1 Source – Proclamation of General von Trotha
Proclamation to the people of the Herero
Copy of the original.
17290 Osombo-Windembe, on 2nd October 1904 High Command of the Protection Force.
‘I, the great general of the German soldiers, send this letter to the Herero people. The Herero are German subjects no longer. They have killed, stolen, cut off the ears and other parts of the body of wounded soldiers, and now are too cowardly to want to fight any longer. I announce to the people that whoever hands me one of the Chiefs shall receive 1,000 marks, and 5,000 marks for Samuel Maherero. The Herero nation must now leave the country.
If it refuses, I shall compel it to do so with the ‘long tube’.360 Any Herero found inside the German frontier, with or without a gun or cattle, will be executed. I shall spare neither women nor children. I shall give the order to drive them away and fire on them. Such are my words to the Herero people.
The great General of the powerful German Emperor.
This proclamation is to read to the troops at roll-call, with the addition that the unit that catches a Captain will also receive the appropriate reward, and that the shooting at women and children is to be understood as shooting above their heads, so as to force them to run [away]. I assume absolutely that this proclamation will result in taking no more male prisoners, but will not degenerate into atrocities against women and children. The latter will run away if one shoots at them a couple of times. The troops will remain conscious of the good reputation of the German soldier.
The Commander
Signed, von Trotha, Lieutenant General.’
Source
Michael Behnen (ed), Quellen zur deutschen Außenpolitik im Zeitalter des Imperialismus 1890–1911 (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1977) 291; text also in Conrad Rust, Krieg und Frieden im Hererolande: Aufzeichnungen aus dem Kriegsjahre 1904 (Kittler 1905) 25.
2
Name: |
Ruprecht Polenz |
Organisation. |
Christian Democratic Party of Germany (cdu) |
Function. |
Special Envoy of the German Government for the German/Namibian negotiations concerning the shared colonial past |
Place: |
Münster, Germany |
Date: |
16th May 2019 |
Can you introduce yourself in the position you now occupy in relation to the negotiation process?
I have been Special Envoy for the German/Namibian negotiations about the shared colonial past since November 2015. After having been on the Foreign Affairs Committee for twenty years until 2013 and chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee for the past eight years, Mr Steinmeier asked me to take on this duty, to which I agreed. The negotiations, which I have led since December, had begun on a working level several months previously and the reason for involving me was to put them onto a political level.
Where are the negotiations right now, what would be a snapshot?
We have met eight times, alternating between Berlin and Windhoek, and once in Swakopmund, and we have worked through a negotiation programme that we agreed at the very beginning; we want to conduct the negotiations, and have managed to do so, as win-win negotiations, because both sides rightly say: the German/Namibian relationship is a good one, but there is one point from the past that we must speak about so that we can develop the relationship further. That has always hovered over us as a question not properly addressed.
Which question was that?
The question of the crimes between 1904 and 1908. The negotiation programme we agreed upon could be summarized this way: We want to describe the events of those times in a shared language, not to rewrite history but to have a shared starting base. This is so that, when we start talking about consequences, we also want to define together from what the consequences will be drawn. The paper should also serve as a basis for parliamentary resolutions, which is why it is kept short. We have almost completed writing. By my guess, it consists of approximately 8 pages, describing what took place then, and to answer one question straight away: the crimes committed against the Herero and Nama are named as genocide.
The second point is: Germany would like to request forgiveness for the crimes committed in those times. Obviously, we cannot apologise and leave it at that, but instead
From our point of view, we are dealing with a political and moral question, not a legal issue that can be decided by the courts. That has been learned from the past, since there have been three unsuccessful lawsuits. Naturally, however, the political and moral question remains, which is no less important than the legal question, but it is nevertheless different. Therefore, we are not speaking of reparations, since that is a legal term, but about that what we want to do, what can be done to heal those wounds that may still be open. That is not using legal language, but it describes precisely what is at stake here.
How would you describe the process of the negotiations?
We have been meeting with a delegation of the Namibian government, led by Dr Ngavirue, a Herero. There are between ten and twenty people on the Namibian side, it varies from time to time. There are Herero and Nama present, as well as members of the government. On our side I am supported by the director for Sub-Saharan Africa in the Foreign Office, currently Robert Dölger, his predecessor was Georg Schmidt, the head of division from the Department for International Law, Ms Bauch and our ambassador in Windhoek, Mr Schlaga. We prepare these negotiations by communicating the agenda to each other, then work through it, which takes approximately one and a half days. However, on my visits to Namibia, I generally spent three to four days there and used the remaining time – the Namibian government was informed of this – to speak to as many interested parties in Namibia as possible. I also spoke with those who were involved in the lawsuit in New York: I met Mr Rukoro, I met Ms Hoffmann361 as well as old Mr Frederiks.362 I met members of the Witbooi family and various Herero groups, as well as different members of the Namibian-German community, the white Namibians, and formed my own opinions, but on the other hand I used these conversations for what I am currently relating to you, that is to say what the process is all about and what is actually happening, so that no one gets the impression we negotiated behind closed doors, not taking into account everyone’s own interests.
I find it very interesting that you are now, if I understand rightly, a form of ambassador of your own negotiating process?
Who is present at the negotiating table – could you describe the difficulties and decision-making processes, which have to be negotiated?
It is important to note that the decision of who participates was not negotiated by Germany and Namibia, because in such negotiations each side always chooses its own delegates. It is as simple as that. Somehow, Germany finds it difficult to accept that. During a briefing of Parliament commissions, with whom I am in regular contact, one of the Members of Parliament, I believe from the Left party, asked why we did not make sure that others, perhaps in the current case representatives of Herero and Nama, were sitting here amongst the others at the table, so I replied: You know, if I represented the Namibian government and Germany came forward with this request, I would ask quite brusquely if they had not realised that Namibia is no longer a German colony.
Nevertheless, this question comes up again and at its core is a real concern, that is to say, whether the result will be accepted by the Herero and Nama, for we all wish, because we want to set a broad reconciliation process in motion, so to speak, through the outcome of the negotiations afterwards. So it is important how the overall negotiation results are received.
To understand the Namibian position, we must remember that Namibia has been independent since 1990. Since then the swapo has governed the country and made great efforts to impart a national consciousness, a sense of patriotism that states: We are not a collection of various tribes living next to each other but ‘We are Namibians’. For this reason, the president emphasises that he represents all Namibians, including the Herero and Nama, and therefore does not appreciate the urgency that some actors, who may not completely trust the government, place on tribal representation. And I found during my visits to Namibia that there are at least three different groups of Herero who are not necessarily in accord with each other: the green, the red and the white Herero. The same goes for the Nama.
Everyone who thinks they should be entitled to decide who sits at the table and makes decisions and who does not should look again at the repatriation of the Witbooi Bible. That was a lengthy process. The Witbooi Bible was owned by the federal state of Baden-Württemberg and after long negotiations Baden-Württemberg and the museum that had it agreed to return the Bible. All preparations were made for the Minister of Culture of Baden-Württemberg to hand over the Bible during a ceremony to the President of Namibia. To stop this, Mr Rukoro and probably part of the Witbooi family tried to obtain a provisional order not to return the Bible, at least not to the
Symbolically it was of great interest: the Bible was physically handed to the President who immediately passed it on to his Minister for Culture and Education, who took it upon herself to find its proper place. How this will be arranged is up to the Namibians themselves. However, if – and that is why I am telling this story – we had tried to decide ourselves who is the most appropriate person to whom to hand this Bible we had in our possession, there would probably have been five or more pairs of hands reaching out for it. And we would not have had an option to decide who is best. In that case, the Bible would most likely have stayed in Germany. This way the Bible is where it belongs, i.e. in Namibia and it is up to the Namibians to decide how to deal with this very important document of their history.
And the issues we are currently negotiating are similar. Take the issue ‘healing of the wounds’; I shall tell you that we put great emphasis on the descendants of the Herero and Nama, so that they above all have the benefits. How? On the one hand we support vocational education so that young people will have greater opportunities, we are looking at affordable accommodation, a functioning health system, electricity supply using renewable energy and we also assist with the land reform which is handled by Namibia itself. That is a chapter in its own right.
Does that answer the question about exactly what is being negotiated?
Yes. And there is another very important matter, the repatriation of human remains. There had been two repatriations before my time, whereby the first went badly wrong because a chain of circumstances led finally to a rather undignified procedure. The second one was more successful and the third, which we worked on very carefully last year with the generous help of the German Protestant Church and the Council of Namibian Churches, to create a setting in Berlin and Namibia for the reception of these human remains, went well and all were very satisfied with it. This is not an end to the matter, since there are still human remains in Germany. Finding them is an ongoing task, but in any case, we have found a way to repatriate the remains in a dignified way which is accepted by all parties.
And besides that there is a task to develop a shared culture of remembrance in both countries in the future – we have still not achieved this. For this we suggested founding a German-Namibian Trust for the future, similar to the one we have with the Czech Republic. There could be shared schoolbook projects, agreeing on how these times and the history are presented, as we did with Poland and France with very good results. The crux is remembrance in the public sphere, which is always the case in Namibia whilst in Germany it is somewhat shamefaced and not always appropriately observed.
To this end we have also suggested a youth exchange. When we mentioned this in a conversation, Bishop Kameta, the Minister for poverty eradication said, ‘Ah, like Action
It is difficult to predict how long this process will last. There is in any case a certain impatience, which I feel in Germany too, because they we really like to request forgiveness. Of course, it is possible to do this right away, but then there is the problem that occurred with the previous requests for forgiveness or declarations of apology, that the Namibian side is not content with this type of apology, for it leaves unanswered the question ‘And what now?’. But because it has become urgent and everyone is looking for closure, there is a certain amount of impatience. Mr Zimmerer, whom you perhaps know, gives an interview on this subject once a month. However, I do not think it appropriate to put such pressure on the Namibian government. To me it sounds as if as if we are trying to say, ‘Hurry up, we want to finally apologise and be done’. And even in a matter such as this one, that is not the way to behave with a partner.
I understood from the press that it was Germany which was under pressure.
We are not under pressure because we were actually in a position to act fast. No one on the Namibian side is claiming that we are playing for time. It is of no interest to us. It is actually that such things take time and I believe that Namibia is thinking very carefully about how it looks at home and one must understand that. And as I said, I hope that we will come a conclusion soon, but I cannot set a date for it.
What is your objective, the objective of the German side?
That was honestly also my personal objective when I accepted the task. Because I have always been preoccupied with aspects of German history and, admittedly, during the first half of the 20th century, it was very bad. So from the very beginning I found it very worthwhile to work with this part of the German past, which can only be regarded with horror, in such a way as we did with the time from 1933 to 1945 and around the time of the First World War, which we managed to do quite successfully.
And if we look at it and work with it (I had never been to Namibia before and hardly ever even in Africa at all), then we must be deeply shocked about the language, which some 100 years ago was used in Germany about this matter and naturally about the brutality of the rule of German South West Africa. Not just that alone, but that as well.
Also, whether this succeeds depends on many factors, mainly whether there will be groups in Namibia, such as the Polish bishops who wrote a letter in the 60s, who show that they are ready for reconciliation. This can happen differently today, and I do have the impression that in particular the Namibian Church is thinking in this direction. But we have to wait and simply hope that this process will start. If it takes more time, we must understand that. We have no entitlement to reconciliation.
What is the Federal Government and you as their representative, doing differently during these negotiations compared with development aid attempts since 1990?
It is true that Germany has developed a very close relationship with Namibia since its independence, very much in the light of ‘this used to be a German colony’. The aid given to Namibia is the most per capita in Sub-Saharan Africa, overall, I believe now close to a billion euros. And I am sure that it was prompted by the feeling that ‘not everything went well’, so to speak. But there was never an honest connection with this. Perhaps it was not truly admitted, but instead the thinking was ‘there we have another country gaining independence; that is very familiar to us’, and just as France and Great Britain still have special relationships with their former colonies, at least from the German point of view, we could have the same. This way of thinking may have played a role, I can only guess. In any case, it was never openly expressed that we got so deeply involved because there had been a genocide in the past.
Neither was it easy to find the language and type of organisation to establish this connection. Because of the reparation claims of other countries – remember what we will have to discuss with Poland and possibly with Russia because of Leningrad, as well as with Greece – the Department of International Law always attaches great importance to keeping a safe distance from the legal issue. I am a lawyer myself, so that is understandable because it’s possible to reduce a question down to its legal components, such as a legal acknowledgement of guilt. Then this recognition is the legal basis and not at all what happened in the past.
Therefore, we must take great care that the political and moral core of this connection is made very clear, that it is not misunderstood and seem as if this was all about reparations in the legal sense. It is important for all that something happens, and yes, something will happen.
My task will be complete when the German and the Namibian side sign a resolution; we have not discussed these issues in detail, but if I could achieve a symbolic handshake, my mandate would be fulfilled. This includes a declaration of an order by both parliaments, the German and the Namibian, which would be the basis for further steps. And as already said, the plea for forgiveness. I cannot yet say who will deliver this, the Chancellor or the Federal President. After all, it was Mr Steinmeier who appointed me to conduct the negotiations, he has a particular interest in them and keeps an eye on them. I had a talk with him, and he is willing. I also had a lengthy discussion with Ms Merkel about this matter. She too is very interested in the process and open to an apology for the genocide. But we still have to work out in what form, with which gestures and on what occasion. And a plea for forgiveness, in whatever form or wording, even spontaneous, whether one adds one’s own words to the manuscript or omits some – it can only be part of it. The validity is proved by agreements for the future. And above all: the gesture has to be culturally comprehensible in both countries.
Would the year 2020, the 30th anniversary of Namibia’s independence, be a suitable benchmark?
With regards to timing, we have a rather different limit to our negotiations. In November there will be general elections in Namibia. It would be nice to conclude the negotiations before that, but I cannot possibly predict this. We would rather not wait until 2020. But I do not wish to speculate further about timing. Another thing that makes it difficult for me is that normally I am used to fixed dates for negotiation sessions. But in this case, we are going from session to session without a fixed end date and it is difficult to plan ahead. That can be difficult. I am retired, have other obligations and this is an honorary position. However, this is just something we have to accept.
Do you actually have a budget for the negotiations?
I am not able to talk about that. It is not easy, anyway, since the Treasury and the Foreign Office and also the Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development will have to cooperate. That does not always happen without friction. Of course, we have a scale, and of course it is about money that is supposed to mainly benefit the Herero and Nama, since they are the victims. But if we build a hospital or a technical college, all people can use it, and that too is important for a successful domestic future in Namibia.
Do you feel that the negotiations threaten a peaceful coexistence of the Namibians, in particular between the black and white populations?
To what extent is land reform part of the negotiations?
Land reform in Namibia is indeed part of the discussions between Windhoek and Berlin. But you have to look at this locally. Of course, first you think farms of more than 40,000 hectares, how can that be possible? Here in North Rhine-Westphalia it would be massive. But if you look on the ground there is so much thorny thicket, almost like a fenced desert. And you need that size in order to get any sort of yield. The Namibian government is nevertheless trying to re-distribute the land, but during independence the country gave itself a new constitution, consciously protecting property, in contrast to Zimbabwe, which saw forced expropriations. Today the Namibian government offers to buy land from farmers. But this only works on the principle: ‘willing seller, willing buyer’. Indirectly, Germany supports this by providing money.
You may ask why it is so important to protect property in Namibia. The answer is, tourism is a hugely important source of income. If they did not feel safe, tourists would no longer visit. And Germany is not able to support legal processes which would lead to expropriation.
Listening to you, I have great hopes – why did it take so long before now?
I think, after the Second World War we have been preoccupied with our own history for a long time. And also, Namibia was then under South African rule. The clock for reappraisal has therefore been ticking for less than thirty years. The years from 1990 onwards were fateful for both countries. We could have tackled the subject a good ten or fifteen years earlier. Yes, that would have been preferable, but we are where we are now and can only work towards sorting things out together.
What kind of support would you like to see for the negotiations?
I would like see patience for the process of the negotiations. We just need to understand that these things take time. I have great hope that the groups of victims, who were not asked by the Namibian government to join the negotiations, will evaluate the results with openness and without prejudice. Because the large projects that have been planned as part of the negotiation process can only be realised with the help of the Namibian government.
Mr Polenz, I thank you for this conversation.
3
War zone in German South West Africa
reprint from susanne kuß, deutsches militär auf kolonialen kriegsschauplätzen: eskalation von gewalt zu beginn des 20. jahrhunderts (2nd edn, links 2010) 79
Labour camps in the colony of German South West Africa
reprint from joël kotek und pierre rigoulot, das jahrhundert der lager: gefangenschaft, zwangsarbeit, vernichtung (propyläen 2001) 74
4
All persons mentioned in the main body of the paper are listed here.
Behrendt, Dirk (1971–): German politician (Alliance 90/The Greens), Justice Senator of the State of Berlin since 2016.
Bismarck, Otto von (1815–1898): German politician and statesman, 1871–1890 Chancellor of the Empire; although he first refused to get involved with colonies, he later supported to take over so-called ‘protection zones’ in Africa, Cameroon, Togo and on the pacific islands.
Brandt, Willy (1913–1992): German Politician (spd), 1969–1974 German Chancellor as head of a social democratic/liberal coalition, known for his symbolic genuflection on 7th December 1970 in Warsaw at the monument for the dead in the ghetto of Warsaw.
Brosda, Carsten (1974–): German politician (spd), Senator of the Hamburg Authority for Culture and Media since 2017.
Bülow, Bernhard von (1849–1929): German politician and statesman, justified German colonial interests in 1897 by saying: ‘we do not wish to overshadow anyone, but we also demand our place in the sun’,363 1900–1909 Chancellor of the Empire.
Deimling, Berthold von (1853–1944): German Officer, leader in German South West Africa from 1904, 1906/07 Commandant and nomination for General Major in the first world war in Alsace and Flanders, he then took up a pacifist position.
Eid, Ursula (1949–): German politician (Alliance 90/The Greens), 1998–2005 parliamentary secretary of state as Minister for Economic Cooperation and Foreign Aid, 2001–2005 Chancellor’s G8 representative for Africa.
Engert, Stefan (1972–): German political scientist, 2008–2010 research project ‘Entschuldigung und Versöhnung in der internationalen Politik’ at the Ludwig-Maximilian University Munich, sponsored by the Deutsche Stiftung Friedensforschung (peace research grant).
Erdogan, Recep Tayyip (1954–): Turkish politician (conservative akp), 2003–2014 Prime Minister of Turkey; directly elected State President of the Turkish Republic since the 2014 change of the system to a presidential system. To his opponents he is an autocrat.
Estorff, Ludwig von (1859–1943): German Officer (General), from 1894 in German South West Africa, then in German East Africa, 1904–07 participation in the German-Namibian war; 1907 – 11 Commander in the colony, then the First World War at the Western Front, later participating in the Kapp Putsch.
Fein, Helen (1943–): American social scientist; expert in comparative genocide research; founder of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (iags). Fischer, Joschka (Joseph) (1948–): German politician (Alliance 90/The Greens); 1998–2005 Minister for Foreign Affairs and Vice Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Geingob, Hage (1941–): Namibian politician belonging to the Damara (swapo), President of Namibia since 21st March 2015.
Gysi, Gregor Florian (1848–): German lawyer and politician (sed, pds, Left party), 1990–1998 and member of the German Parliament since 2005.
Herzog, Roman (1934–2017): German lawyer and politician (cdu), 1994–1999 Federal President of Germany, visited Namibia 4th – 8th March 1998.
Joseph Frederiks ii. (?–1893): Nama name: ǃKhorebeb-ǁNaixab, Captain of the OrlamNama, party in the land sale to Adolf Lüderitz, where he assumed to be selling a much smaller area of land than actually came to pass (‘Meilenschwindel’ or ‘mile trick’); his complaint to the Imperial Government remained unanswered.
Lammert, Norbert (1948–): German politician (cdu), 1980–2017 member of the German Parliament; from 2002 Vice President and from 2005 to 2017 President of the German Parliament.
Lemkin, Raphael (1900–1959): Polish-Jewish lawyer and peace researcher; he lost large numbers of his family in the Holocaust; he coined the term ‘genocide’ and from 1947 worked for the United Nations on a draft law for the punishment of genocides.
Leutwein, Theodor von (1849–1921): German Officer (major general), from 1893 in German South East Africa, 1895–1904 Commander of the protective force and Governor; installing an indirect rule of hegemony; 1904 return to Germany, 1905 retirement.
Lüderitz, Franz Adolf Eduard von (1834–1896): Bremen tobacco wholesaler, acquired on 1st May 1883 the bay of Angra Pequena from Nama Captain Joseph Frederiks ii, without defining the type of miles (German/English); demanded protection for this from Bismarck.
Kohl, Helmut (1930–2017): German politician (cdu), 1982–1998; sixth German Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in a cdu/csu/fdp coalition.
Macron, Emmanuel (1977–): French politician, President of State of France since 1917; he announced a cultural political change of direction regarding the handling of disputed cultural goods at a speech in Burkina Faso.
Maharero, Samuel (1865–1923): Herero Chief in the region of Okahandja; from 1890 onwards Head Chief; first German alliance partner, then opponent; 1904 flight to Bechuanaland (today Botswana), where he died; transferred to Okahandja; a culturally important funeral.
Merkel, Angela (1954–): German politician (cdu), German Chancellor since 2005 in various coalitions. Movassat, Niema (1984–): German politician (Left party), Member of German Parliament since 2009, member of the Committee for Economic Cooperation and Foreign Aid.
Müntefering, Michelle (1980–): German journalist and politician (spd), Minister for Foreign Cultural and Educational Policy since March 2018.
Ngavirue, Zedekia Josef (Zed) (1933–): Namibian scientist of Herero origin and ambassador for many years at the European Union and in European countries; special envoy of the Namibian government in the negotiations with Germany.
Nujoma, Samuel Daniel Shafiishuna, (Sam) (1929–): Namibian politician from the Ovamboland people (Ovamboland People’s Organisation, swapo), from 1990 to 2005 President of the Namibian Republic.
Özdemir, Cem (1965–): German politician (Alliance 90/The Greens), 1994–2002 and since 2013 Member of the German Parliament; from 2004 to 2009 in the European Parliament.
Pieper, Cornelia (1959–): German politician (fdp), Foreign Secretary 2009–2013.
Polenz, Ruprecht (1946–): German politician (cdu), 2005–2013 Chair of the Foreign relations committee of the German Parliament. Special Envoy of the Federal Government concerning the negotiations with Namibia since 4 November 2015.
Reventlow, Ludwig von (1864–1906): German lawyer and politician (Deutschsoziale Partei), Landowner, 1903–1906 Member of the Reichstag Parliament.
Riruako, Kuaima Isaac (1935–2014): Namibian politician, Paramount Chief of the Herero from 1978, initially supporting reparations, since 2001 claimant of the ‘Herero People’s Reparation Corporation’ in the USA to raise legal claims.
Rukoro, Vekuii Reinhard (1954–): Namibian businessman, since 2014 Paramount Chief, head of all Herero, yet not accepted by all of them; after the death of Riruako, he was chief claimant in all legal procedures; he was not part of the German/Namibian negotiations.
Schlieffen, Alfred von (1833–1913): German Field Marshall, Chief of the general staff, author of the strategical operational Schlieffen plan.
Schröder, Gerhard (1944–): German politician (spd), from 1998 to 2005 Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Steinmeier, Frank-Walter (1956–): German politician (spd); 2005 to 2009 Minister for Foreign Affairs, 2009 to 2013 leader of the opposition; from 2013 to 2017 Foreign Minister; since 2017 President of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Ströbele, Hans-Christian (1939–): German lawyer and politician (Alliance 90/The Greens), from 1998 to 2017 Member of Parliament.
Thierse, Wolfgang (1943–): German politician (spd), from 1998 to 2005 President of the German Parliament, from 2005 to 2013 its Vice President.
Tjiseseta, Michael (1872–1924): Son of Manasse Tjiseseta, Chief of the Herero in Omaruru. Trotha, Lothar von (1848–1920): German General, served from 1894–97 as Lieutenant General in German East Africa; 1900/01 in China; from May 1904 as Lieutenant General of the forces in German South West Africa; Proclamation to the Herero people on 2nd October 1904 (known as ‘termination order’); 1905 recall.
Trotha, Wolf von and Trotha, Ulrich: Still living, distant relatives of General Lothar von Trotha; 2007 journey by several members of the family to Namibia.
Wieczorek-Zeul, H (1942–): German politician (spd) 1998–2009; German Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development; travelled to Namibia in August 2004 on the occasion the 100-year commemoration of the start of the war.
Wilhelm ii (1859–1941): Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert von Preußen, 1888–1918 last German Emperor and King of Prussia; driver of an imperialistic colonial policy.
Zimmerer J (1965–): German global historian and specialist in African Studies, head of the research centre ‘Hamburgs (post-)koloniales Erbe/Hamburg und die frühe Globalisierung’ since 2014; focus on genocide research.
5 List of Abbreviations
| AfD | Alternative für Deutschland (German political party) |
| ats | Alien Tort Statute |
| brd | Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany) |
| bt | Bundestag (German House of Representatives) |
| cdu | Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (German political party) |
| cppcg | Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Deutsch; UN Genocide Convention |
| ddr | Deutsche Demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic) |
| fdp | Freie Demokratische Partei (German political party) |
| G8 | The Group of Eight, supranational association of seven major industrialised nations (G7) and Russia (1998–2004) |
| hdi | Human Development Index |
| hprc | Herero People’s Reparations Corporation |
| igh | Internationaler Gerichtshof (International Court of Justice), The Hague |
| ihdi | Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index |
| nn | Author not named, in particular with media contributions |
| sed | Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (national party of the gdr) |
| spd | Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (German political party) |
| swapo | South-West Africa People’s Organisation (Namibian political party) |
| UN | United Nations |
United Nations Development Programme |
|
| VStGB | Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (International Criminal Code) |
6 About the Author
Julia Böcker is a historian, mediator and peace researcher. She has been interested in genocide research since her Master’s studies in modern and contemporary history, media studies and public law with a focus on international law in Freiburg (Breisgau), Basel (Switzerland) and Jerusalem (Israel). For several years, she provided practical assistance in court-assisted conflict resolution proceedings in district courts in the USA. In 2019, she completed an additional Master’s degree in peace research and security policy at the University of Hamburg with this thesis. Today, she works at the Center for Ethical Education in the Armed Forces (zebis) and lives with her family, including her three children, in Hamburg.
This means ‘cannon’, author’s note.
Ida Hoffmann, Member of Parliament and chair of the Nama Genocide Technical Committee in Namibia, author’s note.
David Frederiks, Nama Chief, died in 2018, whose forbears fought in the war, author’s note.
He coined the expression for ‘Weltmachtstreben’ (striving for world power) in 1897, Stenographic reports about the negotiations of the Reichstag (Parliament), 6 December 1897, ix. Parliamentary period, V. session, vol 1, 1897/98, 60/B, Bernhard von Bülow.