Why AfD is the most important party in Germany

Sure, but nowhere did I argue that it was genocide because the perpetrators were German.


Which can also be proven beyond any doubt based on the historical evidence. Von Trotha wanted to eradicate the Herero, and he made that very clear in his orders. He did not even make any attempt to hide his plans, he seemed to have revelled in it.

He also sent noncombatants into the desert to die, purely because they were Herero. This is attempted genocide.


It is not my description, it is the accepted term by historians. It also by no means cheapens the term genocide, because in fact there are few cases that could be deemed more cases in modern history that are more deserving of it.

Again, read a few articles about it. When you learn how the German army systematically expelled women and children into the desert to die, you will no longer object to the term genocide.

Well...maybe it's a narrow perspective but I have yet to hear from Spaniards or Brits or French or many others to talk about their genocides...in that case Weimarer might have a point, it's something Germans do, most readily.


Okay...that makes him one mean son of a *****! In the army....during an armed conflict...color me surprised.

But to be a real genocide it needs a state effort, the planning by and the support of the whole government. A world of a difference!


You mean german historians! I have yet to hear from the Belgians and their genocide in Congo...

PS: Just a question....would you call what happened during the 30 years war a genocide on the german people too?

And back to the roman conquest in Germania...wasn't that an attempted genocide too? And what about their other successful conquests? The Romans murdered lotsa foreign civilians during their high time..

Where does it stop Tacitus? When only the results count...

The herero wanted to do genocide against ethnic germans and failed. They started the war. Thats a simple fact.

Tell is Tacitus, lets say my father owns a farm in that time there and im there with my 2 sisters, one older brother and our mother.

What would have your beloved herero do with us if we run out of ammo and surrender?

Is this some kind of auction going on here? If so, who is the highest bidder to make Germany look bad?
You guys are nuts.

It seems we like to do it ourselves...that's the bone.

But I have to leave it at that...

'night all :)

@Rich Mazur

Of course they are nuts. They are west germans.

They see that **** and cry how bad it was.

They see such fat herero ******* in their bizarre costumes and want give them money when a real man would
Laugh about that freaks. They are selfhating gamma males.

Bunch of armchair twats where living in the past is easier than working for a better future.

Doesn't include you Bratwurst

Rich,just let The Germans argue amongst themselves about their horrific history....

We have an awesome history.

Do you honestly believe some dead stone age goat herders make up for Beethoven, Barbarossa or Blücher?

Or... you know..... the most famous German ever.... can't remember his name just now but he still has a sizable following in Germany...

Yeah, I read about him. Without any investigations and trials, he just killed everybody - guilty or not - except Noah and some animals.
Nobody ever committed anything even remotely close to that atrocity.

Just goes to show you how far we have come. Other countries have yet to confront the ugly parts of their history. That being said, there is already some progress to be witnessed in other countries. France is for example slowly coming to terms with their colonial past. Besides, the past can only hurt you if you try and run away from it.


Again, you really should really some more articles about what happened there. Then you would understand how incredibly misplaced your attempts to downplay the atrocities commited there were. I mean I understand you. I used to think that what happened there "wasn't so bad", but once you really learn more about this... It is simply impossible to deny it. I don't really know if you understand what happened. There was no military justification for von Trothas "Vernichtungsbefehl". A large percentage of the Herero were exterminated by his orders, many of them women and children. This was not simply negligence, or carelessnes towards life. They were deliberately sent into a desert to die.


That is a downright silly argument to make. Von Trotha was not some renegade general who overstepped his orders. He was send there to supress the rebellion, and the government tacitly agreed with the decisions he made there, or else they would not have promoted him afterwards, never mind that they also resisted attempts by the SPD to investigate his operations there. True, he was not heralded as a hero afterwards, but von Trotha was the highest ranking German in the colony, acting in the name of the government, which received various reports on his treatment of the Hereroes, and never did anything about it. A real genocide is the systematic extermination of a group of people because of ethnic or religious reasons, which is exactly what happened there.

Close enough. :)


... was from Austria.

@Tacitus

He did an excellent job and saved german lifes. Thats ehat matters. Evrything else is irrelevant.

@bolek_tusk

You propably mean Martin Luther. He indeed is one of the most famous Germans. And an enofmous following not just in Germany but worldwide.

No, that's the definition of genocide. It's standing out because of it's clear and narrow specifications. Not to mention that a genocide can't be done by one man! Now that is silly!

Otherwise you can call half of mankinds history with hindsight and the modern sensitivities a genocide....then it becomes ridiculous.

We are doing the same here about slavery. Washington had slaves, so out with him.

It was not done by one man, but by the German army. He did not simply go mad with power, he send reports to Berlin about what was intented, and they supported him. You are really writing nonsense here, I am sorry to say. You are making an argument here that nobody would ever bring up, once he read up about the subject. Von Trotha planned the extermination of the Herero, and it was carried out enabled by the modern technologies available to him (e.g. telegrams) and no one with authority objected to it in the meantime and afterwards. So even according to your specification (never mind that all of the people who have done research on it call it a genocide) it fits the criteria perfectly.


Calling the planned and systematic extermination of a people a genocide is not "modern sensitivities", it is simply how it is. It also not ridiculous to call e.g. the slaughter done by the Mongols in Iran a genocide. Just goes to show how far we have come in the meantime, that this happens not so regulary anymore .

There, you said it...you just take your modern sensitivities and put it on the history....in that vein you have to call ALL of my examples I cited in a former post as genocides.

I wonder why you already didn't....maybe it would sound to preposterous even to your own ears. But that is the consequence.

That doesn't mean that we "have come far", that is an incredibly try at white washing history, even downplaying the one real genocide, the holocaust on the Jews. If there are so many, throughout history, that means what has been done to the Jews is nothing special. And happens even today...Balkan war, Ruanda etc...

That is dangerous! But you probably feel good doing it...

Those Mongols would be a lot less successful if the Iranian men - all of them - were armed.
My point is: hey, liberal, limp-wristed, anti-gun human noodles, don't ever tell me how guns and genocides are awful. At least, not in the same sentence.

Apropos...as you are accusing me of ignorance but you also didn't mention that many of the Herero were never killed by the german army at all:

"Es gelang den Herero zwar, wie im Falle einer Niederlage geplant, nach Südosten auszuweichen, sie unterschätzten jedoch die Schwierigkeiten, welche sich durch eine Flucht mit Rinder- und Ziegenherden, Kindern und Verwundeten durch die Omaheke-Trockensavanne ergaben. Während der Kämpfe und der Flucht kamen nach unterschiedlichen Quellenangaben bis zu 60 Prozent der Herero ums Leben."

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch-S%C3%BCdwestafrika

"Die Vorgänge kosteten durch Krankheiten, Hunger und Durst, Kampfhandlungen, Überfälle, Flucht und vielfach menschenunwürdige Missstände in den Internierungslagern nach Schätzung zwischen 24.000 und 64.000 Herero, etwa 10.000 Nama sowie 1365 Siedler und Soldaten das Leben. 76 Weiße galten als vermisst und sind wohl größtenteils durch Kriegseinwirkung umgekommen."

It was a war! With many sides, with a start, a decisive battle and a clear end. With many victims on all sides...That is no genocide and you know it! Only ever citing Trotha is not going to make it one.

There is no difference to the Brits and the Boers...but nobody (but you probably) would call that a genocide...

Ack...I leave it here...it gets to stupid! To put everything as genocide has nothing to do with the historical facts but all with modern political correctness! Especially historians worth their name should NOT succumb to modern fashions....

PS: Just right now Saudi-Arabia bombs Yemen to kill lotsa Houthi rebels, between them alot of women and children...many of them starving to death...makes it to the actually worst humanitarian crisis in the world...GENOCIDE!

Nope...

I can do better...
Denying welfare to a bum who is a member of the protected race is genocide. Can you top that?

No, but it might qualify as eugenics.

Fact 1: The Herero attacked our people first.
FAct 2. The Herero did not surrender when they had the chance
Fact 3: Core target was to protect german life and property.

Evrything else was completly meaningless.

There are debates among historians regarding all the examples you mentioned on whether or not it constitutes a genocide. Caesars conquest of Gaul, during which approx. half the population there died is often held up as one, the other examples are more complicated. It is worth mentioning that Caesars conquest of Gaul was deemed as illegal even by Roman law, but well, he was later in a position to change that. But that does in no way cheapen the term genocide, when we apply it consistently.


And one no one should have a problem with. Even when you think that projecting our values to the past is questionable (something I agree with partly), the term genocide is perfectly suitable to describe certain events.


The term "genocide" is in no way reserved for the Holocaust, nor is it an attempt to whitewash history (in fact, your posts are a clear (if maybe unintentional) attempt of doing so). The Holocaust will always stand out as an especially heinous crime, due to the number of victims and how the slaughter was done on an industrial scale. But it was by no means the only attempted genocide in history.


And the Yazidis. All examples for genocide, with the first two being declared so by international courts. The case in the Balkans is a bit more complicated, but Ruanda and the Yazidis were clear examples of attempted genocide.


Even war knew some rules back then. The issue are not the herero killed in battle. The Germans refused to take prisoners, and after their victory, they send the survivors into the desert to die, and even stationed soldiers there to prevent them from escaping. That is why this is deemed as a genocide. It was a clear attempt to wipe out the herero.


No, it is just the attempt to describe history objectively, without any bias (as much as this is possible). Your posts are a clear example on how people tried to excuse this, and how easily they can be picked apart by facts. What the Germans did there went well beyond even the standards of the time during war, and it is very clear from von Trothas orders (and he was the one giving orders, so he is the most relevant here) that this was a planned genocide. He wanted to wipe the Herero out completely, and he did it systematically. And as your own quote states, he was very succesful with it.


Neither should they succumb to the need to defend what is undefensible just because of their national allegiance. There has been a long debate on the nature of the Herero genocide, and eventually those who deemed it as one won, citing some of the arguments (and many more) that I showed here. It is simply impossible for anyone who has done profound research on the subject to argue otherwise. We know that even many German civilians (mostly priests) were appaled by the brutality of the German soldiers, never mind how disastrous Trotha's campaign was for the international reputation of Germany at the time.

You've got to be kidding...without clear intent, long term planning and material, financial and bureaucratic support by a government (not to mention successful) that makes nearly every war, even every ethnical civil war, even every war crime done by one man or a battle unit to a Genocide...how can THAT argument ever be won???

And no, your opinion hasn't won...it may make some ground when all the colonial ex Empires start to name their historical wars as such, till every actual conflict is named as such, till then that's the opinion of only some very political correct historians...a clear minority!

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm

A, B and C happen in every war and conflict, alway have...always will.

It's D and C which make the Genocide stand out!

If the Herero hadn't tried to fight the Germans they could had lived on like any other colonial people. The comparison to a real genocide? The Jews had been peaceful and they still weren't given any chance to live! BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

Why do you even debate with thos moron?

I like to discuss! :)

There is no glory in discussing with an idiot.

You got me wrong Weimarer, I'm not looking for glory.

I like to discuss, period. It's just much more fun when the other side brings arguments to the table and is as passionate about the topic as I am. Tacitus fulfills all criteria.

And where would I be when we all agree? Unhappy, that's would I be. Talking to your mirror get's very boring, very quickly. The same with throwing insults.

Just because someone holds another opinion doesn't make him to a moron! Maybe I can learn something..