gewelddadige stryd is om die sterkste te oorleef.

Tussen 1904-1908 is die Herero- en Nama-stamme geslag, duisende is doodgeskiet en nog duisende Konzentrationslager— "konsentrasiekampe" (die eerste amptelike Duitse gebruik van die term) -waar hulle verhonger, gemartel en doodgemaak is. Op Shark Island - bekend as 'n 'doodskamp' en#8211 is gevangenes in gruwelike wetenskaplike eksperimente gebruik. hul afgesnyde koppe is gemeet en gekatalogiseer deur Duitse anatomiste en fisiese antropoloë. Die belangrikste hiervan was die antropoloog/ eugenicus Eugen Fischer, die direkteur van die Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology. Hy het probeer om die meerderwaardigheid van die Ariese ras te bewys - beide in SW -Afrika en later as die voorste 'rassehigiënis' onder die Derde Ryk. Minstens 300 skedels is na Duitsland gestuur vir verdere navorsing.

Uit die prisma van eugenetika gesien, het die sterkste (Ariese ras) oorleef terwyl swart mense gebore is om deur die sterkste bemeester te word. Die ingenieurs van die Kaiser se ras het skyfies en kraniometrie -kaarte gebruik om die afgesnyde koppe van Nama -stamlede te meet, wat hul ore en voete as 'apish' sprekende atavismes beskou het. Die dierkundige Leopard Schultze het opgemerk dat "liggaamsdele van vars inheemse lyke was 'n welkome toevoeging. ” Na raming is 300 skedels na Duitsland gestuur om baie van konsentrasiekampgevangenes te eksperimenteer.

Geskiedkundiges beklemtoon die feit dat terwyl ander koloniale besetters wreed was, Duitse rassisme in 1905 uitermatig was, dit die Duitse regsterminologie betree het - Rassenschande (rasse -besoedeling) - toe die huwelik tussen Duitse koloniste in Suid -Afrika en Afrikaners verbied is. Die vooraanstaande Britse historikus, Richard Evans, het opgemerk dat:

Net die Duitsers het konsentrasiekampe ingevoer, hulle as sodanig benoem en doelbewus toestande geskep so hard dat hulle doel duidelik was om hul gevangenes uit te wis as om hulle te dwing om te werk. (Dit sou aan die Nazi's oorgelaat word om die koue term 'uitwissing deur arbeid' te bedink.)

Slegs die Nazi's het 'n eksplisiete poging aangewend om 'n hele gekoloniseerde volk uit te roei op grond van rasse. Slegs die Duitsers het ondertrouery in hul kolonies wettig verbied. Slegs Duitsers het daarna 'n veldtog van rasse -uitwissing op wêreldwye skaal gevolg wat nie net die Jode van Europa nie, maar moontlik ook die Joodse inwoners van die res van die wêreld, omvat. Was daar 'n verband tussen die twee? " (Evans, Die Derde Ryk in geskiedenis en geheue, 2015)

In 'n artikel deur Benjamin Madley in Kwartaalblad van die Europese geskiedenis (2005) ondersoek hoe volksmoordretoriek, vernietigingsoorlog en die gebruik van konsentrasiekampe oor tyd heen oorgedra en deur die Nazi's aangeneem is. Hy ondersoek Duitsland se koloniaal Lebensraum en Vernichtung (vernietiging) beleid binne die konteks van ewe brutale Europese koloniale optrede, maar let op onderskeidende kenmerke.

“Wat die Duitse Suidwes -Afrikaanse volksmoord van die meeste ander koloniale massamoorde onderskei, is die feit dat die Duitsers in koloniale Namibië 'n beleid van Vernichtung, of uitwissing, verwoord en geïmplementeer het ... die Nazi's, waarin superieure Duitsers met brutaliteit en slawerny oor sub-menslike nie-Duitsers geheers het. Hierdie paradigma bied nuwe idees en metodes vir Nazi -kolonialisme wat na Duitsland en toekomstige Nazi's oorgeplaas is ... Hermann Göring, Eugen Fischer en Franz Ritter von Epp dien as menslike leidrade vir die vloei van idees en metodes tussen die kolonie en Nazi -Duitsland.

Duitse Suidwes -Afrikaanse raswette het regskonsepte verskaf wat later deur Nazi -wetgewers toegepas is. Net soos in die kolonie, het "Mischlinge ''n kommerwekkende onderwerp geword in die Nazi-ministerie van justisie, terwyl beide die verdedigingswet van 1935 wat soldate verbied om te trou met' persone van nie-Ariese oorsprong 'en die Nuremberg-wette wat die huwelik en seks tussen Jode en' Ariër 'kriminaliseer Duitsers was bloot variante van die Duitse Suidwes -Afrikaanse wette teen huwelik en saambly tussen rasse. "(Madley." Van Afrika tot Auschwitz: hoe Duits -Suidwes -Afrika idees en metodes deur die Nazi's in Oos -Europa aangeneem en ontwikkel het " Kwartaalblad van die Europese geskiedenis, 2005)

Die Britse skrywer, John Lewis-Stempel, beskou die volksmoord in Namibië ook as 'n voorsprong op die Holocaust:

'Nadat Trotha die Herero in die slag by Waterberg geklop het, het die oorlewendes die onbarmhartige Omaheke -woestyn ingedryf met die bedoeling dat hulle sou sterf van dors en hongersnood. Watergate is vergiftig deur "reinigingspatrollies" van die Schutztruppe, die koloniale leër, om te verhoed dat die Herero dit gebruik.

In Berlyn het die Duitse algemene personeel Trotha in die openbaar geprys vir sy 'uitwissings' -maatreëls. Teen 1905 was Herero -vlugtelinge wat nog in die Omaheke geleef het, te swak om alles behalwe oorgawe te doen. Hulle is afgerond, in veewaens gesit en per trein na konsentrasiekampe gestuur, waar hulle slawe -arbeid vir die nuwe spoorweë van die kolonie geword het.

Vroue is stelselmatig deur Schutztruppen verkrag, die voorvalle het in foto's verander deur die nuutgevangde Kodak-rolvulkamera. Die foto's is daarna as pornografiese poskaarte na Duitsland gestuur… (Daily Express, Jan. 2014)


Die Neurenberg -verhoor en sy nalatenskap

Die eerste internasionale oorlogsmisdade in die geskiedenis het die werklike omvang van Duitse gruweldade onthul en sommige van die mees prominente Nazi's vir hul misdade aanspreeklik gehou.

Bo -prent: Nazi -beskuldigdes by die Internasionale Militêre Tribunaal in November 1945. Met vergunning van die National Archives and Records Administration.

Op 18 Oktober 1945 het die eerste sessie van die eerste internasionale oorlogsmisdade in die geskiedenis in Berlyn, Duitsland, plaasgevind. Die hof kon nie 'n geskikte lokaal in die vernietigde Nazi -hoofstad vind nie, en verhuis gou na die stad Neurenberg (Nürnberg) in Beiere, waar die hoogste profiel -sake tussen 20 November 1945 en 31 Augustus in die gepaste naam van Justisie aangehoor is, 1946. In die loop van nege maande het die Internasionale Militêre Tribunaal (IMT) 24 hooggeplaaste militêre, politieke en industriële leiers van die Derde Ryk aangekla. Dit het hulle beskuldig van oorlogsmisdade, misdade teen vrede, misdade teen die mensdom en sameswering om hierdie misdade te pleeg. Alhoewel baie prominente Nazi's, waaronder veldmaarskalk Walter Model, Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler en Adolf Hitler, selfmoord gepleeg het voordat hulle verhoor kon word, het die lys van beskuldigdes by die verhoor admiraal Karl Dönitz, minister van binnelandse sake, Wilhelm Frick, veldmaarskalk ingesluit Wilhelm Keitel, en goewerneur-generaal van die besette Pole Hans Frank.

Die tribunaal in Neurenberg was slegs die eerste van die vele oorlogsmisdade wat in die nasleep van die Tweede Wêreldoorlog in Europa en Asië gehou is, maar die prominensie van die Duitse verweerders en die deelname van al die groot bondgenote het dit tot 'n ongekende gebeurtenis in die internasionale reg gemaak . Na die Eerste Wêreldoorlog het baie mense in die geallieerde lande gevra dat die Duitse keiser Wilhelm II as 'n oorlogsmisdadiger verhoor word, maar die Verdrag van Versailles het geen voorsiening gemaak om individuele Duitsers aanspreeklik te hou vir hul optrede tydens die vroeëre konflik nie. Die IMT was die eerste keer dat internasionale verdrae tussen state gesluit is om individue te vervolg. The tribunal was therefore an intentional break with the past necessitated by the unfathomable scope of Nazi Germany’s crimes.

When the judges rendered their final verdicts on October 1, 1946, 12 of the defendants were sentenced to death, three were acquitted, and the rest received sentences ranging from 10 years to life in prison. Nazi Party Secretary Martin Bormann was tried in absentia and therefore his death sentence could not be carried out (a DNA test in 1998 confirmed he had died in Berlin at the end of the war). Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring committed suicide on the night before he was scheduled to be executed. American Master Sergeant John C. Woods hanged the remaining 10 condemned men on October 16, 1946.

Although the charges brought against the German defendants at Nuremberg largely derived from prewar international treaties, the tribunal was controversial even in Allied countries. Several prominent figures in the Allied governments, including British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, initially favored a much more extreme course of action and advocated for the summary execution of German war criminals. The governments of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and the United States, however, eventually agreed upon a jointly-run tribunal with judges and prosecutors drawn from each of these countries. In order to combat the accusation that the tribunal was merely victors’ justice, the Allies went to great lengths to provide the defendants with counsel of their choosing as well as secretarial, stenographic, and translation services. When it came to some of the more questionable legal issues, such as the ambiguous charge of conspiracy, the Allies ensured that none of the defendants were convicted on this charge alone. Even so, some Germans accused the Allies of conducting an unfair trial with a predetermined outcome. Several of the tribunal’s detractors rightly criticized Soviet participants’ efforts to attribute Soviet atrocities, such as the massacre of Polish officers and intelligentsia at Katyn, to German troops. Other critics of the IMT noted that Nazi defendants could not appeal their convictions. Despite these condemnations, the IMT is widely considered today to have been a remarkably fair execution of justice. Moreover, it achieved several key objectives outlined by its architects.

Allied leaders hoped that the IMT, and subsequent trials of more than 1,500 Nazi war criminals, would accomplish a number of ambitious goals. First and foremost, the Allies hoped the trials would punish Germans guilty of horrific crimes. American leaders also hoped the IMT would deter future aggression by establishing a precedent for international trials. Finally, the Allied governments intended to use the IMT to educate German civilians about the true extent of Nazi atrocities and convince German citizens of their collective responsibility for their government’s crimes. This last objective was crucial to the Allied plan to discredit Nazism and denazify Germany.

The IMT and other Allied trials that followed had mixed success in achieving the Allies’ first two objectives. While hundreds of Nazi perpetrators were convicted of war crimes, the vast majority received prison sentences of 20 years or less. In 1955, less than a decade after the onset of the Cold War, the Western Allies ended the official occupation of West Germany and reconstituted the German Army. As part of this process, the Western Allies released more than 3,300 incarcerated Nazis. Among those released early were three men convicted at the International Military Tribunal: Grand Admiral Erich Raeder, Walther Funk, and Konstantin von Neurath. The Cold War additionally prevented the IMT from deterring future aggression by establishing a precedent of holding war criminals accountable in international court. Not until 1993, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, did another international war crimes trial take place.

Consequently, the most important legacies of the IMT were its punishment of the worst Nazi offenders, its irrefutable documentation of Nazi crimes, and its discrediting of the Nazi Party among most of the German population. While the tribunal largely failed to force average Germans to confront their complicity in their nation’s war crimes and the Holocaust, it likely prevented many former Nazis from reclaiming prominent political offices. These outcomes owed to the Western Allies’ efforts to conduct fair trials and the widespread dissemination of news related to their outcome.

The London Agreement, which was signed by Great Britain, the United States, France, and the Soviet Union on August 8, 1945, established the procedures for the IMT and was intended to ensure that nearly all German citizens learned about the trial. This document required each occupying power to publicize information about the trial within their respective zone of occupation in Germany. The London Agreement mandated that news of the tribunal be published and broadcast throughout Germany, going so far as to make provisions for German prisoners to receive news of the trial proceedings. To fulfill these requirements, American authorities reestablished a German press to report on the proceedings at Nuremberg, erected billboards depicting photographs of Nazi atrocities, and commissioned films to document the horrors of concentration camps. During the trial, American authorities produced posters using much of the same evidence obtained for the tribunal. These posters featured dramatic images of Nazi victims and were frequently subtitled “German Culture” or “These Atrocities: Your Guilt.” American occupation authorities made such images ubiquitous and circulated them alongside news of the IMT.

An Allied propaganda poster from 1946 with the words “Nuremberg” and “Guilty” surrounding a skull-like image of Adolf Hitler. Courtesy United States Holocaust Memorial and Museum.

This extensive effort to spread information about the Holocaust and German war crimes was necessary because most Germans either denied ever supporting the Nazi Party or echoed the common refrain that “wir konnten nichts tun” (we could do nothing) when presented with a list of German atrocities. This claim blatantly ignored the fact that a majority of Germans had either actively or passively supported Hitler, voted in favor of him or his conservative allies, and generally stood by as more than 500,000 of their Jewish neighbors were persecuted and more than 150,000 of them were shipped to hundreds of concentration camps across Germany. If Germans needed more evidence of their government’s crimes, they needed only to observe the millions of malnourished foreign slave laborers forced to work in German factories and on German farms. When German civilians saw that their denials had little effect on Allied sentiments, they attempted to downplay the severity of German atrocities instead. American war correspondent Margaret Bourke-White reported how after some Germans viewed images of concentration camps, they responded by saying “Why get so excited about it, after [the Allies] bombing innocent women and children?” With the food and housing situation dire in most German cities and millions of soldiers and civilians dead from the fighting, the majority of former citizens of the Third Reich preferred to focus on their own suffering.

While interned in a Soviet prisoner of war camp, Major Siegfried Knappe and the other German prisoners of war received daily reports about the progress of the IMT. “We learned the details of the Nazi extermination camps and finally began to accept them as true rather than just Russian propaganda,” wrote Knappe. The former officer explained in his memoir that he only began to believe accounts of the evidence presented at the trial “when it became clear that the Western Allies as well as Russia were prosecuting the Germans responsible.” Knappe realized that “as a professional soldier, I could not escape my share of the guilt, because without us Hitler could not have done the horrible things he had done but as a human being, I felt no guilt, because I had no part in or knowledge of the things he had done.” Many German soldiers’ postwar writings echoed similar denials about German atrocities. Scholars generally regard these claims as either blatant lies or willful ignorance because of the demonstrable role the German Army played in the Holocaust. Nor could German soldiers have entirely avoided witnessing the transportation of Jews to concentration and extermination camps, the execution of captured Soviet prisoners, and Allied leaflets describing German atrocities. Allied officials found German soldiers’ professed ignorance baffling, but the Allied soldiers were even more shocked that German civilian leaders could assert their innocence as well.

Despite the vast number of Germany’s victims, even many former Nazi Party members claimed that they bore no responsibility for German crimes and that Adolf Hitler himself did not know about the Holocaust. This created serious obstacles to the Allies’ attempt to denazify Germany. The Western Allies oversaw the creation of denazification tribunals beginning in March 1946, but it soon became apparent that there would not be enough qualified doctors, lawyers, judges, teachers, and civil servants if former Nazi Party members were excluded from those professions. American military government officials at one point even resorted to using lie detectors to try and ascertain if individuals had joined the Nazi Party to protect their jobs or because they agreed with the party’s policies.

The Allies attempted to persuade Germans of their guilt by forcing them to tour concentration camps, watch newsreel footage of Nazi crimes, and purge their libraries of Nazi materials. The real problem, however, was that every German adult who had not actively resisted Nazi rule bore some responsibility for the regime’s crimes. By accepting the legitimacy and verdicts of the IMT, German civilians, soldiers, and former government officials thought they could acknowledge that their country had committed horrific crimes but place all of the blame on a handful of Nazi leaders.

Though the trial failed to convince all Germans of their responsibility for initiating World War II and the Holocaust in Europe, it forged a tentative consensus about the criminality of Hitler’s rule. By October 1946, the month in which the sentences from the IMT were announced, more than 79 percent of Germans polled by American occupation authorities reported that they had heard about the tribunal’s judgments and thought the trial was fair. Seventy-one percent of those surveyed confirmed they had learned something new from the trial. This education solidified the tribunal’s importance in the reconstruction of Germany. As Dr. Karl S. Bader, a professor of jurisprudence at the University of Mainz in Germany, wrote in 1946, “nobody who considers the years 1933 to 1945 will in future times be able to pass by this material.” Bader warned, however, that any hesitancy on the part of the German people to seek justice only proved that the “Hitler in us” was not yet obliterated.

Unfortunately, the Cold War undermined the Allies’ efforts at denazification and both the Soviet Union and the United States rehabilitated large numbers of former Nazis. In East Germany, a Soviet puppet state, the government released thousands of Nazis and enlisted their help in forming a police state. The Soviet Union also began promoting the belief that western capitalists were basically responsible for the rise of the Nazi Party. Meanwhile, in West Germany the Western Allies ended all their efforts at denazification in favor of enlisting the help of former Nazis in the fight against Communism. Discussion of the Holocaust virtually disappeared from the public sphere in West Germany in the 1950s. School textbooks barely mentioned German war crimes, and former Nazis rejoined civil society, many resuming positions similar to those they held under Hitler’s regime. By the 1950s, nearly 90 percent of judges in West Germany had formerly belonged to the Nazi Party. Just as alarming, in 1950 a survey of West Germans indicated that a third of Germans believed the IMT had been unfair. The same proportion of respondents stated that the Holocaust had been justified.

These developments led many scholars and social commentators to condemn the trials at Nuremberg and denazification as complete failures. Germans did not express widespread public regret in the immediate postwar years. Nor did the majority of Nazis receive punishments commensurate with their crimes. Still, the judgments at Nuremberg established the legal precedent for denazification and created a record of evidence so compelling that, when shown to the German public, it dispelled any suggestion that the Nazi regime had been innocent of the accusations leveled against it.

These accomplishments owed to the strict procedures established for the IMT and the Western Allies’ efforts to publicize the trials in Germany. In the 1960s, when a new generation that did not remember the war came of age in West Germany, they questioned the silences surrounding World War II and rediscovered the record of evidence produced for the IMT. Their efforts initiated a public discussion of Germany’s past that led to widespread commemoration and even new war crimes trials for Germans who murdered millions of Jews in Eastern Europe during the war.


5 Višegrad Massacres: One of the Most Comprehensive and Ruthless Campaigns of Ethnic Cleansing

The Bosnian War was an international armed conflict that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995. The war came about as a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia and involved several factions and atrocities the Višegrad massacres were only some of them.
The Višegrad Genocide, as it's also known, was nothing but a mini-holocaust toward the Bosniak population of the municipality of Višegrad during those dark days of the so-called ethnic cleansing of eastern Bosnia by Serb police and military forces. It is estimated that over 3,000 innocent civilians were murdered during the massacre, among them more than 600 women and nearly 120 children. Even though Muslims used to make up two-thirds of Visegrad's 21,000 people before the war, now only several hundred have returned to their homes in the drab and poor town, located northeast of Sarajevo and close to the border with Serbia.


German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial

This colossal study delves into the facts and myths surrounding the reports of German war atrocities in Belgium and France in 1914. The authors argue that the contradictory reports of Germans and Allies on what happened resulted from divergent views of the Germans' collective reprisals against civilians. These acts were war crimes under international law, but "the German army considered the real atrocity to be mass civilian resistance." The Belgian and French accounts of atrocities tended to be more accurate than the German charges about collective civilian resistance. On the other hand, the occupiers were disoriented and fearful, fed by memories of the Franco-Prussian War, by harsh German policy toward irregular warfare, and by militant nationalism. As a result, "violence could be started by almost anything," and it provoked reprisals that "appeared to be anything but accidental." Tragically, this issue survived in the "war culture" of the belligerent countries in the 1920s and 1930s. Allies were divided over how to handle German war crimes (a skeptical United States resisted the idea of an international court), and Weimar Germany refused to accept responsibility. Meanwhile, growing numbers of pacifists, especially in the United States, believed that the reports of German atrocities were simply an "Allied invention." Few history books can claim to be definitive -- but this one should be accepted as such.


Mapping the site

Experts returned to Sylt in 2010 to evaluate the site and create the first reconstructions of the camp using archaeological methods, to better understand the inmates' living and work conditions. They visited the island, clearing vegetation and examining the camp's few remaining structures they also used a remote-sensing method known as light detection and ranging, or lidar, to survey the former camp from above and map differences in elevation that would indicate where buildings once stood and how they were constructed.

Their maps and 3D digital models showed that the prisoners' barracks were poorly built and unable to keep out the wind and cold. The buildings would also have provided only about 5 feet (1.5 meters) of living space per person, resulting in severe overcrowding. These findings corroborate witness testimony about outbreaks of luise and typhus, which would have spread quickly among people who were living in uncomfortably close quarters under unhygienic conditions, the authors said.

By comparison, according to the research, the Nazi guards lived comfortably, in buildings made of reinforced concrete surrounded by stone walls "to protect them from the weather and air raids," the study authors wrote.

According to Nazi records, only 103 people died at Sylt of "faulty circulation" or "heart failure," according to preprinted death certificates that the camp provided to Alderney doctors. But the recent discovery of mass graves on the island suggests that at least 700 people perished at Sylt these new findings will help to ensure that their stories won't be forgotten, the study authors wrote.

"This work has shed new light on the German occupation of Alderney and, crucially, the experiences of the thousands of forced and slave laborers who were sent there," said lead study author Caroline Sturdy Colls, a professor of conflict archaeology and genocide investigation at Staffordshire University in the United Kingdom.

"Historical, forensic and archaeological approaches have finally offered the possibility to uncover new evidence and give a voice to those who suffered and died on Alderney so many years ago," Colls said in a statement.

With impressive cutaway illustrations that show how things function, and mindblowing photography of the world&rsquos most inspiring spectacles, How It Works represents the pinnacle of engaging, factual fun for a mainstream audience keen to keep up with the latest tech and the most impressive phenomena on the planet and beyond. Written and presented in a style that makes even the most complex subjects interesting and easy to understand, How It Works is enjoyed by readers of all ages.
View Deal


German Atrocities - History

Hektor Valuable asset
Plasings: 3788 Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939

Plaas deur Hektor » 8 years 5 months ago (Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:48 am)

Re: Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 19

Plaas deur Balsamo » 8 years 5 months ago (Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:35 am)

As usual :
- photographs made by the Germans
- An official investigation by the Wehrmacht
- confession by captured Poles (soldiers and civilians)
- Germans eye-witness

As usual as well
debate on the number of deaths : that goes from 100 (polish historians) to 415 (german historians) to 5500 (think that was the official german number in 1939) and even 60.000 according to some nuts like GermanicPower on Youtube.

Hektor Valuable asset
Plasings: 3788 Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 19

Plaas deur Hektor » 8 years 5 months ago (Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:58 pm)

It seems figures from before 1.September 1939 and after this date are sometimes confused. Some of the literature deals with both jointly:
http://archive.org/details/Auswaertiges . usamkeiten

Since the end of WW1 there was frequent violence against Germans in areas controlled by Poland. That someone has really taken up the effort to count incidents and evaluate the evidence, I have not seen yet. There was violence against other minorities as well like i.e. the Ukrainians.

Perhaps one should also look into the figure of German refugees from Poland, too.

Hannover Valuable asset
Plasings: 10365 Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 19

Plaas deur Hannover » 8 years 5 months ago (Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:53 pm)

See here:
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm
Mostly shortly after 9/1/39, but has some pre-war info. and text of Hitler speech (Danzig, Sept. 19, 1939) elaborating on the pre-war terror against the German minority.
I also believe there were numerous, non-German newspapers which had information about the atrocities.

And there is nothing in these claims against the Poles which are scientifically impossible, as are the claims within the 'holocaust' canon.

Hektor Valuable asset
Plasings: 3788 Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 19

Plaas deur Hektor » 8 years 5 months ago (Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:07 am)

Hannover Valuable asset
Plasings: 10365 Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 19

Plaas deur Hannover » 8 years 5 months ago (Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:31 pm)

.”under Polish pressure the Germans in the southern and eastern districts were subjected to oppressive treatment. On Aug. 19 1920 the Poles felt strong enough, indeed, to make an attempt to seize the country by force. On all sides bands of Poles, chiefly recruited from Congress Poland, usurped authority. A number of Germans were forcibly carried across the frontier into Poland, and many were killed. Several weeks elapsed before it was possible to quell this rising and restore order…It had been suggested by the Entente that non-resident Upper Silesians of the German Reich should vote outside Silesia, at Cologne. Germany protested against this, and her protest was recognized as valid by the Entente. In January 1921 the date of the plebiscite was fixed for March 20 1921.
An immediate revival took place in the use of terrorism by the Poles, especially in the districts of Rybnik, Pless, Kattowitz, and Beuthen. It reached its climax in the days preceding the plebiscite. Voters from other parts of the German Reich were frequently refused admission to the polls sometimes they were maltreated and even in some instances murdered and houses where outvoters were staying were set on fire… The day after the plebiscite the Polish excesses recommenced, and from that date onwards continued without interruption… Practically all the towns voted for Germany… the first days of May witnessed a new Polish insurrection which assumed far greater proportions than the former one. Korfanty had secretly raised a well-organized Polish force which was provided with arms and munition from across the border, and was reinforced by large bodies of men from Poland…
By June 20 the British troops had again occupied the larger towns, while the Poles had the upper hand in the rural districts. As a result of the difficulties in paying his men and providing them with food Korfanty now lost control over his followers. Independent bands were formed which plundered the villages, ill-treated the Germans, and murdered many of them.”

- 1922 Encyclopaedia Britannica, “SILESIA, UPPER”

This article appeared in the Polish newspaper Die Liga der Grossmacht in October, 1930:

“Tannenberg” refers to the Battle of Tannenberg in 1410 when a Polish army defeated the German Teutonic Knights. The article is full of many more anti-German remarks.

Also, Von Ribbentrop defended the attack of Poland by stating that between 1919-1939, one million Germans had been expelled from Polish territory accompanied by numerous atrocities, and that complaints to the World Court in The Hague and the League of Nations in Geneva had been ignored.

further reading:
the book: "Dokumente polnischer Grausamkeiten. Verbrechen an Deutschen 1919-1939 nach amtlichen Quellen" (Documentations of Polish Cruelties. Crimes Against Germans 1919-1939 According to Official Sources).


Imperialism, Conquest, and Mass Murder

In the late 1800s, European nations were competing fiercely for control of Africa, the only continent (other than Antarctica) that had not yet been colonized by Europeans. Some European imperialists, such as French leader Jules Ferry (see reading, "Expansion Was Everything"), justified the conquest by claiming that “superior races” had both a right to the territory and a duty to “civilize” the “inferior races” that made up the Indigenous people of Africa. Others claimed no duty at all toward the Indigenous people. Historians David Olusoga and Casper W. Erichsen explain:

After the Germans drove the Herero into the Kalahari Desert in South-West Africa in 1904, the few that survived returned from the desert starving.

The white races had claimed territory across the globe by right of strength and conquest. They had triumphed everywhere because they were the fittest their triumphs were the proof of their fitness. Whole races, who had been annihilated long before Darwin had put pen to paper, were judged to have been unfit for life by the very fact they had been exterminated. Living people across the world were categorized as “doomed races.” The only responsibility science had to such races was to record their cultures and collect their artifacts from them, before their inevitable extinction.

The spread of Europeans across the globe came to be regarded as an almost sacred enterprise, and was increasingly linked to that other holy crusade of the nineteenth century—the march of progress. Alongside the clearing of land, the coming of the railroad, and the settlement of white farmers, the eradication of Indigenous tribes became a symbol of modernity. Social Darwinism thus cast itself as an agent of progress. 1

Along with Belgium, England, France, and Portugal, Germany was one of many European nations deeply influenced by Social Darwinism. It affected the way the nation justified its actions in South-West Africa (modern-day Namibia), where Germans occupied the land of Indigenous groups, including the Herero and Nama, beginning in the 1880s. Within 20 years, German settlers not only occupied much of the land but had also acquired (through confiscation or purchase) more than half of the Herero people’s cattle. Cattle were central to the Herero culture and economy. 2 Theodor Leutwein, the governor of German South-West Africa, explained what had happened to the Herero and Nama from an imperialist point of view when he wrote: “The native who did not care to work, and yet did not want to do without worldly goods, eventually was ruined meanwhile, the industrious white man prospered. This was just a natural process.” 3

When the Herero, the Nama, and other groups in the region fought to keep their land and resources, German leaders were outraged. The Herero, led by their chief Samuel Maharero, began to revolt in January 1904. Though they had much better weapons than the Herero, German soldiers were unable to quickly end the rebellion. They lost hundreds of soldiers to disease, the unfamiliar desert climate, poor supply lines, and ambush attacks by Maharero’s soldiers. 4 German officials in both Africa and Europe were made furious not only by the uprising but also by the idea that an “inferior” people were challenging their authority.

In August, Kaiser Wilhelm sent German Lieutenant-General Lothar von Trotha to take control of the colony and to “crush the rebellion by all means necessary.” 5 Von Trotha had been previously stationed in east Africa, where he had a reputation for brutality in his efforts to put down all resistance to German rule. Von Trotha vowed to “annihilate the revolting tribes with streams of blood.” 6

Aware that large numbers of Herero warriors and their families were congregating on the nearby Waterberg Plateau, von Trotha ordered his troops to attack not only the warriors but also their wives and children. They were to take no prisoners. The troops quickly surrounded the Herero on three sides. They left open the fourth side—the Kalahari Desert. To make sure that no one used it to escape, soldiers were ordered to poison all water-holes and set up a chain of guard posts in the desert.

On October 2, long after thousands of Herero had already been murdered, von Trotha issued an “Extermination Order.” Dit het gesê:

The Herero people must leave the land. If they do not do this I will force them with [big guns or cannon]. Within the German borders, every Herero, with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot. I will no longer accept women and children. I will drive them back to their people or I will let them be shot at. This is my decision for the Herero people. 7

Before von Trotha arrived in South-West Africa, historians estimate the territory was home to between 70,000 and 80,000 Herero. Most of them were killed at the Battle of Waterberg or by trying to escape through the desert. Only 20,000 to 30,000 remained in South-West Africa. Most of them were sent to labor camps and forced to work for German authorities. Conditions in the camps were so brutal that nearly half died. 8

In 1907, following increasing criticism in Germany and abroad, von Trotha's mission was canceled and he was sent back to Germany, where he was honored by the military. The shift in policy came too late for the Herero. Only 15,000 remained alive. It also came too late for the Nama people. After the defeat of the Herero, the Nama also revolted, and they too were swiftly defeated by von Trotha's forces. On April 22, 1905, he ordered them to surrender or “be shot until all are exterminated.” He reminded them that if they continued to rebel, they would be treated in much the way the Herero were. Of an estimated 20,000 Nama, about half were murdered and the rest confined in work camps. Historians have explained the genocide in German South-West Africa as a result of Social Darwinist thinking, embodied especially in von Trotha’s idea of race war, combined with the German military’s institutional culture of extreme violence. 9

The German atrocities against the Herero and Nama were not unique similar attacks were made by British settlers against Aboriginal Tasmanians in Australia in the nineteenth century and by American settlers against the Yuki in California around the turn of the twentieth century. Contemporary historians call these episodes—in which an imperialist country intentionally tries to annihilate an Indigenous people in order to control their land and resources—frontier genocide. 10


Kyk die video: Duitse Training (November 2021).