"A question of fundamental, farreaching importance for all the future": German compensation payments as a result of the Herero War, 1904-1914

Zollmann, Jacob Book Part — Published Version "A question of fundamental, farreaching importance for all the future": German compensation payments as a result of the Herero War, 1904-1914 Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Zollmann, Jacob (2024) : "A question of fundamental, farreaching importance for all the future": German compensation payments as a result of the Herero War, 1904-1914, In: Eckl, Andreas Häussler, Matthias Akawa, Martha (Ed.): An unresolved issue: genocide in colonial Namibia, ISBN 978-99945-56-38-0, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Windhoek, Namibia, pp. 199-217 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/312780 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ “A question of fundamental, farreaching importance for all the future” German compensation payments as a result of the Herero War, 1904-1914 Jakob Zollmann Introduction The German state has already paid compensation for damages caused by the Ovaherero war – to the German settlers and companies that were able to claim such war damages from 1904 onwards, as well as to some Africans. Attentive readers of Helmut Bley’s seminal monograph on German colonial rule (1968) or of contemporary Wilhelmine texts and parliamentary minutes have long been aware of this. 1 Yet, as far as can be seen, these possible precedents play no role in current political-legal and historiographical debates about possible German reparation payments to the Ovaherero and Nama in Namibia (and possibly also in Botswana and elsewhere). Even (legal) historians working on German colonial history in Namibia, or on the history of reparation payments, or on claims for reparations hardly took up these examples. 2 This is remarkable, as they sparked heated debates in the Reichstag (Imperial parliament) and in the colony Deutsch-Südwestafrika (GSWA, German South West Africa) more than a century ago. In the following, after some conceptual legal discussions, the early beginnings of this colonial reparations debate, the main actors of this political struggle, and the (preliminary) results will be briefly analysed; well aware that the topic awaits a monographic treatment. Compensation for war damage – a legal-history overview Compensation is primarily a civil law concept. It aims at balancing relationships between individuals, the injured party and those who caused the damage. This is often 1 Helmut Bley: Kolonialherrschaft und Sozialstruktur in Deutsch-Südwestafrika, 1894–1914 , Hamburg, Leibniz, 1968, e.g., pp. 171, 219. 2 See for an early exception Hans Joseph Cahn: Wesen und Grundbegriffe des Kriegsschadenrechts , Zürich, Weiss, 1946, p. 318, § 175; later, Markus J. Jähnel: Das Bodenrecht in “Neudeutschland über See”. Erwerb, Vergabe und Nutzung von Land in der Kolonie Deutsch- Südwestafrika 1884–1915 , Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 2009, pp. 230f. 200 Jakob Zollmann linked to the claim that this compensation complies with the dictates of justice. The German Civil Code ( BGB ), which has been in force in Germany since 1900, stipulates the following with regard to damages and compensation: “A person who is liable in damages must restore the position that would exist if the circumstance obliging him to pay damages had not occurred.” (§ 249 I BGB n.F.). And: “To the extent that restoration is not possible or is not sufficient to compensate the obligee, the person liable in damages must compensate the obligee in money.” (§ 251 I BGB n.F.). 3 In addition, there was and is compensation between states – for example, after a war. In such cases, the term reparations is usually used. Well-known historical examples include France’s obligation to pay “His Majesty the German Emperor [...] five billion francs” after its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71, 4 and Germany’s reparations payments to the Allies after the First World War (the amount of which was not initially specified) in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. At that time, Germany had been required by Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles to accept: [German] responsibility ... for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies. 5 Here too, therefore, it was a matter of reparation by the perpetrator of the damage by means of payments in kind and in cash and restitution, which were intended to put aggrieved governments and individuals – in civil law terms – in the “position that would exist if the circumstance [here: the World War] obliging [Germany] to pay damages had not occurred.” 6 3 “Wer zum Schadensersatz verpflichtet ist, hat den Zustand herzustellen, der bestehen würde, wenn der zum Ersatz verpflichtende Umstand nicht eingetreten wäre” (§ 249 I BGB n.F.). “Soweit die Herstellung nicht möglich oder zur Entschädigung des Gläubigers nicht genügend ist, hat der Ersatzpflichtige den Gläubiger in Geld zu entschädigen” (§ 251 I BGB n.F.). See Nils Jansen: ‘§§ 249-253, 255 (Schadensrecht)’, in: Mathias Schmoeckel, Joachim Rückert and Reinhard Zimmermann, (eds.): Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum BGB. Band II: Schuldrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. 1. Teilband , Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007, pp. 517-654 (530 Rn 17; 603 Rn 100). 4 Article II Friedens-Präliminarien zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und Frankreich (26. Februar 1871), Reichsgesetzblatt , Band 1871, Nr. 26, S. 215-222; Article VII Friedens-Vertrag zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und Frankreich (10. Mai 1871), Reichsgesetzblatt , Band 1871, Nr. 26, p. 223-244. 5 Article 231 Peace treaty of Versailles. (28 June 1919); see Leonard Gomes: German Reparations, 1919–1932. A Historical Survey , London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010; Elazar Barkan: The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices , New York, Norton, 2000. 6 See Jakob Zollmann: ‘Mixed Arbitral Tribunals (post-World War I peace treaties)’, in: Hélène Ruiz Fabri, (ed.): Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law , Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2023, German Compensation Payments, 1904-1914 201 A special case of state compensation is that of its own nationals for war damage caused by its own or enemy troops, such as looting, bombardment, or confiscation/ requisition of private property (food, livestock, means of transport, money, and so forth). Within German cameral science and jurisprudence, there has been much discussion since the early modern period about the question of who should bear these and other “war burdens” (these also included special tax payments, contributions), and whether and how these should be distributed as “equally” as possible, that is, “fairly”, among the “subjects” and later citizens. 7 The jurist K. Gratenauer therefore spoke in 1810 of war as a “reciprocal” and “successive” “system of destruction” and “system of maintenance and replacement.” 8 Weighing up these systems, 100 years later Almá Latifi, an international law scholar and civil servant with the Indian Civil Service, presented a comprehensive study on the Effects of War on Property , in which he described the development of law and repeatedly addressed the question of requisitions and compensation for war damage. On the basis of the Hague Conventions on Land Warfare, several international legal regulations were adopted in 1899 and 1907, which also made compensation obligations binding for those troops that requisitioned enemy private property (Articles 52; 53). 9 The renowned international law scholar John Westlake of the University of Cambridge summarised the (by no means doubtless) legal situation in an epilogue and expressed his conviction “that it is not only when they are under fire that private property and means are not sacred.” 10 From this perspective, the containment of wartime violence, the minimisation of war damage and its compensation were largely left to the discretion of the warring states. However, if it was a matter of requisitions by one’s own armed forces, the corresponding domestic provisions were a special case of “expropriation law”, the “expropriation contracts”, and the compensation for the individual expropriated by the state regulated therein. 11 Such a state duty to compensate was one of the “basic https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e3355.013.3355/law-mpeipro-e3355 7 See inter alia: Friedrich Heinrich Hatzfeld: Prüfung der Grundsätze welche über die Peräquation der Kriegslasten bisher sind aufgestellt worden , Frankfurt am Main, Andreaische Buchhandlung, 1802, p. iv. 8 Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Grattenauer: Repertorium aller der Kriegslasten, Kriegsschäden und Kriegseinquartierungen betreffend neueren Gesetze und Verordnungen. Ein Handbuch . Teil 1, Breslau, Korn, 1810, p. iv. Grattenauer’s uncompromising anti-Semitism should be emphasised here. 9 Almá Latifi: Effects of War on Property, being Studies in International Law and Policy , London, Macmillan, 1909, p. 30; see ‘Abkommen, betreffend die Gesetze und Gebräuche des Landkrieges’ 18.10.1907, Reichsgesetzblatt (RGBl.) 1910, p. 107. 10 John Westlake: ‘Belligerent Rights at Sea’, in Almá Latifi: Effects of War on Property, being Studies in International Law and Policy , London, Macmillan, 1909, pp. 145-152 (148). 11 Michael Stolleis: Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland , vol. 2, München, Beck, 1992, p. 412. 200 Jakob Zollmann linked to the claim that this compensation complies with the dictates of justice. The German Civil Code ( BGB ), which has been in force in Germany since 1900, stipulates the following with regard to damages and compensation: “A person who is liable in damages must restore the position that would exist if the circumstance obliging him to pay damages had not occurred.” (§ 249 I BGB n.F.). And: “To the extent that restoration is not possible or is not sufficient to compensate the obligee, the person liable in damages must compensate the obligee in money.” (§ 251 I BGB n.F.). 3 In addition, there was and is compensation between states – for example, after a war. In such cases, the term reparations is usually used. Well-known historical examples include France’s obligation to pay “His Majesty the German Emperor [...] five billion francs” after its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71, 4 and Germany’s reparations payments to the Allies after the First World War (the amount of which was not initially specified) in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. At that time, Germany had been required by Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles to accept: [German] responsibility ... for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies. 5 Here too, therefore, it was a matter of reparation by the perpetrator of the damage by means of payments in kind and in cash and restitution, which were intended to put aggrieved governments and individuals – in civil law terms – in the “position that would exist if the circumstance [here: the World War] obliging [Germany] to pay damages had not occurred.” 6 3 “Wer zum Schadensersatz verpflichtet ist, hat den Zustand herzustellen, der bestehen würde, wenn der zum Ersatz verpflichtende Umstand nicht eingetreten wäre” (§ 249 I BGB n.F.). “Soweit die Herstellung nicht möglich oder zur Entschädigung des Gläubigers nicht genügend ist, hat der Ersatzpflichtige den Gläubiger in Geld zu entschädigen” (§ 251 I BGB n.F.). See Nils Jansen: ‘§§ 249-253, 255 (Schadensrecht)’, in: Mathias Schmoeckel, Joachim Rückert and Reinhard Zimmermann, (eds.): Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum BGB. Band II: Schuldrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. 1. Teilband , Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007, pp. 517-654 (530 Rn 17; 603 Rn 100). 4 Article II Friedens-Präliminarien zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und Frankreich (26. Februar 1871), Reichsgesetzblatt , Band 1871, Nr. 26, S. 215-222; Article VII Friedens-Vertrag zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und Frankreich (10. Mai 1871), Reichsgesetzblatt , Band 1871, Nr. 26, p. 223-244. 5 Article 231 Peace treaty of Versailles. (28 June 1919); see Leonard Gomes: German Reparations, 1919–1932. A Historical Survey , London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010; Elazar Barkan: The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices , New York, Norton, 2000. 6 See Jakob Zollmann: ‘Mixed Arbitral Tribunals (post-World War I peace treaties)’, in: Hélène Ruiz Fabri, (ed.): Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law , Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2023, German Compensation Payments, 1904-1914 201 A special case of state compensation is that of its own nationals for war damage caused by its own or enemy troops, such as looting, bombardment, or confiscation/ requisition of private property (food, livestock, means of transport, money, and so forth). Within German cameral science and jurisprudence, there has been much discussion since the early modern period about the question of who should bear these and other “war burdens” (these also included special tax payments, contributions), and whether and how these should be distributed as “equally” as possible, that is, “fairly”, among the “subjects” and later citizens. 7 The jurist K. Gratenauer therefore spoke in 1810 of war as a “reciprocal” and “successive” “system of destruction” and “system of maintenance and replacement.” 8 Weighing up these systems, 100 years later Almá Latifi, an international law scholar and civil servant with the Indian Civil Service, presented a comprehensive study on the Effects of War on Property , in which he described the development of law and repeatedly addressed the question of requisitions and compensation for war damage. On the basis of the Hague Conventions on Land Warfare, several international legal regulations were adopted in 1899 and 1907, which also made compensation obligations binding for those troops that requisitioned enemy private property (Articles 52; 53). 9 The renowned international law scholar John Westlake of the University of Cambridge summarised the (by no means doubtless) legal situation in an epilogue and expressed his conviction “that it is not only when they are under fire that private property and means are not sacred.” 10 From this perspective, the containment of wartime violence, the minimisation of war damage and its compensation were largely left to the discretion of the warring states. However, if it was a matter of requisitions by one’s own armed forces, the corresponding domestic provisions were a special case of “expropriation law”, the “expropriation contracts”, and the compensation for the individual expropriated by the state regulated therein. 11 Such a state duty to compensate was one of the “basic https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e3355.013.3355/law-mpeipro-e3355 7 See inter alia: Friedrich Heinrich Hatzfeld: Prüfung der Grundsätze welche über die Peräquation der Kriegslasten bisher sind aufgestellt worden , Frankfurt am Main, Andreaische Buchhandlung, 1802, p. iv. 8 Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Grattenauer: Repertorium aller der Kriegslasten, Kriegsschäden und Kriegseinquartierungen betreffend neueren Gesetze und Verordnungen. Ein Handbuch . Teil 1, Breslau, Korn, 1810, p. iv. Grattenauer’s uncompromising anti-Semitism should be emphasised here. 9 Almá Latifi: Effects of War on Property, being Studies in International Law and Policy , London, Macmillan, 1909, p. 30; see ‘Abkommen, betreffend die Gesetze und Gebräuche des Landkrieges’ 18.10.1907, Reichsgesetzblatt (RGBl.) 1910, p. 107. 10 John Westlake: ‘Belligerent Rights at Sea’, in Almá Latifi: Effects of War on Property, being Studies in International Law and Policy , London, Macmillan, 1909, pp. 145-152 (148). 11 Michael Stolleis: Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland , vol. 2, München, Beck, 1992, p. 412. 202 Jakob Zollmann parameters of the [German] law of expropriation of the 19 th century”, influenced above all by French models. It was based on “the idea of sacrifice”: Those who are forced by the state to “sacrifice” their property for the common good (such as victory over an enemy in war) thereby acquired “the right to compensation in money for this sacrifice.” Nevertheless, it is important to note, with Foroud Shirvani, that in the legal discourse of the 19 th century, no generally accepted, “prevailing concept of expropriation” had yet emerged. 12 But could one’s own government, in and after a war, be additionally held liable by injured party for the removal, destruction, or other damaging behaviour of the enemy in one’s own country? This question was posed in one way or another by German settlers and merchants in Hereroland in DSWA from January 1904, depending on the colonial-military context. Their farms, livestock, equipment and trade goods had been destroyed or looted by the men of Samuel Maharero, Chief of the Ovaherero, in order to force the Germans to leave the country. 13 Of course, governments, state and municipal administrations, and those who had been damaged by wars or rebellion had already struggled in the centuries before over whether and how such burdens or damages should be compensated. The aggrieved hoped that a state would be obliged to compensate its citizens for war damage, regardless of who caused it. Thus, one regularly finds efforts by individual branches of the administration to limit war-related burdens on the population and thus keep them bearable. An 1873 Law on War Benefits regulated some details in Imperial Germany. However, it left the decisive questions about the “scope and amount of any compensation to be granted and the procedure for determining the same” to a “special law of the empire” to be passed in each individual case. 14 There was no legally binding obligation on the part of the German state to compensate individuals for war damage in general, which could have been enforced in court. 15 12 Foroud Shirvani: ‘Entwicklung des Enteignungsrechts vom frühen 19. Jahrhundert bis zur Weimarer Reichsverfassung’, in: Otto Depenheuer, Foroud Shirvani, (eds.): Die Enteignung. Historische, vergleichende, dogmatische und politische Perspektiven , Berlin, Springer, 2018, pp. 25-51, at p. 38 quoting Otto Mayer p. 43. 13 On the topos of the ‘looting Herero’, see Frank Oliver Sobich: “Schwarze Bestien, rote Gefahr”. Rassismus und Antisozialismus im deutschen Kaiserreich , Frankfurt am Main, Campus, 2006, pp. 75, 89, 93f.; and Matthias Häussler: The Herero Genocide , New York, Berghahn, 2020, pp. 56, 55 Fn. 163 on the smooth transition between ‘plundering’ and ‘requisitioning’. 14 § 35 Gesetz über die Kriegsleistungen, 13. Juni 1873, RGBl ., p. 129. 15 Cuno Hofer: Der Schadenersatz im Landkriegsrecht, Tübingen, Mohr, 1913; Thomas Habbe: Lastenausgleich. Die rechtliche Behandlung von Kriegsschäden in Deutschland seit dem 30jährigen Krieg , Frankfurt am Main, PL Acad. Research, 2014. German Compensation Payments, 1904-1914 203 The Reichstag and the compensation claims during the Herero War, 1904-1907 The first entry in the files of the Reichskolonialamt (Imperial Colonial Office), at that time still the Colonial Department of the Foreign Office, on the subject of “state aid (compensation payments) on the occasion of the Herero uprising in 1904” dates from February 1904. The Foreign Office had requested Governor Theodor Leutwein in Windhoek by telegram to estimate “if possible, [the] approximate total sum of the damage [...] which had accrued to private individuals as a result of [the] uprising.” 16 At the same time, the Reich Treasury was informed of the expected claims. It had already been “discussed in Reichstag circles [...] in what way the farmers, merchants, etc. damaged by the uprising should be compensated.” 17 Less than four weeks later, in March 1904, the Reichsleitung (Imperial 'government') demanded that the Reichstag approve a supplementary budget as a result of the war in DSWA. Among the line items presented in the bill were not only considerable sums for the repair of the Swakopmund-Windhoek railway damaged by Ovaherero, but also “2,000,000 marks for the compensation of the settlers.” With regard to the legal situation, which did not know a general law of war damages, the Colonial Department explained: “Even if a legal obligation to compensate the losses of property and other assets [...] cannot be recognised, in view of the severity of the misfortune that has befallen the protectorate [...] it will not be possible to avoid intervention by the authorities by granting equitable compensation.” 18 In the subsequent debate in the Reichstag, Member of the Reichstag Spahn ( Zentrum ) did recognise that parliament had to approve all the funds “required to put down the uprising.” But he insisted on referring the draft to the budget commission and critically examining individual items. For: In the supplementary budget, for the first time actually, 2 million marks are demanded for compensation for the losses inflicted on the whites by the Herero uprising. Although a legal obligation to do so is denied, the severity of the disaster that has befallen the protectorate makes it unavoidable for the authorities to intervene by granting equitable compensation. This question is of fundamental, far-reaching importance for all the future, and therefore it requires particularly thorough examination in the Commission. If we look back at our [German] legislation, the Reich has only one law in which compensation is paid for war damage: that is the law of 14 June 1871, and in that law at that time compensation from Reich funds for the lands devastated in the French war was not envisaged, 16 Bundesarchiv Berlin-Lichterfelde (BAB) R 1001/2219, Bd. 1, Bl. 3, Tlgr. Auswärtiges Amt, Kolonialabteilung (AA) an Bezirksamt Swakopmund für Gouverneur Windhuk, 19. Feb. 1904. 17 BAB R 1001/2219, Bd. 1, Bl. 3-5, AA an Reichsschatzamt, 19. Feb. 1904. 18 Draft bill dating 14.03.1904, quoted in Eduard Heilfron: Die rechtliche Behandlung der Kriegsschäden , Bd. 1, Mannheim, Bensheimer, 1918, p. 341. 202 Jakob Zollmann parameters of the [German] law of expropriation of the 19 th century”, influenced above all by French models. It was based on “the idea of sacrifice”: Those who are forced by the state to “sacrifice” their property for the common good (such as victory over an enemy in war) thereby acquired “the right to compensation in money for this sacrifice.” Nevertheless, it is important to note, with Foroud Shirvani, that in the legal discourse of the 19 th century, no generally accepted, “prevailing concept of expropriation” had yet emerged. 12 But could one’s own government, in and after a war, be additionally held liable by injured party for the removal, destruction, or other damaging behaviour of the enemy in one’s own country? This question was posed in one way or another by German settlers and merchants in Hereroland in DSWA from January 1904, depending on the colonial-military context. Their farms, livestock, equipment and trade goods had been destroyed or looted by the men of Samuel Maharero, Chief of the Ovaherero, in order to force the Germans to leave the country. 13 Of course, governments, state and municipal administrations, and those who had been damaged by wars or rebellion had already struggled in the centuries before over whether and how such burdens or damages should be compensated. The aggrieved hoped that a state would be obliged to compensate its citizens for war damage, regardless of who caused it. Thus, one regularly finds efforts by individual branches of the administration to limit war-related burdens on the population and thus keep them bearable. An 1873 Law on War Benefits regulated some details in Imperial Germany. However, it left the decisive questions about the “scope and amount of any compensation to be granted and the procedure for determining the same” to a “special law of the empire” to be passed in each individual case. 14 There was no legally binding obligation on the part of the German state to compensate individuals for war damage in general, which could have been enforced in court. 15 12 Foroud Shirvani: ‘Entwicklung des Enteignungsrechts vom frühen 19. Jahrhundert bis zur Weimarer Reichsverfassung’, in: Otto Depenheuer, Foroud Shirvani, (eds.): Die Enteignung. Historische, vergleichende, dogmatische und politische Perspektiven , Berlin, Springer, 2018, pp. 25-51, at p. 38 quoting Otto Mayer p. 43. 13 On the topos of the ‘looting Herero’, see Frank Oliver Sobich: “Schwarze Bestien, rote Gefahr”. Rassismus und Antisozialismus im deutschen Kaiserreich , Frankfurt am Main, Campus, 2006, pp. 75, 89, 93f.; and Matthias Häussler: The Herero Genocide , New York, Berghahn, 2020, pp. 56, 55 Fn. 163 on the smooth transition between ‘plundering’ and ‘requisitioning’. 14 § 35 Gesetz über die Kriegsleistungen, 13. Juni 1873, RGBl ., p. 129. 15 Cuno Hofer: Der Schadenersatz im Landkriegsrecht, Tübingen, Mohr, 1913; Thomas Habbe: Lastenausgleich. Die rechtliche Behandlung von Kriegsschäden in Deutschland seit dem 30jährigen Krieg , Frankfurt am Main, PL Acad. Research, 2014. German Compensation Payments, 1904-1914 203 The Reichstag and the compensation claims during the Herero War, 1904-1907 The first entry in the files of the Reichskolonialamt (Imperial Colonial Office), at that time still the Colonial Department of the Foreign Office, on the subject of “state aid (compensation payments) on the occasion of the Herero uprising in 1904” dates from February 1904. The Foreign Office had requested Governor Theodor Leutwein in Windhoek by telegram to estimate “if possible, [the] approximate total sum of the damage [...] which had accrued to private individuals as a result of [the] uprising.” 16 At the same time, the Reich Treasury was informed of the expected claims. It had already been “discussed in Reichstag circles [...] in what way the farmers, merchants, etc. damaged by the uprising should be compensated.” 17 Less than four weeks later, in March 1904, the Reichsleitung (Imperial 'government') demanded that the Reichstag approve a supplementary budget as a result of the war in DSWA. Among the line items presented in the bill were not only considerable sums for the repair of the Swakopmund-Windhoek railway damaged by Ovaherero, but also “2,000,000 marks for the compensation of the settlers.” With regard to the legal situation, which did not know a general law of war damages, the Colonial Department explained: “Even if a legal obligation to compensate the losses of property and other assets [...] cannot be recognised, in view of the severity of the misfortune that has befallen the protectorate [...] it will not be possible to avoid intervention by the authorities by granting equitable compensation.” 18 In the subsequent debate in the Reichstag, Member of the Reichstag Spahn ( Zentrum ) did recognise that parliament had to approve all the funds “required to put down the uprising.” But he insisted on referring the draft to the budget commission and critically examining individual items. For: In the supplementary budget, for the first time actually, 2 million marks are demanded for compensation for the losses inflicted on the whites by the Herero uprising. Although a legal obligation to do so is denied, the severity of the disaster that has befallen the protectorate makes it unavoidable for the authorities to intervene by granting equitable compensation. This question is of fundamental, far-reaching importance for all the future, and therefore it requires particularly thorough examination in the Commission. If we look back at our [German] legislation, the Reich has only one law in which compensation is paid for war damage: that is the law of 14 June 1871, and in that law at that time compensation from Reich funds for the lands devastated in the French war was not envisaged, 16 Bundesarchiv Berlin-Lichterfelde (BAB) R 1001/2219, Bd. 1, Bl. 3, Tlgr. Auswärtiges Amt, Kolonialabteilung (AA) an Bezirksamt Swakopmund für Gouverneur Windhuk, 19. Feb. 1904. 17 BAB R 1001/2219, Bd. 1, Bl. 3-5, AA an Reichsschatzamt, 19. Feb. 1904. 18 Draft bill dating 14.03.1904, quoted in Eduard Heilfron: Die rechtliche Behandlung der Kriegsschäden , Bd. 1, Mannheim, Bensheimer, 1918, p. 341. 204 Jakob Zollmann but it was assumed at that time that compensation should only be granted from the funds of the war indemnity to be paid by France. [...] The compensation commission also had a legislative basis. 19 Spahn recalled that the “Herero Uprising” was by no means the first armed conflict within the German colonial empire. At the same time, he pointed out that “up to now, we have not paid compensation in the colonies for losses caused by uprisings [for example in East Africa]” 20 – although who he meant by ‘we’, the Reichstag or the German colonial administration, remains unclear. Rather, it is up to archival research to find out whether, before 1904, individual colonial administration officials had not found ways and means to “support” settlers due to their losses through “uprisings”, that is, to compensate them for their losses. It was not possible for German settlers to take out insurance against future property “damage” caused by “events of war” and “riots”. Insurance companies did advertise their products such as “capital and war insurance” among “colonial Germans”. But these were exclusively life insurance policies for “provision for surviving dependants and old age” for “persons of both sexes”, but not insurance policies for material assets. 21 Karl Neumeyer, an expert on private international law, still stated after the end of the German colonial era that “imperial insurance law was not applicable to colonial enterprises.” 22 If, therefore, claims for compensation as a result of the OvaHerero War could be addressed to the state alone, it could be assumed that the funds requested by the Reichsleitung in 1904 would not be sufficient. The Social Democrat August Bebel knew that “one [...] already speaks today in the organs of colonial politicians with the greatest cold-bloodedness of the fact that these compensations will amount to at least 6 to 8 million marks.” 23 In its proposal, the Reichsleitung reverted to the previous practice according to which war damage should never trigger legally binding state compensation obligations, as Spahn’s reference to the regulations on German private war damage of 1870/71 showed. Instead, under aspects of equity, compensation for such damages was granted obrigkeitlich after the fact. The Law on the Second Supplement to the Budgetary Budget of the Protectorates. Compensation for Herero 19 MdR [ Member of Reichstag ] Spahn (Zentrum) 17.3.1904, Stenographische Berichte des Reichstags [StBR], 11. Legislaturperiode, 60. Sitzung, p. 1888. 20 MdR Spahn (Zentrum) 17.3.1904, StBRT , 11. LegPer., 60. Sitzung, p. 1888. 21 See the advertisement of Deutsche Militairdienst-Versicherungs-Anstalt in Hannover , in: Deutsches Kolonialblatt. Amtsblatt des Reichskolonialamt , 7, 1896, p. 235. For German nationals, on the other hand, ‘the [state] accident insurance, disability insurance and employee insurance in the protectorates’ were said to apply, Karl Neumeyer: Internationales Verwaltungsrecht. Bd. II: Innere Verwaltung , München, Schweitzer, 1922 (new ed. 1980), § 76, p. 665. 22 Neumeyer: Verwaltungsrecht , § 76, p. 665, with reference to maritime shipping. 23 MdR Bebel (Sozialdemokraten) 17.3.1904, StBRT , 11. LegPer., 60. Sitzung, p. 1889. German Compensation Payments, 1904-1914 205 and Witboy [Witbooi] Uprisings (accounting year 1904) initially granted an amount of RM (Reichsmark) 2 million. 24 There is not enough space here to recapitulate in detail the Reichstag debates on ever new and ever higher compensation for German losses in DSWA. Members of parliament such as the Centre politician Matthias Erzberger never tired in the following years of denouncing corruption and maladministration in colonial administrative practice, as well as compensation payments due to excessive claims for (alleged) war losses by settlers and colonial societies. 25 In particular, politicians and the press were repeatedly preoccupied with the question of whether the (moral) obligation to compensate would be diminished by a contributory negligence 26 on the part of the settlers in the “uprising”. For the colonial critics, this contributory responsibility resulted from the settlers’ violence against the African population, which had been known for years. The colonial administration was also held partly responsible for the outbreak of the OvaHerero war because it had not taken decisive enough action against settler violence and violence from the ranks of officials and soldiers. Thus, at the beginning of March 1904, Chief Samuel Maharero reminded Governor Leutwein that it had been “the whites” who had started the war through their unpunished murders. 27 Shortly afterwards, August Bebel described the “uprising of the Hereros against the German regiment [as] an act of desperation.” 28 While the settlers presented themselves as victims of predatory perpetrators of violence and demanded full compensation for all losses in a “race war’” the colonial critics (especially in the Centre and among the Social Democrats) did not buy their proclamations of innocence. 29 For if “parts of the 'white' population [were] guilty or complicit in the uprising, this was an excellent argument against blanket compensation.” 30 In order to prevent a change of mood against their demands, a “delegation of the German South-West African settlers” travelled to Berlin in June 1904. They hoped to convince the Reich Chancellor and the Reichstag that compensation was necessary in terms of colonial policy and presented a Memorandum on the Causes of the Herero Uprising and the Settlers’ Claims for Compensation . 31 A little later, the 24 Cahn: Wesen , p. 318. 25 See StBRT , Bd. 222, pp. 3399f.; pp. 3375ff. (05.12.1904); Anna Rothfuss: Korruption im Kaiserreich. Debatten und Skandale zwischen 1871 und 1914 , Göttingen, V&R unipress, 2019, p. 220. 26 Nils Jansen: ‘Mitverschulden’, in: Albrecht Cordes, Hans-Peter Haferkamp, Heiner Lück, Dieter Werkmüller, Christa Bertelsmeier-Kierst, (eds.): Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte , 2. Aufl., 23. Lieferung, 2016, Sp. 1576-1578. 27 Maharero an Leutwein, 6.3.1904, cited in Häussler: Genocide , p. 46. 28 MdR Bebel (Sozialdemokraten) 17.3.1904, StBRT , 11. LegPer., 60. Sitzung, p. 1889. 29 Häussler: Genocide , p. 46. 30 Sobich: Bestien , p. 75; p. 87 quotes Die Gartenlaube , Halbheft 18, 1904, p. 510. 31 ‘Über die Ursachen des Herero-Aufstandes’, in: Freiburger Zeitung , 20.08.1904, p. 1, online accessible: https://www.freiburg-postkolonial.de/Seiten/FreiburgerZeitung1904-08-20.htm ; 204 Jakob Zollmann but it was assumed at that time that compensation should only be granted from the funds of the war indemnity to be paid by France. [...] The compensation commission also had a legislative basis. 19 Spahn recalled that the “Herero Uprising” was by no means the first armed conflict within the German colonial empire. At the same time, he pointed out that “up to now, we have not paid compensation in the colonies for losses caused by uprisings [for example in East Africa]” 20 – although who he meant by ‘we’, the Reichstag or the German colonial administration, remains unclear. Rather, it is up to archival research to find out whether, before 1904, individual colonial administration officials had not found ways and means to “support” settlers due to their losses through “uprisings”, that is, to compensate them for their losses. It was not possible for German settlers to take out insurance against future property “damage” caused by “events of war” and “riots”. Insurance companies did advertise their products such as “capital and war insurance” among “colonial Germans”. But these were exclusively life insurance policies for “provision for surviving dependants and old age” for “persons of both sexes”, but not insurance policies for material assets. 21 Karl Neumeyer, an expert on private international law, still stated after the end of the German colonial era that “imperial insurance law was not applicable to colonial enterprises.” 22 If, therefore, claims for compensation as a result of the OvaHerero War could be addressed to the state alone, it could be assumed that the funds requested by the Reichsleitung in 1904 would not be sufficient. The Social Democrat August Bebel knew that “one [...] already speaks today in the organs of colonial politicians with the greatest cold-bloodedness of the fact that these compensations will amount to at least 6 to 8 million marks.” 23 In its proposal, the Reichsleitung reverted to the previous practice according to which war damage should never trigger legally binding state compensation obligations, as Spahn’s reference to the regulations on German private war damage of 1870/71 showed. Instead, under aspects of equity, compensation for such damages was granted obrigkeitlich after the fact. The Law on the Second Supplement to the Budgetary Budget of the Protectorates. Compensation for Herero 19 MdR [ Member of Reichstag ] Spahn (Zentrum) 17.3.1904, Stenographische Berichte des Reichstags [StBR], 11. Legislaturperiode, 60. Sitzung, p. 1888. 20 MdR Spahn (Zentrum) 17.3.1904, StBRT , 11. LegPer., 60. Sitzung, p. 1888. 21 See the advertisement of Deutsche Militairdienst-Versicherungs-Anstalt in Hannover , in: Deutsches Kolonialblatt. Amtsblatt des Reichskolonialamt , 7, 1896, p. 235. For German nationals, on the other hand, ‘the [state] accident insurance, disability insurance and employee insurance in the protectorates’ were said to apply, Karl Neumeyer: Internationales Verwaltungsrecht. Bd. II: Innere Verwaltung , München, Schweitzer, 1922 (new ed. 1980), § 76, p. 665. 22 Neumeyer: Verwaltungsrecht , § 76, p. 665, with reference to maritime shipping. 23 MdR Bebel (Sozialdemokraten) 17.3.1904, StBRT , 11. LegPer., 60. Sitzung, p. 1889. German Compensation Payments, 1904-1914 205 and Witboy [Witbooi] Uprisings (accounting year 1904) initially granted an amount of RM (Reichsmark) 2 million. 24 There is not enough space here to recapitulate in detail the Reichstag debates on ever new and ever higher compensation for German losses in DSWA. Members of parliament such as the Centre politician Matthias Erzberger never tired in the following years of denouncing corruption and maladministration in colonial administrative practice, as well as compensation payments due to excessive claims for (alleged) war losses by settlers and colonial societies. 25 In particular, politicians and the press were repeatedly preoccupied with the question of whether the (moral) obligation to compensate would be diminished by a contributory negligence 26 on the part of the settlers in the “uprising”. For the colonial critics, this contributory responsibility resulted from the settlers’ violence against the African population, which had been known for years. The colonial administration was also held partly responsible for the outbreak of the OvaHerero war because it had not taken decisive enough action against settler violence and violence from the ranks of officials and soldiers. Thus, at the beginning of March 1904, Chief Samuel Maharero reminded Governor Leutwein that it had been “the whites” who had started the war through their unpunished murders. 27 Shortly afterwards, August Bebel described the “uprising of the Hereros against the German regiment [as] an act of desperation.” 28 While the settlers presented themselves as victims of predatory perpetrators of violence and demanded full compensation for all losses in a “race war’” the colonial critics (especially in the Centre and among the Social Democrats) did not buy their proclamations of innocence. 29 For if “parts of the 'white' population [were] guilty or complicit in the uprising, this was an excellent argument against blanket compensation.” 30 In order to prevent a change of mood against their demands, a “delegation of the German South-West African settlers” travelled to Berlin in June 1904. They hoped to convince the Reich Chancellor and the Reichstag that compensation was necessary in terms of colonial policy and presented a Memorandum on the Causes of the Herero Uprising and the Settlers’ Claims for Compensation . 31 A little later, the 24 Cahn: Wesen , p. 318. 25 See StBRT , Bd. 222, pp. 3399f.; pp. 3375ff. (05.12.1904); Anna Rothfuss: Korruption im Kaiserreich. Debatten und Skandale zwischen 1871 und 1914 , Göttingen, V&R unipress, 2019, p. 220. 26 Nils Jansen: ‘Mitverschulden’, in: Albrecht Cordes, Hans-Peter Haferkamp, Heiner Lück, Dieter Werkmüller, Christa Bertelsmeier-Kierst, (eds.): Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte , 2. Aufl., 23. Lieferung, 2016, Sp. 1576-1578. 27 Maharero an Leutwein, 6.3.1904, cited in Häussler: Genocide , p. 46. 28 MdR Bebel (Sozialdemokraten) 17.3.1904, StBRT , 11. LegPer., 60. Sitzung, p. 1889. 29 Häussler: Genocide , p. 46. 30 Sobich: Bestien , p. 75; p. 87 quotes Die Gartenlaube , Halbheft 18, 1904, p. 510. 31 ‘Über die Ursachen des Herero-Aufstandes’, in: Freiburger Zeitung , 20.08.1904, p. 1, online accessible: https://www.freiburg-postkolonial.de/Seiten/FreiburgerZeitung1904-08-20.htm ; 206 Jakob Zollmann book by the farmer Conrad Rust Krieg und Frieden im Hereroland (1905) about his experiences in the war was “handed over to all members of the Reichstag as propaganda material on the question of compensation.” 32 Rust argued that the settlers had protected “state property” to the detriment of their private property and gave the amount of private damages in DSWA as RM 7 million, which was “later [1905] increased to RM 10 million.” 33 The settlers made a recognisable effort to present their economic situation before the uprising “in a bright light” in order, as Helmut Bley already emphasised, to “improve the assessment basis for the compensation” vis-à-vis the Reichstag and the press in Germany. 34 This political pressure on the Reichstag members could not stop the ongoing criticism. It did, however, lead to a majority agreeing to the “compensation[s] of the settlers for losses, support, etc. through no fault of their own.” 35 Thus, in the budget laws of 1904, 1905 and 1907, the Reichstag passed compensation payments for losses resulting from the wars against Ovaherero and Nama. A new bill to compensate the settlers in DSWA was rejected by the Centre because, in the opinion of Matthias Erzberger and others, it went too far. They also argued that the previous distribution of Reich funds had benefited people and companies for whom the compensation had not been intended. However, after the dissolution of the Reichstag in December 1906, a polarising election campaign against the Social Democrats and the Centre and their criticism of colonialism, and new elections in January 1907, the majority of the new Reichstag , the so-called Bülow Block, approved two colonial supplementary budgets in March 1907, granting the settlers another RM 5 million. 36 The colonial question had thus acquired a hitherto undreamed-of centrality in the German Kaiserreich . Overall, between 1904 and 1907, the Reichstag granted the settlers in DSWA probably about RM 11 million for their war losses – possibly more. 37 Conrad Rust: ‘Der deutsche Reichstag und das südwestafrikanische Schmerzenskind’, in: Deutsch Südwestafrikanische Zeitung , 11.05.1904, p. 1; Paul Rohrbach: Aus Südwest-Afrikas schweren Tagen. Blätter von Arbeit und Abschied , Berlin, Weicher, 1909, p. 158. 32 Bley: Kolonialherrschaft , p. 357 N. 45; see Sobich: Bestien , p. 131. 33 Conrad Rust: Krieg und Frieden im Hereroland. Aufzeichnungen aus dem Kriegsjahre 1904 , Leipzig, Kittler, 1905, pp. 492, 495. 34 Bley: Kolonialherrschaft , p. 171. 35 StBRT , ‘Zweite Ergänzung des dem Reichstage vorliegenden Entwurfs des Haushaltsetats für die Schutzgebiete auf das Rechnungsjahr 1904 (Niederwerfung des Hereroaufstandes, Entschädigung der Ansiedler für unverschuldete Verluste, Unterstützungen etc.)’, 1904. Anlage Bd. III, Nr. 299. 36 See Cahn: Wesen , p. 318, li. 37 StBRT , Bd. 227, p. 925f. (19.04.1907); cf. Wolfgang Reinhard: ‘“Sozialimperialismus” oder “Entkolonisierung der Historie”? Kolonialkrise und “Hottentottenwahlen” 1904-1907’, in: Historisches Jahrbuch , 97/98, 1978, pp. 384-417; Ulrich van der Heyden: ‘Kolonialkrieg und deutsche Innenpolitik. Die Reichstagswahlen von 1907’, freiburg-postkolonial.de, German Compensation Payments, 1904-1914 207 The Compensation Commission in Windhoek Initially, the Colonial Department instructed Governor Leutwein in Windhoek to estimate the “damage [...] suffered by private individuals as a result of [the] uprising.” 38 From June 1904, the task was assigned to a special “compensation commission.” 39 Before that, in May 1904, the Reichsleitung had already provided relatively unbureaucratic assistance to the German settlers by granting funds from the “welfare lottery of 2 million marks as compensation for robbed settlers and 500,000 marks for [destroyed?] irrigation facilities.” 40 In contrast, Governor Leutwein had shown himself to be “reserved on the question of compensation for fiscal reasons”, which caused the settlers’ disappointment in him – who apparently “could not cope” with the OvaHerero – to grow even further. 41 The compensation commission was not only to ascertain damages, but also to organise the payment of the “state financial aid” of RM 2 million to German settlers, which had been approved in the meantime. This was to prevent the German settlers from becoming insolvent and emigrating. 42 GSWA’s chief judge Dr. Paul Richter, a confidant of Governor Leutwein, who had been working in Windhoek for many years, was the first chairman of this commission. The Reich leadership attached great political relevance to this office. Thus, Reich Chancellor Bülow personally appointed the new chairman of the compensation commission in December 1904 after Paul Richter fell ill. Bülow appointed the theologian and journalist Dr. Paul Rohrbach to the office, who had been working in the colony as settlement commissioner since 1903. At the beginning of the war, Rohrbach had “nothing more to do as settlement commissioner.” 43 Together with Paul Richter, he was already entrusted with drawing up lists of damages and functioned as a kind of lawyer for the settlers, as their ally. As a convinced supporter of Naumann-style liberal imperialism, Rohrbach was widely regarded as a friend of the farmers in his elevated position in the colonial civil service. He was derisively referred to as the “tribune of the plebs”, which made him the antithesis of many other civil servants who were commonly accused of bureaucratism and arrogance. In his “high-emphatic colonial image”, according to Birthe Kundrus, https://www.freiburg-postkolonial.de/Seiten/Heyden-Reichstagswahlen1907.htm; Bley: Kolonialherrschaft , p. 221. 38 BAB R 1001/2219, Bd. 1, Bl. 3, Tlgr. AA an BezA Swakopmund für Gouverneur Windhuk, 19. Feb. 1904. 39 The commission was set up under Sections 7 and 8 of the ‘Reich Chancellor’s Ordinance on the Utilisation of the Fund made available in the Second Supplement to the Budget of the Protectorates for the Financial Year 1904 under II. Chapter 1, Title 14 of the Expenditure for the South West African Protectorate’. 40 Rust: Krieg , p. 500. 41 Bley: Kolonialherrschaft , p. 219. 42 Ibid.: cf. also Otto von Weber: Geschichte des Schutzgebietes Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika , Windhoek, S.W.A. Wiss. Ges., 1985, p. 175f. 43 Rohrbach: Südwest-Afrikas , p. 155. 212 Jakob Zollmann – “take[ing] advantage of their naked need” – had promised the surrendering Ovaherero “in addition to a (from his point of view: undeserved) mercy, the government’s care in the form of food, clothing as well as a ‘small reward’ for the forced labour performed.” 69 It had become clear to the top echelons of the German colonial administration – in opposition to General von Trotha’s loud-mouthed policy of extermination – that African labour was indispensable for colonial rule and that therefore, “to speak with Max Weber, a ‘certain minimum of wanting to obey, that is: Interest [...] in obeying’ on the part of the inferiors [was] necessary.” Matthias Häussler has recently rightly pointed out that Lindequist and others “sought to arouse such interest [...] with promises.” 70 This policy of promises – while at the same time being fulfilled much more hesitantly – continued in the years after the end of the war in the face of the impoverishment of those affected – foreseen not only by Erzberger – due to the governorate’s policy of expropriation against Africans. 71 Missionaries of the Rhenish Mission therefore felt compelled time and again to approach Governor Lindequist and demand “land rights for the natives, insofar as they (especially the Bergdamara and ‘bastard’ communities) did not take part in the war.” Secondly, they demanded “compensation for those [Africans] who were conscripted for war service, insofar as they had material losses (livestock) as a result of this service.” But Mission Inspector Johannes Spieker received at best “vague assurances” on these issues from Governor Lindequist in 1907. 72 In fact, official “support” for the natives occasionally occurred on a minimal scale, declared as “compensation payments”. In 1908, for example, the governorate, through the Windhoek Werft [African settlement] elder Franz ǀHoesemab 73 and the missionary Carl Wandres, distributed 125 goats to several families at Windhoek’s biggest Werft ; in 1909, another 49. The animals were explicitly intended as compensation for natives who had “remained loyal in the rebellion”– if they were found “worthy”. This “disbursement”, “principally in small livestock”, was supposed 69 Matthias Häussler: ‘“Auf dass wieder Ruhe und Ordnung herrscht”. Proklamationen im deutschen Feldzug gegen die OvaHerero (1904/05)’, in: Historische Zeitschrift , 314 (3), 2022, pp. 599-629 (626). 70 Ibid. 71 The district commissioner of Bethanien, Wasserfall, reported: “The local natives have been completely impoverished by the war. They have no livestock or other property”, NAN ZBU 694, F V f 1, Bd. 1, Bl. 199, DA Bethanien an Gouvernement, 4.1.1908. 72 Martin Siefkes: Sprache, Glaube und Macht. Die Aufzeichnungen des Johannes Spiecker in Deutsch-Südwestafrika zur Zeit des Herero-Nama-Aufstands , Würzburg, Königshausen & Neumann, 2013, p. 109. 73 See Jakob Zollmann: ‘Becoming a Christian, becoming a Troublemaker. The rise and fall of Franz Hoesemab of Windhoek, 1893 to 1933’, in: Ulrich van der Heyden, Helge Wendt, (eds.): Mission und dekoloniale Perspektive. Der Erste Weltkrieg als Auslöser eines globalen Prozesses , Stuttgart, Steiner, 2020, pp. 307-322. German Compensation Payments, 1904-1914 213 to give the “compensation a lasting value.” 74 The fact that such “compensations” remained completely insufficient to put a stop to the impoverishment and to gain trust in the promises of the colonial administration did not occur to the leading officials until late. After it was raised in the representative council ( Landesrat ) in 1913 “that such deep discontent and ill-feeling against our rule had spread among the natives that one could speak of a new danger of insurrection”, the governorate requested reports about the sentiment of the Africans from all district offices. 75 For the Windhoek District Office ( Bezirksamt ), Gustav Redecker, a government architect familiar with “native affairs”, replied. He confirmed that there was “great dissatisfaction among the Windhoek natives, especially among the Bergdamaras.” He attributed this to unfulfilled promises made by the administration during the war. At that time, the elder ǀHoesemab had been promised compensation for the cattle stolen from them by the Ovaherero and a place of his own at Keres for his people if he ensured that they “stood faithfully by the government”, which they did “by and large.” Compensation was paid, but it was paltry compared to the losses: before the war, Windhoek’s 600 or so Bergdamara owned about 90 head of large cattle, 1,150 sheep and 2,500 goats, which grazed in the Khomas Highlands as far as Keres and were almost all driven off during the war. According to Redecker, it was not until 1908 that ǀHoesemab received the first compensation of 25 goats. By 1912, he said, 480 goats had been transferred, but they often contracted mange and infected the other animals, so that of the 505 animals all but 100 of them “have died of mange today through no fault of the people.” The area around Keres was still not guaranteed to them as a grazing ground nine years after the promises were made, because the police claimed the place for its station. All this “has deeply embittered the Bergdamaras beyond Windhoek; [...] it particularly outrages them that they are now on a par with the former rebellious Hereros and Namas.” 76 Windhoek's “native commissioner” ( Eingeborenenkommissar ) Bohr was aware of these facts. But he was of the opinion that the planned allocation of a “reserve”, the further compensation of the Damara with cattle that had taken place in the meantime, and the development of new water points in the African settlement ( Werft ) had improved the mood among the African population of Windhoek compared to previous years. However, he also demanded replacement for the losses due to the mange-infested herd that the governorate had supplied as “compensation”. The colonial administration therefore 74 NAN BWI 36, E 1 e, Bl.17, Polizei an BA Windhuk, 24.4.08; Gouvernement an BA Windhuk, 21.5.1908; Bl. 80, Nachweisung, 8.3.1909. Cf. Jakob Zollmann: Koloniale Herrschaft und ihre Grenzen. Die Kolonialpolizei in Deutsch-Südwestafrika 1894-1915 , Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010, pp. 261-263. 75 NAN ZBU 2365, Geheimakten VII m, Bl.2, Gouv an alle BA+DA, 4.5.1913. 76 NAN ZBU 2365, Geheimakten VII m, Bl.5-7, Redecker an Gouvernement, 12.5.1913. 214 Jakob Zollmann had reason enough to be more generous in future with regard to the keeping of Africans’ livestock. 77 Finding out to what extent the memory has survived beyond the end of German colonial rule that some Africans were compensated by the Germans, albeit slightly(st), for their war losses in 1904-1907 and others were not, remains a matter for future research. The impression of unkept promises and profound injustices within the colonial order also solidified as a result of this administrative policy, which – despite ongoing criticism – offered little prospect of improvement for those affected. The settlers’ complaints about the “injustices” of the mother country’s distribution of compensation, which were hardly unknown to them, can therefore only have been taken as mockery by the Africans. The short history of war compensation in DSWA therefore also reflects the much-cited “dual colonial legal order”, despite all the reluctance of the colonial administration to deal with the question of compensation ‘legally’ 78 : here those with rights of action and objection (even if it was the parliamentary right of petition); there ‘the others’, who at best were allowed to make requests for “rewards” at the administrative level via the “native commissioner” acting in a ‘guardianship’ capacity. At the same time, alert contemporaries were already aware at that time that the question of how, on what grounds and by what means war compensation would be granted or denied to whom was a “question of fundamental, far-reaching importance for all the future.” 79 As is well known, this question is being asked anew in the 21 st century. Bibliography BBooookkss aanndd aarrttiicclleess Barkan, Elazar: The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices , New York, Norton, 2000. Bley, Helmut: Kolonialherrschaft und Sozialstruktur in Deutsch-Südwestafrika, 1894– 1914 , Hamburg, Leibniz, 1968. Cahn, Hans Joseph: Wesen und Grundbegriffe des Kriegsschadenrechts , Zürich, Weiss, 1946. Eicker, Steffen: Der Deutsch-Herero-Krieg und das Völkerrecht. Die völkerrechtliche Haftung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland für das Vorgehen des Deutschen 77 NAN ZBU 2365, Geheimakten VII m, Bl.24-5, BAWindhuk an Gouvernement, 30.6.1913; Anlage Bericht EK Bohr, Bl.26-8; cf. Gesine Krüger: Kriegsbewältigung und Geschichtsbewusstsein. Realität, Deutung und Verarbeitung des deutschen Kolonialkriegs in Namibia 1904 bis 1907 , Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999, p. 188. 78 Cf. Harald Sippel: ‘Recht und Gerichtsbarkeit’, in: Horst Gründer, Hermann Hiery, (eds.): Die Deutschen und ihre Kolonien. Ein Überblick , 3 rd ed., Berlin, be.bra, 2022, pp. 201-221. 79 MdR Spahn (Zentrum) 17.3.1904, StBRT , 11. Legislaturperiode, 60. Sitzung, p. 1888. German Compensation Payments, 1904-1914 215 Reiches gegen die Herero in Deutsch-Südwestafrika im Jahre 1904 und ihre Durchsetzung vor einem nationalen Gericht , Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 2009. Erzberger, Matthias: Kolonial-Bilanz. Bilder aus der deutschen Kolonialpolitik auf Grund der Verhandlungen des Reichstags im Sessionsabschnitt 1905/06 , Berlin, Germania, 1906. Gomes, Leonard: German Reparations, 1919–1932. A Historical Survey , London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Grattenauer, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich: Repertorium aller der Kriegslasten, Kriegsschäden und Kriegseinquartierungen betreffend neueren Gesetze und Verordnungen. Ein Handbuch . Teil 1, Breslau, Korn, 1810. Habbe, Thomas: Lastenausgleich. Die rechtliche Behandlung von Kriegsschäden in Deutschland seit dem 30jährigen Krieg , Frankfurt am Main, PL Acad. Research, 2014. Hatzfeld, Friedrich Heinrich: Prüfung der Grundsätze welche über die Peräquation der Kriegslasten bisher sind aufgestellt worden , Frankfurt am Main, Andreaische Buchhandlung, 1802. Häussler, Matthias: The Herero Genocide , New York, Berghahn, 2020. Häussler, Matthias: ‘“Auf dass wieder Ruhe und Ordnung herrscht”. Proklamationen im deutschen Feldzug gegen die OvaHerero (1904/05)’, in: Historische Zeitschrift , 314 (3), 2022, pp. 599-629. Hecker, Hellmut: ‘Schutzangehörigkeit und Staatsangehörigkeit in Deutschland’, in: Archiv des Völkerrechts , 21, 1983, pp. 433-491. Heilfron, Eduard: Die rechtliche Behandlung der Kriegsschäden , Bd. 1, Mannheim, Bensheimer, 1918. Hofer, Cuno: Der Schadenersatz im Landkriegsrecht , Tübingen, Mohr, 1913. Jähnel, Markus J.: Das Bodenrecht in “Neudeutschland über See”. Erwerb, Vergabe und Nutzung von Land in der Kolonie Deutsch-Südwestafrika 1884–1915 , Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 2009. Jansen, Nils: ‘§§ 249-253, 255 (Schadensrecht)’, in: Mathias Schmoeckel, Joachim Rückert and Reinhard Zimmermann, (eds.): Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum BGB. Band II: Schuldrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. 1. Teilband , Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007, pp. 517-654. Jansen, Nils: ‘Mitverschulden’, in: Albrecht Cordes, Hans-Peter Haferkamp, Heiner Lück, Dieter Werkmüller, Christa Bertelsmeier-Kierst, (eds.): Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte , 2. Aufl., 23. Lieferung, 2016, Sp. 1576-1578. Krüger, Gesine: Kriegsbewältigung und Geschichtsbewusstsein. Realität, Deutung und Verarbeitung des deutschen Kolonialkriegs in Namibia 1904 bis 1907 , Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Kundrus, Birthe: Moderne Imperialisten. Das Kaiserreich im Spiegel seiner Kolonien , Köln, Böhlau, 2003. Neumeyer, Karl: Internationales Verwaltungsrecht. Bd. II: Innere Verwaltung , München, Schweitzer, 1922. Osterhaus, Andreas: Europäischer Terraingewinn in Schwarzafrika. Das Verhältnis von Presse und Verwaltung in sechs Kolonien Deutschlands, Frankreichs und Großbritanniens von 1894 bis 1914, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 1990. 214 Jakob Zollmann had reason enough to be more generous in future with regard to the keeping of Africans’ livestock. 77 Finding out to what extent the memory has survived beyond the end of German colonial rule that some Africans were compensated by the Germans, albeit slightly(st), for their war losses in 1904-1907 and others were not, remains a matter for future research. The impression of unkept promises and profound injustices within the colonial order also solidified as a result of this administrative policy, which – despite ongoing criticism – offered little prospect of improvement for those affected. The settlers’ complaints about the “injustices” of the mother country’s distribution of compensation, which were hardly unknown to them, can therefore only have been taken as mockery by the Africans. The short history of war compensation in DSWA therefore also reflects the much-cited “dual colonial legal order”, despite all the reluctance of the colonial administration to deal with the question of compensation ‘legally’ 78 : here those with rights of action and objection (even if it was the parliamentary right of petition); there ‘the others’, who at best were allowed to make requests for “rewards” at the administrative level via the “native commissioner” acting in a ‘guardianship’ capacity. At the same time, alert contemporaries were already aware at that time that the question of how, on what grounds and by what means war compensation would be granted or denied to whom was a “question of fundamental, far-reaching importance for all the future.” 79 As is well known, this question is being asked anew in the 21 st century. Bibliography BBooookkss aanndd aarrttiicclleess Barkan, Elazar: The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices , New York, Norton, 2000. Bley, Helmut: Kolonialherrschaft und Sozialstruktur in Deutsch-Südwestafrika, 1894– 1914 , Hamburg, Leibniz, 1968. Cahn, Hans Joseph: Wesen und Grundbegriffe des Kriegsschadenrechts , Zürich, Weiss, 1946. Eicker, Steffen: Der Deutsch-Herero-Krieg und das Völkerrecht. Die völkerrechtliche Haftung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland für das Vorgehen des Deutschen 77 NAN ZBU 2365, Geheimakten VII m, Bl.24-5, BAWindhuk an Gouvernement, 30.6.1913; Anlage Bericht EK Bohr, Bl.26-8; cf. Gesine Krüger: Kriegsbewältigung und Geschichtsbewusstsein. Realität, Deutung und Verarbeitung des deutschen Kolonialkriegs in Namibia 1904 bis 1907 , Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999, p. 188. 78 Cf. Harald Sippel: ‘Recht und Gerichtsbarkeit’, in: Horst Gründer, Hermann Hiery, (eds.): Die Deutschen und ihre Kolonien. Ein Überblick , 3 rd ed., Berlin, be.bra, 2022, pp. 201-221. 79 MdR Spahn (Zentrum) 17.3.1904, StBRT , 11. Legislaturperiode, 60. Sitzung, p. 1888. German Compensation Payments, 1904-1914 215 Reiches gegen die Herero in Deutsch-Südwestafrika im Jahre 1904 und ihre Durchsetzung vor einem nationalen Gericht , Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 2009. Erzberger, Matthias: Kolonial-Bilanz. Bilder aus der deutschen Kolonialpolitik auf Grund der Verhandlungen des Reichstags im Sessionsabschnitt 1905/06 , Berlin, Germania, 1906. Gomes, Leonard: German Reparations, 1919–1932. A Historical Survey , London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Grattenauer, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich: Repertorium aller der Kriegslasten, Kriegsschäden und Kriegseinquartierungen betreffend neueren Gesetze und Verordnungen. Ein Handbuch . Teil 1, Breslau, Korn, 1810. Habbe, Thomas: Lastenausgleich. Die rechtliche Behandlung von Kriegsschäden in Deutschland seit dem 30jährigen Krieg , Frankfurt am Main, PL Acad. Research, 2014. Hatzfeld, Friedrich Heinrich: Prüfung der Grundsätze welche über die Peräquation der Kriegslasten bisher sind aufgestellt worden , Frankfurt am Main, Andreaische Buchhandlung, 1802. Häussler, Matthias: The Herero Genocide , New York, Berghahn, 2020. Häussler, Matthias: ‘“Auf dass wieder Ruhe und Ordnung herrscht”. Proklamationen im deutschen Feldzug gegen die OvaHerero (1904/05)’, in: Historische Zeitschrift , 314 (3), 2022, pp. 599-629. Hecker, Hellmut: ‘Schutzangehörigkeit und Staatsangehörigkeit in Deutschland’, in: Archiv des Völkerrechts , 21, 1983, pp. 433-491. Heilfron, Eduard: Die rechtliche Behandlung der Kriegsschäden , Bd. 1, Mannheim, Bensheimer, 1918. Hofer, Cuno: Der Schadenersatz im Landkriegsrecht , Tübingen, Mohr, 1913. Jähnel, Markus J.: Das Bodenrecht in “Neudeutschland über See”. Erwerb, Vergabe und Nutzung von Land in der Kolonie Deutsch-Südwestafrika 1884–1915 , Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 2009. Jansen, Nils: ‘§§ 249-253, 255 (Schadensrecht)’, in: Mathias Schmoeckel, Joachim Rückert and Reinhard Zimmermann, (eds.): Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum BGB. Band II: Schuldrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. 1. Teilband , Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007, pp. 517-654. Jansen, Nils: ‘Mitverschulden’, in: Albrecht Cordes, Hans-Peter Haferkamp, Heiner Lück, Dieter Werkmüller, Christa Bertelsmeier-Kierst, (eds.): Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte , 2. Aufl., 23. Lieferung, 2016, Sp. 1576-1578. Krüger, Gesine: Kriegsbewältigung und Geschichtsbewusstsein. Realität, Deutung und Verarbeitung des deutschen Kolonialkriegs in Namibia 1904 bis 1907 , Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Kundrus, Birthe: Moderne Imperialisten. Das Kaiserreich im Spiegel seiner Kolonien , Köln, Böhlau, 2003. Neumeyer, Karl: Internationales Verwaltungsrecht. Bd. II: Innere Verwaltung , München, Schweitzer, 1922. Osterhaus, Andreas: Europäischer Terraingewinn in Schwarzafrika. Das Verhältnis von Presse und Verwaltung in sechs Kolonien Deutschlands, Frankreichs und Großbritanniens von 1894 bis 1914, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 1990. 216 Jakob Zollmann Reinhard, Wolfgang: ‘“Sozialimperialismus” oder “Entkolonisierung der Historie”? Kolonialkrise und “Hottentottenwahlen” 1904-1907’, in: Historisches Jahrbuch , 97/98, 1978, pp. 384-417. Rohrbach, Paul: Aus Südwest-Afrikas schweren Tagen. Blätter von Arbeit und Abschied , Berlin, Weicher, 1909. Romer, Sandra: Eine neue Heimat in Südwestafrika? Die Schweizer Auswanderung nach Namibia , Basel, Basler Afrika Bibliographien, 2003. Rothfuss, Anna: Korruption im Kaiserreich. Debatten und Skandale zwischen 1871 und 1914 , Göttingen, V&R unipress, 2019. Rust, Conrad: Krieg und Frieden im Hereroland. Aufzeichnungen aus dem Kriegsjahre 1904 , Leipzig, Kittler, 1905. Semler, Johannes: Meine Beobachtungen in Süd-West-Afrika. Tagebuchnotizen und Schlußfolgerungen , Hamburg, Hermann’s Erben, 1906. Shirvani, Foroud: ‘Entwicklung des Enteignungsrechts vom frühen 19. Jahrhundert bis zur Weimarer Reichsverfassung’, in: Otto Depenheuer, Foroud Shirvani, (eds.): Die Enteignung. Historische, vergleichende, dogmatische und politische Perspektiven , Berlin, Springer, 2018, pp. 25-51. Siefkes, Martin: Sprache, Glaube und Macht. Die Aufzeichnungen des Johannes Spiecker in Deutsch-Südwestafrika zur Zeit des Herero-Nama-Aufstands , Würzburg, Königshausen & Neumann, 2013. Sippel, Harald: ‘Recht und Gerichtsbarkeit’, in: Horst Gründer, Hermann Hiery, (eds.): Die Deutschen und ihre Kolonien. Ein Überblick , Berlin 3 rd ed., be.bra, 2022, pp. 201-221. Sobich, Frank Oliver: “Schwarze Bestien, rote Gefahr”. Rassismus und Antisozialismus im deutschen Kaiserreich , Frankfurt am Main, Campus, 2006. Stolleis, Michael: Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland , vol 2, München, Beck, 1992. Weber, Otto von: Geschichte des Schutzgebietes Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika , Windhoek, S.W.A. Wiss. Ges., 1985. Westlake, John: ‘Belligerent Rights at Sea’, in Almá Latifi: Effects of War on Property, being Studies in International Law and Policy , London, Macmillan, 1909. Zollmann. Jakob: ‘Becoming a Christian, becoming a Troublemaker. The rise and fall of Franz Hoesemab of Windhoek, 1893 to 1933’, in: Ulrich van der Heyden, Helge Wendt, (eds.): Mission und dekoloniale Perspektive. Der Erste Weltkrieg als Auslöser eines globalen Prozesses , Stuttgart, Steiner, 2020, pp. 307-322. Zollmann, Jakob: Koloniale Herrschaft und ihre Grenzen. Die Kolonialpolizei in Deutsch-Südwestafrika 1894-1915 , Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. A Arrcchhiivvaall ssoouurrcceess National Archives of Namibia (NAN): BWI 36; BOM 34; ZBU 694; ZBU 2365 Bundesarchiv Berlin-Lichterfelde (BAB): R 1001/2219; R 8023/880 Bundesarchiv Koblenz (BAK), Nachlass Paul Rohrbach N 1408 Sächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Dresden (SHStA), 11248/Nr.7676 German Compensation Payments, 1904-1914 217 NNeewwssppaappeerrss aanndd mmaaggaazziinneess Deutsch Südwestafrikanische Zeitung Stenographische Berichte des Reichstags (StBR) Deutsche Kolonialzeitung OOnnlliinnee ssoouurrcceess ‘Über die Ursachen des Herero-Aufstandes’, in: Freiburger Zeitung , 20.08.1904, p. 1, https://www.freiburg-postkolonial.de/Seiten/FreiburgerZeitung1904-08-20.htm van der Heyden, Ulrich: ‘Kolonialkrieg und deutsche Innenpolitik. Die Reichstagswahlen von 1907’, freiburg-postkolonial.de, https://www.freiburgpostkolonial.de/Seiten/Heyden-Reichstagswahlen1907.htm Zollmann, Jakob: ‘Mixed Arbitral Tribunals (post-World War I peace treaties)’, in: Hélène Ruiz Fabri. (ed.): Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law , Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2023, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/lawmpeipro/e3355.013.3355/law-mpeipro-e3355 . 216 Jakob Zollmann Reinhard, Wolfgang: ‘“Sozialimperialismus” oder “Entkolonisierung der Historie”? Kolonialkrise und “Hottentottenwahlen” 1904-1907’, in: Historisches Jahrbuch , 97/98, 1978, pp. 384-417. Rohrbach, Paul: Aus Südwest-Afrikas schweren Tagen. Blätter von Arbeit und Abschied , Berlin, Weicher, 1909. Romer, Sandra: Eine neue Heimat in Südwestafrika? Die Schweizer Auswanderung nach Namibia , Basel, Basler Afrika Bibliographien, 2003. Rothfuss, Anna: Korruption im Kaiserreich. Debatten und Skandale zwischen 1871 und 1914 , Göttingen, V&R unipress, 2019. Rust, Conrad: Krieg und Frieden im Hereroland. Aufzeichnungen aus dem Kriegsjahre 1904 , Leipzig, Kittler, 1905. Semler, Johannes: Meine Beobachtungen in Süd-West-Afrika. Tagebuchnotizen und Schlußfolgerungen , Hamburg, Hermann’s Erben, 1906. Shirvani, Foroud: ‘Entwicklung des Enteignungsrechts vom frühen 19. Jahrhundert bis zur Weimarer Reichsverfassung’, in: Otto Depenheuer, Foroud Shirvani, (eds.): Die Enteignung. Historische, vergleichende, dogmatische und politische Perspektiven , Berlin, Springer, 2018, pp. 25-51. Siefkes, Martin: Sprache, Glaube und Macht. Die Aufzeichnungen des Johannes Spiecker in Deutsch-Südwestafrika zur Zeit des Herero-Nama-Aufstands , Würzburg, Königshausen & Neumann, 2013. Sippel, Harald: ‘Recht und Gerichtsbarkeit’, in: Horst Gründer, Hermann Hiery, (eds.): Die Deutschen und ihre Kolonien. Ein Überblick , Berlin 3 rd ed., be.bra, 2022, pp. 201-221. Sobich, Frank Oliver: “Schwarze Bestien, rote Gefahr”. Rassismus und Antisozialismus im deutschen Kaiserreich , Frankfurt am Main, Campus, 2006. Stolleis, Michael: Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland , vol 2, München, Beck, 1992. Weber, Otto von: Geschichte des Schutzgebietes Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika , Windhoek, S.W.A. Wiss. Ges., 1985. Westlake, John: ‘Belligerent Rights at Sea’, in Almá Latifi: Effects of War on Property, being Studies in International Law and Policy , London, Macmillan, 1909. Zollmann. Jakob: ‘Becoming a Christian, becoming a Troublemaker. The rise and fall of Franz Hoesemab of Windhoek, 1893 to 1933’, in: Ulrich van der Heyden, Helge Wendt, (eds.): Mission und dekoloniale Perspektive. Der Erste Weltkrieg als Auslöser eines globalen Prozesses , Stuttgart, Steiner, 2020, pp. 307-322. Zollmann, Jakob: Koloniale Herrschaft und ihre Grenzen. Die Kolonialpolizei in Deutsch-Südwestafrika 1894-1915 , Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. AArrcchhiivvaall ssoouurrcceess National Archives of Namibia (NAN): BWI 36; BOM 34; ZBU 694; ZBU 2365 Bundesarchiv Berlin-Lichterfelde (BAB): R 1001/2219; R 8023/880 Bundesarchiv Koblenz (BAK), Nachlass Paul Rohrbach N 1408 Sächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Dresden (SHStA), 11248/Nr.7676 German Compensation Payments, 1904-1914 217 NNeewwssppaappeerrss aanndd mmaaggaazziinneess Deutsch Südwestafrikanische Zeitung Stenographische Berichte des Reichstags (StBR) Deutsche Kolonialzeitung OOnnlliinnee ssoouurrcceess ‘Über die Ursachen des Herero-Aufstandes’, in: Freiburger Zeitung , 20.08.1904, p. 1, https://www.freiburg-postkolonial.de/Seiten/FreiburgerZeitung1904-08-20.htm van der Heyden, Ulrich: ‘Kolonialkrieg und deutsche Innenpolitik. Die Reichstagswahlen von 1907’, freiburg-postkolonial.de, https://www.freiburgpostkolonial.de/Seiten/Heyden-Reichstagswahlen1907.htm Zollmann, Jakob: ‘Mixed Arbitral Tribunals (post-World War I peace treaties)’, in: Hélène Ruiz Fabri. (ed.): Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law , Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2023, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/lawmpeipro/e3355.013.3355/law-mpeipro-e3355 .