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
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
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