Lemkin on Genocide 0739145266, 9780739145265

Citation preview

LEMKIN ON GENOCIDE WRITTEN

BY RAPHAEL

LEMKIN

EDITED AND INTRODUCED BY preven LEONARD JACOBS

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2023 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/lemkinongenocideO000lemk

Lemkin on Genocide

Lemkin on Genocide

Written by Raphael Lemkin Edited and Introduced by Steven Leonard Jacobs

LEXINGTON BOOKS Lanham ¢ Boulder * New York ¢ Toronto ¢ Plymouth, UK

Published by Lexington Books A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littiefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706

www.rowman.com 10 Thornbury Road, Plymouth PL6 7PP, United Kingdom Copyright © 2012 by Lexington Books

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Lemkin, Raphael, 1900-1959. Lemkin on genocide / Raphael Lemkin ; introduction by Steven L. Jacobs ; edited by Steven L. Jacobs. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7391-4526-5 (cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-0-739 1-4528-9 (electronic) 1. Genocide—History. 2. Genocide—Religious aspects—History. 3. Genocide—Political aspects—History. 4. Genocide—Social aspects— History. 5. Ethnic violence. I. Jacobs, Steven L. II. Title. HV6322.7.L46 2011 364.15'109—dce23 2011029229 ™M

Re se oe : The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America

Contents

Lemkin on Genocide: An Introduction

Vil

Steven Leonard Jacobs

PART I: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF GENOCIDE Raphael Lemkin

The Project

3

PART Ii: HISTORY OF GENOCIDE Raphael Lemkin

Volume 1: Antiquity

1

The Albigensians

59

2

Assyrians

83

Volume 2: Middle Ages 7

Mongols

103

8

Moors and Moriscos

itea

Volume 3: Modern Times

1.

The Germans in Africa

189

2

Assyrians in Iraq . . . Christians

223

6

Chios

261

Contents

vi

11

Hereros

267

14

Huguenots

219

15

The Case of Hungary

3 157

19

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries

343

20

The Case of Poland

Sh

28

The Case of the Spanish in the Peru of the Incas

BM)

Index

403

About the Editor

415

Lemkin on Genocide An Introduction

More and more, Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959) is being acknowledged and recognized for his seminal contributions not only to international law—motivating presence behind the (1948) United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide—but to the academic study of genocide as well. Somewhat ironically, his major writings on genocide—with the notable exception of his 1944 masterwork Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; reprint Clark: The Law Book Exchange, 2005)—and

my own edited (and recently reprinted) text Raphael Lemkin’s Thoughts on Nazi Genocide: Not Guilty? (Jacksonville: Bloch Publishing Company, 2010)—were largely unpublished during his lifetime and have remained so for more than fifty years.' Until now. Given the genocidal tragedies of Bosnia (1992-1995), Rwanda (1994), Darfur (2003—present)—as well

as the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide—Lemkin and his writings have become somewhat au courant. Why so? The emerging field of genocide studies, cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary, arises out ofthe field of studying the Holocaust (1939—1945)}—perhaps the most well-known and well-documented genocide; and seconded only by the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1917. Many of those regarded as its pioneers—Leo Kuper (1908-1994), Israel _1. See, for example, Steven L. Jacobs (1999), “The Papers of Raphael Lemkin: A First Look,”

Journal of Genocide Research, \(1): 105-114. The rejection of his writings is best encapsulated in the comment by Charles A. Pearce of Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, Inc., regarding the nonpublication of Lemkin’s proposed three-volume History of Genocide—l. Antiquity, Il. Middle Ages, III. Modern Times: “It would not be possible to find a large enough audience of buyers for a book of this nature”

(109).

Viii

Lemkin on Genocide

Charny (b. 1930), Helen Fein (b. 1934), among others—owe much of their own work and thinking not only to scholars of the Holocaust but to having been alive during those years, and having been personally and professionally affected by those events as well.” Lemkin himself falls into this same category. Born in rural Bezwodene, Poland, in 1900, Lemkin was something of a precocious child who benefited greatly from his mother Bella, whose own bent was both intellectual and literary, and who encouraged her three sons (Raphael, Samuel, and Elias) in these pursuits as well as the mastery of other languages. In his own still-unpublished autobiography Unofficial Man, Lemkin writes of a rather idyllic childhood on the family farm where he played not only with his cousins but with the non-Jewish children of the farm hands as well, yet at times going off on his own to think his own private thoughts.? Sometime during his teenage years, he does not tell us when, he read the novel Quo Vadis by the Polish Nobel Prize laureate Henryk Sienkiewicz (1846-1916) telling the horrific story of

Roman Emperor Nero’s (37-68) near annihilation of the early Christians. Frustrated and perplexed by the lack of police responses to the tragedy, Lemkin began a lifelong study of the state-endorsed collective murders of other groups (Armenians, Huguenots, Jews, etc.), and propelling him toward a career in law in the belief that only through legal enactments, ultimately on an international level, could such momentous and monumental tragedies be averted.‘ World War II and the Holocaust interrupted his successful career as an attorney in Warsaw, causing him to flee for his own safety and ultimately arriving in the United States in 1941, never to see his own family again, other than his one surviving brother Elias and his family who had immigrated to Montreal, Canada. Forty-nine members of Lemkin’s family were murdered during the years 1939-1945, including his parents Joseph and Bella and his brother Samuel. His journey in America saw him teaching law at both Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, 2. See Samuel Totten and Steven Leonard Jacobs, eds., Pioneers of Genocide Studies (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2002) for a series of academically autobiographical essays by

the above persons and others who have truly laid the foundations for much of the present work being done today. 3. For an edited excerpt of that text, see Raphael Lemkin (2002), “Totally Unofficial Man,” in Totten and Jacobs, Pioneers of Genocide Studies, 365-399. 4. Steven Leonard Jacobs (2002), “Genesis of the Concept of Genocide According to Its Author

from the Original Sources,” Human Rights Review, 3(3): 98-103.

Lemkin on Genocide

1X

serving as advisor to Justice Robert H. Jackson (1882-1954) at the Inter-

national Military Tribunal/Nuremberg War Crimes Trials of the top Nazi leaders (1945-1946), but, ultimately, devoting his energies and skills to helping to secure the passage of the UN Genocide Convention in 1948. The remaining years of his life, already in declining health, saw him tirelessly but unsuccessfully urging the ratification of the Convention by his adopted country. He died August 28, 1959, in the office of his publicist in New York City; only seven people attended his funeral. At heart, Lemkin was a scholar and intellectual with a strong pragmatic vent; his “dual nature” is reflected throughout his writings. He enjoyed his teaching, his students, and his limited academic career at both Duke

and Yale Universities. Yet his all-consuming passion to see the Genocide Convention become not only the “law of the land” (i.e., the United States) but the “law of the world” as well drove him out of the classroom and into an almost monomaniacal haunting of the corridors of the United Nations, writing letters in a multitude of languages urging ratification (he successfully mastered somewhere between eleven and sixteen), writing articles both academic and popular, speeches, newspaper opinion pieces, and giving numerous talks to many different kinds of groups, all directed toward successful passage of this legislation. His legacy, now universally acknowledged, is the Genocide Convention itself.

Yet this pragmatic side of his work is, beyond question, not the whole story. His writings reflect a carefully thought out conceptualization already at work in the early 1930s when he unsuccessfully attempted to present his ideas to the League of Nations conference in Madrid, Spain, drawing an important critical distinction between barbarism (“crimes against persons and groups”) and vandalism (“crimes against cultures and their creative products”).° The present work is divided, if somewhat

unevenly, into two parts:

(1) Lemkin’s unpublished /ntroduction to the Study of Genocide; and (2)

5. The story of this “combat” for ratification of the Convention by the United States as well as Lemkin’s involvement is found in Lawrence J. LeBlanc, The United States and the Genocide Conven-

tion (Durham: Duke University Press, 1991); and John Cooper, Raphael Lemkin and the Struggle for the Genocide Convention (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). 6. Though he sent his manuscript ahead and it was read before those in attendance, though not acted upon, he himself was prevented from attending by officials in the governmental office in Warsaw where he was employed as an assistant prosecutor, in collusion with the overtly anti-Semitic Warsaw Gazette which regarded his concerns as too parochially Jewish to be of relevance to a wider community, and influenced as well by the growing tensions between Poland and the newly established government of Nazi Germany.

x

Lemkin on Genocide

chapters from his proposed never-published and incomplete History of Genocide: I Antiquity, II Middle Ages, III Modern Times. With regard to the former, whether it was to constitute a separate monograph or a quitelengthy introduction to Lemkin’s History of Genocide is impossible to fully determine one way or the other from his papers and his writings. With regard to the latter, however, there is no question that Lemkin intended to return to this project after a successful campaign to ensure United States ratification of the Genocide Convention. His premature death at the age of fifty-nine prevented him from doing so. As noted previously: only Chapters 1 and 2 of Volume I have surfaced [out of a proposed nine chapters]; only Chapters 7 and 8 of Volume II [out of a proposed thirteen chapters]; and only Chapters 1, 2, 6, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, and 28 of Volume

III [out of a proposed forty-one chapters].’ Thus, only thirteen chapters out of a proposed sixty-three chapters were completed, or a little more than 20 percent.®

INTRODUCTION

TO THE STUDY OF GENOCIDE

The breadth of Lemkin’s concerns about bringing the concept of genocide to an academically and intellectually sophisticated reading audience is apparent not only from the two outlines but from the materials themselves: linguistics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, law, history, political science, demography, cultural studies, all have a seat at Lemkin’s table. After briefly introducing these various arenas, Lemkin begins his text (part I, chapter 1) with a lengthy discussion (fourteen subsections) of the ways in which and the rationales behind the ways new words are created, echoing his own earlier discussion in chapter 9 of Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.’ From this introduction come lengthier discussions of genocide within the contexts of social and individual psychology, sociology, an7. Steven L. Jacobs (1999), “The Papers of Raphael Lemkin: A First Look,” Journal of Genocide Research, \(1): 111.

8. Interestingly enough, among his papers are materials for five additional “case studies,” none of which are incorporated into the original or subsequent outlines for his History of Genocide: (1) Ceylon in the sixteenth century (six pages), (2) Lusatians (7 pages), (3) Mormons (14 pages), (4) Neth-

erlands (42 pages); and (5) Teutonic Knights and Prussian Pagans (9 pages). Whether or not Lemkin

intended to include these additional writings in the collection or as separate studies is impossible to determine. No additionai information regards these texts has been discovered. 9. Raphael Lemkin (1944), Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, 79-82.

Lemkin on Genocide

xi

thropology, economics, and law. In each of these sections are, quite apparently, summaries of the best thinking about these topics, reflecting his own wide- and far-ranging reading and his refocusing of these disciplines with regard to genocide. What is missing, however, even after identifying them in the initial pages of the text, are discussions of genocide in history, political science, demography, and cultural studies; thus, again, leading us to the conclusion that this text, too, is an incomplete text. This

is confirmed by the opening sentence “I intend to write a book under the title ‘Introduction to the Study of Genocide.’”!° Thus, what we have is a rather lengthier than normal proposal for a book project directed toward an unknown publisher, complete with budget ($16,500.00) and relevant items from his curriculum vitae (offices held and publications). Given his own overly optimistic estimate of the time it would take him to complete this project—‘It is estimated that the manuscript will be completed within one year.”—and the intense commitments he made in working toward the ratification of the Genocide Convention by the United States, it was to be worked on in whatever “free time” he was able to steal away from those commitments, and possibly also completed after ratification. Sadly, that was not to happen.'! Relevant to his /ntroduction to the Study of Genocide and upon which he most assuredly drew was the already-noted chapter 9 of his 1944 tome Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Entitled simply “Genocide,” and consisting of only seventeen pages, it was certainly not the centerpiece of his text of 674 pages. Yet its own outline is well reflected in the /ntroduction: Genocide—A New Term and New Conception for Destruction of Nations Techniques of Genocide in Various Fields Political Social Cultural Economic Biological Physical Racial Discrimination in Feeding

10. Emphasis not in original —SLJ 11. That both of his outlines to /ntroduction include discussions of the Genocide Convention leads us to date both the proposal and the writing sometime after December, 1948 (its passage), though more than this we cannot say with any definitive determination.

xii

Lemkin on Genocide

Endangering of Health Mass Killings Religious Moral Recommendations for the Future Prohibition of Genocide in War and Peace International Control of Occupation Practices

HISTORY OF GENOCIDE— I: ANTIQUITY, II: MIDDLE AGES, III: MODERN

TIMES

If Introduction to the Study of Genocide was to be a “stand alone” text, then so be it. However, another possibility suggests itself, based on the evidence that no introduction whatsoever to this three-volume text has surfaced: And that is that, comprising less than seventy pages of text, Lemkin himself may have rethought his own project and planned to use this material as the “Introduction” to this larger project. Lemkin had already concluded that all of the following constituted genocide, based largely on the already-passed UN Genocide Convention, addressing “national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.””? It only remained to marshal the historical evidence and present it to his readers. Turning directly to the chapters of History of Genocide included in this volume, they follow a definitive pattern: They begin with historical background, address directly the specific role of the genocidists— Lemkin’s preferred term for the perpetrators of genocide—and also address the role of those outside the locales where genocide took place. Some of the chapters are fully documented and a bibliography of sources consulted is included; others are lacking either full documentation and/ or relevant bibliographies. (One should assume that these were to be included prior to submission of the final manuscript; Lemkin was far too thorough a scholar to allow for such blatant omissions.) Additionally, one

12. As we now know from his papers as well as other materials, Lemkin also included political groups in his thinking, but was evidently more than willing to see such groups dropped from the final text in exchange for its passage. The sixty-three chapters of History of Genocide do not address political groups as such; whether his own final comments in the individual chapters both written and unwritten would have addressed such we will never know.

Lemkin on Genocide

xiii

chapter as noted was clearly the work of a researcher who was somewhat apologetic for her failure to be inclusive in her coverage of available sources. Whether this was in fact the way in which this book project proceeded, with Lemkin serving as overall editor and copyeditor and not doing the original research himself is fully impossible to determine from the available materials. Given his linguistic expertise and mastery, this seems highly unlikely, and the most logical conclusion is a combination of both: researchers and writers whom he does not cite, and his own research and

writing into one final manuscript upon which he would put his own name. Because, definitively, there is no agreed-upon Introduction, it is quite possible that, had there been one, he would have included those involved in

bringing this project to fruition. It must also be apparent to the reader, that, given the overall outline of the chapters to be included in each volume—Antiquity, Middle Ages, Modern Times—the presentation of the various chapters is historically organized. Given Lemkin’s understanding of genocide as a “new term for an old crime,” his effort was to inform his readers that genocide as an historical practice of the human race worldwide was nothing new but has been with us since the dawning of civilizations. Given Lemkin’s preoccupation toward the end of his life with working tirelessly but unsuccessfully toward insuring the ratification of the Genocide Convention by the United States, one cannot help but wonder whether History of Genocide was to also play a political role in the overall process by acquainting his American English-speaking readers with these various genocides not only by their publication but by the reviews which were sure to follow. Given Lemkin’s own seeming mastery of the media in its various manifestations—television, radio, speeches, articles

both scholarly and popular—its does seem likely that Lemkin would have “exploited” his published text in the service of his political agenda, while also enjoying the pleasure and accolades resulting from a solid scholarly and intellectually sophisticated publication. Tragically, given Lemkin’s too-early demise in 1959, History of Genocide prevents us with a tantalizing but incomplete picture of the world that Lemkin wanted to draw. As the “father of genocide studies,” Raphael Lemkin opened the door to all of the work that has been done since and that has yet to be done, both historical and contemporary. The case studies that he addressed have been further explored as evidenced by the updated bibliographies appended to several of the chapters; the ones which were

XiV

Lemkin on Genocide

never written by him or his band of researchers have also been addressed as more genocidal case studies continue to see the light of day. The study of the world’s genocides continues to be in its infancy. One can only hope that the parent who brought all this important work into the forefront of human consciousness was prescient enough to know something of the ultimate if slowly developing fruits of his labors.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Heartfelt appreciation is extended to the 42nd Street Public Library, New York, New York; the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio; and the American Jewish Historical Society, New York, New York; not only

for their permission to assemble the various parts of these unpublished manuscripts, but also for their ongoing support of this project. Steven Leonard Jacobs Tuscaloosa, Alabama December 31, 2011

Part I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF GENOCIDE Raphael Lemkin

The Project

INTRODUCTION TO GENOCIDE

(A) Description of the Project 1 intend to write a book under the title “Introduction to the Study of Genocide.” This book will deal with international and comparative law aspects of this crime. Moreover, the particular acts of genocide will be illustrated by historical examples from Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and Modern Times. These examples are necessary not only to prove that genocide has always existed in history, but also to explain the practicality of the Genocide Convention which up to now has to be ratified by the parliament of fifty-two nations.' The influence of the crime of genocide on culture will be examined, because when a nation or a group is destroyed it is prevented from making cultural contributions. The philosophy of the Genocide Convention is based on the formula of the human cosmos. This cosmos consists of four basic groups: national, racial, religious, and ethnic.? The groups are protected not only by reasons of human compassion but also to prevent draining the spiritual resources of [huJmankind.

1. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was ratified by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. Lemkin, as he writes in his (as yet unpublished) autobiography Unofficial Man, broke down and wept after its ratification. 2. As is now fully well known, Lemkin, in his originally submitted drafts of theGenocide Conven-

tion included a fifth group—political. But the machinations of the Soviet Union at that time, which threatened to block its ratification, saw Lemkin and the United Nations Economic and Social Council bow to pressure in order to secure its ratification. See, for example, John Cooper, Raphael Lemkin and the Struggle for the Genocide Convention (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008); and Lawrence J. Leblanc, The United States and the Genocide Convention (Durham: Duke University Press, 1991).

3

4

The Project

The etiology and the reasons motivating the crime of genocide in different periods of history and in different cultures will be examined. The research will deal also with matters of psychology, economics, political science, and cultural anthropology, the latter playing a great part in cases where genocide can be explained as resulting from a cultural conflict. The term “genocide” and its influence both as containing elements of a moral judgment and as signifying progress in the social sciences will be analyzed. The history of the concept of genocide and of the Genocide Convention will be included. The moral prevention force of the Genocide Convention will be studied. The method of research is based on the premise that genocide is an organic concept of multiple influences and consequences. Therefore, the examination of the problem is not limited to one branch of science, but claims the support of many. The formulation of the concept being new, it was necessary to examine it on a possibly large and varied basis of history and civilizations. Although every period of history must be judged according to its own moral standards, it was necessary to use as a point of departure for objective research the definition of genocide provided by the Genocide Convention, inasmuch as this definition is based on historical examples.* The applicant used a variety of materials: the minutes of the drafting sessions relating to the Genocide Convention, discussions in parliaments

including messages of governments to their legislatures in matters of ratification, domestic laws on genocide, private correspondence of the appli3. Chapter 9 of Lemkin’s magnum opus Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944, 644 pages)—“Genocide” (79-95)—still remains the best exposition of his understanding of both concept and term. All of Lemkin’s subsequent writings on genocide are based upon this text. 4. Article I: The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Article III: The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.

The Project

5

cant with ministries of foreign affairs of participating countries, literature pertaining to international, constitutional, and comparative

law and to

criminology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology.° As the research is not finished [NB: Lemkin died in 1959], it is difficult to give at this time the exact nature of the expected results. However, it can already be stated that in a general and nonexhaustive way, that the book will prove that genocide followed humanity throughout history and that the last centuries have been particularly abundant in genocide cases. One of the basic reasons for genocide is a conflict of cultures as it appeared for example in the encounter between migrating nomadic societies and sedentary ones. Also this conflict was particularly violent when the ideas of the absolute appeared in the course of the encounter of various religions.® The economic and political expectations which were attached to the annihilation of a group worked always as a generating force of genocide. Also colonialism cannot be left without blame.’ The basic difficulty consists in the fact that the standards of conduct between individuals disappear in relations between one group and another. A degree of civilization by itself cannot be taken for granted as remedy against genocide. A certain help can be provided by international law appealing both to the feeling of shame and to the tendency to conform, even outwardly, to established standards.

It is expected that the manuscript will be completed within one year. No special travels are required with the exception of several trips to the Library of Congress to examine certain edicts of Chinese Emperors relating to the destruction of Buddhist sects. Although the applicant reads in twelve languages, he does not understand Chinese and will have to pay for translations of a limited number of Chinese texts already identified by the applicant.’

5. See Steven L. Jacobs (1999), “The papers of Raphael Lemkin: A first look,” Journal of Genocide Research, \(1): 105-114, gathered from three archival sites: 42nd Street Public Library, NY; American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, OH; and American Jewish Historical Society Archives, for-

merly on the campus of Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, and presently at the Center for Jewish History, NY. 6. On this point, see, for example, see Steven Leonard Jacobs, ed., Confronting Genocide: Juda-

ism, Christianity, Islam (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2009). 7. See, for example, the edited collections of Dirk Moses, Senior Lecturer in History, The Uni-

versity of Sydney, Australia: Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation and Subaltern Resistance in World History (New York: Berghahn Books, 2008); Colonialism and Genocide (London: Routledge, 2007), (with Dan Stone); Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Aboriginal Children in Australian History (New York: Berghahn Books, 2004). 8. Lemkin’s untimely death at age fifty-nine precludes any final assessment that this manuscript

was complete. Nowhere in his voluminous files of correspondence is there any indication whatsoever that either his proposal and/or sample chapters were submitted to a particular publisher. As was noted in Jacobs (1999), he was turned down numerous times with regard to other submissions.

6

The Project

(B) Summary of Progress As to the progress already made, the applicant wishes to stress that he has examined and even partially written up nine cases of genocide in Antiquity (Canaanites, Assyrians, Egypt, Greece, Celts, Carthage, Early Christians, Pagans, Gaul), twelve in the Middle Ages (Goths, Huns,

Vandals, Vikings, Charlemagne, Albigenses, Valdenses, England, Jews, Mongols, Moors, the French in Sicily), and forty-one cases in Modern Times.’ The plan of the book is already elaborated and two chapters have been written in the first draft. The applicant wishes to mention a closely related work of his called “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe” published in 1944, in which the term genocide was coined by him. (C) Financial Estimates [NB: Mislettered in the manuscript as (D)] As to the financial requirements, the following expenses are foreseen: Research Assistant

Subsistence for myself'® Travel, Translations from Chinese, and various smaller expenses Typing Working materials

$5,200

10,000 500 1,000 250 $16,950

(D) Offices Held

[NB: Mislettered in the manuscript as (E)]

1956-1957

Professor of International Law at Rutgers University Law School, Newark, New Jersey. Salary: $12,000 a year.

9. Collectively, these cases were to become the core of his three-volume History of Genocide: I. Antiquity, Il. Middle Ages, III. Modern Times, which was never completed. 10. To the time of his death, after his return to the United States following his advising to U.S.

Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954)), Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg War

Crimes Trials, International Military Tribunal (November 14, 1945—October 1, 1946) at the close of

World War II, Lemkin was chronically short of funds and always looking for ways to increase his income and pay off his indebtedness.

The Project

1948-1951

1947 1945-1947

1942-1944

7

Visiting Lecturer with the rank of Full Professor, Yale University Law School, New Haven, Connecticut. (Paid by grants.) Consultant on International Criminal Law to the Secretary General of the United Nations. Adviser on Foreign Affairs, USA War Department (including assignment to the Nuremberg Trials). Salary: $7,500 a year. Chief Consultant, Board of Economic Warfare and Foreign Economic Administration, Washington, D.C. Salary: $25 a day.

1941-1942

Lecturer,

1940-194]

Stockholm University, Visiting Lecturer, Stockholm, Swe-

1929-1939

Professor of Family Law at Techkomi

1934-1939 1930-1932

General Practice of Law, Warsaw, Poland.

Duke

University

Law

School,

Durham,

North

Carolina. Salary: (Paid by grant.) den. College, Warsaw,

Poland. Secretary of the Committee for Codification of Laws of The Republic of Poland.

Please consult Jnternational Who’s Who—under Lemkin.'! Also Wilson’s

Bibliography—under same name. (The offices in Poland were held simultaneously.)

(E) Publications

[Mislettered in manuscript as (F)] Only the more pertinent publications are mentioned below: 1. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe—published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C., 1944.

2. Clearing and Exchange Controls—published in 1941 by Norsted in _ Stockholm, Sweden. This book contains the author’s lectures at Stock-

holm University. 11. Typing conventions at the time of Lemkin’s writings required underlining of all texts. Today, with the aid of the computer, the norm is italicizing titles; and this latter convention is followed throughout.

8

The Project

3. The Regulation of International Payments—{in

French)—published

by Pedons, Paris, 1939-1940.

4. The Polish Penal Code—published by Duke University Press in 1939, together with Professor Malcolm McDermott, Durham, North Carolina. 5. The Polish Penal-Fiscal Law—three editions, 1931, 1932, and 1937—

published by Hoesick and by Ksiegarnia Powszechna, Warsaw, Poland. 6. The Penal Judge Faced by Criminal Law and Criminology—published by Hoesick, Warsaw, Poland, 1933.

7. A two-volume commentary on the Polish Penal Code—published together with the Justices of the Supreme Court of Poland—Jamontt and Rappaport—published by Hoesick in 1932, Warsaw, Poland. 8. Acts Constituting a Common Danger as International Crimes—(in French}—Published by Pedons, Paris, 1933. (This is a report submitted to the International Bureau for Unification of Criminal Law which worked in cooperation with the League of Nations.) This report contained a proposal for outlawing, under the name of crimes of vandalism and barbarity, the same acts which the author succeeded in having outlawed later by the United Nations." The author has also published articles in Law and Contemporary Problems—1942-1944, publication of Duke University; in The International Review of Penal Law in Paris; in The Review of Criminology in Belgium; and in Italian reviews devoted to Criminal Law and Criminology as well as in Polish and Austrian reviews. KEK

KX

A. SCOPE OF THE PROJECT The project endeavors to explain the phenomenon of the destruction of certain human groups through research in history. An endeavor is made 12. In 1933, Lemkin was fully prepared to present his case for an international law outlining vandalism (crimes against cultures) and barbarity (crimes against persons and groups) to the League of Nations meeting in Madrid, Spain, but was prevented from doing so by his superiors in the Polish

government in Warsaw. At the same time, the anti-Semitic Warsaw Gazette ran a series of editorials arguing that Lemkin’s arguments were essentially those of a “Jewish issue.” Though Lemkin failed to appear, he had sent the paper ahead, and though it was read, it did not gather the necessary support to proceed further. He would later merge these two concepts of vandalism and barbarity into one, that of genocide.

The Project

9

to cover all the known cases of genocide in antiquity, middle ages, and modern times. These are projected against the general background of the two groups involved (penalizing and victim groups). The significance of genocide is also examined in relation to the development ofcivilization in a given area and time. The groups involved are: national, racial, ethnical, and religious.'’ These are and have been the basic groups of [hu]mankind which have contributed to world civilization through their own cultures. These contributions have been the cause of cultural conflicts in intolerant societies both in domestic and international dimensions. The destruction of these groups has caused irretrievable losses because culture by its very nature can be neither restored nor duplicated.

B. IMPORTANCE

OF THE PROJECT

1. The Science of History The project permits an introduction of a new element into the study of history—the genos (group) as a source of cultural creation, tension, and conflict. It permits an investigation of the genocentric elements in history which are sometimes even more determinative than the elements of the state and empire. For example the collective personalities of the tribes in Gaul were of decisive consequence in the struggle between the Hunic Empire and the Western Roman Empire.

2. Political Science and Sociology The application of political power to human groups with a genocidal intent and result presents a promising field of investigation as an example of degeneration of such power. The selection of a human group as a scapegoat for political failure of other groups and governments is another case in point (scapegoatism). The investigation of the motivation behind the social forces leading to genocide is of considerable interest. Also of interest is the development of political and social forces for the prevention of genocide through direct connections with public opinion and other avenues of the conscience of society. The destruction of those parts of nations which provide the forces of cohesion and cultural inspiration to the entire 13. See note 2 above.

10

The Project

nation can best be understood in terms of examples of the period—[e.g.,] the “White Mountain” of Bohemia—and the destruction of the national elites in the present so-called satellite countries."*

3. Demography The decimations of populations from the time of the Assyrian kings until the present was sometimes so great that special authorities had to be established to repopulate the area concerned. Genocide was often used in war, when defeat was inevitable, as a population device so that consequently power inherent in larger populations could be won even though the war was lost. A population policy which so many times in history expressed itself in [the] deliberate creation of conditions of life which led to the gradual disintegration of health and mass death explains some demographic changes in large areas of the world. Genocide engenders flight of the surviving populations to safety in other lands. Mass migrations of populations thus change the demographic picture of the world.

4. International Law and Relations

The history of genocide provides examples of the awakening of humanitarian feelings which gradually have been crystallized in formulas of international law. The awakening of world conscience is traced to the times when the world community took an affirmative stand to protect human groups from extinction. Bartolome de las Casas [1484-1566], Vittoria [?], and humanitarian interventions, are all links in one chain leading to the proclamation of genocide as an international crime by the United Nations. In this evolution, history was also made by John Hay [1830-1905], the American Secretary of State, who in 1902 instructed the American minister to Romania to protest against massacres in the following words: “This 14. See, for example, the work of Herbert Hirsch: Genocide and the Politics of Memory: Studying Death to Preserve Life (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995); and Anti-Genocide: Building an American Movement to Prevent Genocide (Westport: Praeger, 2002). Other important

political scientists weighing in on the issue of genocide include Barbara Harff, the late Kurt Jonassohn, Robert Melson, R. J. Rummel, Roger Smith, and Colin Tatz. Important sociologists include Helen Fein, Vahakn N. Dadrian, the late Eric Markusen, and Irving Louis Horowitz, whose work

Taking Lives: Genocide and State Power (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1982) has been republished several times and remains an important contribution to this work.

The Project

1]

country (America) cannot be a silent party to an international wrong.” The contributions of history were necessary to transform a precept of morality into a rule of international law. This project traces and analyzes the different stages of this evolution.

5. Economics

The project stresses the significance of economic factors as motivating forces in the destruction of human groups throughout history. For example the search and pillage of metals by the Egyptians who could not procure these materials through trade because of restrictions for reasons of xenophobia. The destruction of Carthage becomes understandable in the light of the economic competition between the latter and Rome. Genocide of the Jews in the Middle Ages and in Modern Times in certain countries displays an intimate connection with economic factors. The project will

show that the Genocidal destruction of certain minorities has caused a decline of international trade. There are examples in history of total changes of the economic structures of countries where Genocide was practiced. Here is a new angle (aspect) of economic research which to the knowledge of the author has never been fully investigated.

6. Psychology The project permits an investigation of the psychological reactions within three areas: the victimized group; the genocidists; the outside world. The investigation of psychological factors permits the evaluation of the material especially in the field of social psychology.'* Intolerance 15. Inrecent years, a number of social and other scholars of psychology have addressed the horrors

of genocide. Among the most important of these texts are the following: Philip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (New York: Random House, 2007); Richard M. Lerner, Final Solutions: Biology, Prejudice, and Genocide (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992); Donald G. Dutton, The Psychology of Genocide, Massacres, and Extreme Violence: Why “Normal” People Come to Commit Atrocities (Westport: Praeger Security International, 2007); Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber, eds., Understanding Genocide: The Social Psychology of the Holocaust (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Robert J. Lifton and Eric Markusen, The Genocidal Mentality: Nazi Holocaust and Nuclear Threat (New York: Basic Books,

1990); James Waller, Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Steven James Bartlett, The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil (Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 2005). Also relevant, though not written by scholars of psychology are David Livingston Smith, The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the

12

The Project

and xenophobia, religious fanaticism, racial hatred, sadism, cultural ex-

clusiveness, and other psychological factors make themselves evident in the history of genocide.

7. The Study of Cultural Changes and Losses Basic changes have occurred in societies through the gradual disintegration of cultures and through the cultural exhaustion of various societies. Because the changes were gradual they were hardly noticeable within one or two generations. However, surgical operations on cultures and [the] deliberate assignation of civilizations, which are genocide, have caused such drastic changes that they can be noticed and scientific accounts of their occurrences can be made. In this sense, the history of genocide sheds a revealing light on the cultural evolution of [huJmankind. The history of genocide displays the presence of a vicious circle. The preservation of nations contributes to the creation and development of original cultures. However, the presence of original cultures in certain, especially limited areas of the world caused cultural conflicts and genocide. It also created the concern to prevent genocide by permitting the natural development and coexistence of cultures without excluding one another by violent means.

8. Absorption of New Ideas as a Stimulant to World Progress The concept of genocide has been formally adopted by fifty-two parliaments of the world. It became part of international law but the time has been too short for integrating it within the cultural consciousness of [hu] mankind. Such integration can be achieved only through a study of history along new lines. Those who think that one never learns a lesson from history cannot deny that history has been the most powerful stimulant to the human mind. * KOK

KF

Origins of War (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007); Mahmood Mamdani, When Victims Become

Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001); and David Berreby, Us and Them: Understanding Your Tribal Mind (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005).

The Project

13

THE OUTLINE I Part I The New Word and the New Idea Chapter | Significance of New Words Sec. | How New Words are Made Sec. 2 Words as Moral Judgments Sec. 3 Words as Rallying Points of Thinking and Action (Acceptance of Scientific Terms) Sec. 4 Analogy with the Flag, National Anthem, and Other Experiences of Collective Psyche Chapter 2 The New Idea Sec. | International, Collective Responsibility for the Survival of National, Racial, Religious, and Ethnical Groups

Sec. 2 The Nature of These Groups: Universality, Culture Bearing, Spirituality, Innocence Sec. 3 Cultural Conflict among the Groups Sec. 4 The Crushing ofa Desired Eternity Sec. 5 The Hierarchy of Protection through the Concept of International Crime Part II The Problem of Solidarity and Growing Interdependence among Peoples and Groups Chapter | Racial, Religious, and National Solidarity: Crossing Bound-

ary Lines Chapter 2 Mutual Cultural Borrowing Chapter 3 International Concern over Cultural Losses Chapter 4 Economic Interdependence Chapter 5 Moral Interdependence of Life (Quote the Frenchman on Germany.[?]) Vacuum fear of. Ex[tradition?|—Napoleon in deserted Moscow. Scorched earth psychology

Part III The Genocide Convention History of the Genocide Convention The Preamble Genocide in Time of War Genocide in Time of Peace Prevention Punishment Definition Destruction in Whole

The Project

Destruction in Part Killing Causing bodily harm Causing mental harm Inflicting of specific conditions of life (The problem of dying energies) Prevention of birth Kidnapping of children Conspiracy and complicity Incitement Attempt

Who is responsible (Difficulty in individualizing guilty and giving out penalties) A. Rulers B. Public Officials C. Private Individuals Domestic Legislation Problem of Penalties Punishment by domestic courts Problem of International Penal Tribunal Genocide—a nonpolitical crime Laws and Treaties on Extradition Action by the United Nations A. Prevention B. Suppression Functions of the International Court of Justice A. Interpretation B. Application C. Fulfillment D. The nature of the responsibility of the state. New Point—Authenticity of the texts of the Convention (Problem of languages) Ratification Accession Extension of the Convention to dependent Territories Coming into force of the Convention Duration of the Convention Cessation of the Convention

The Project

15

Revisions of the Convention Notification Original and copies Registration Part IV Genocide and related doctrines The organicity of the concept of Genocide. Destruction of a house with its component parts. Collective nature of motivation and the ensuing danger ofjustification. Genocide and anthropology 1. Habit of killing A. Cannibalism B. Killing a stranger (Malinowski) Genocide and psychology (Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents) Drive to death Psychological reactions of perpetrators Psychological reactions of victims Psychology of mob action (Freeman and Le Bon) Perpetuation of hatred among survivors (Armenians, Jews toward Spain and Nazi Germany, Protestants against Catholics in Southern France—refusal to attend bull fights, Lebanon—Refusal of Christian

and Moslem children to sit and talk on the same benches in public parks.) Maturation of guilt in subsequent centuries. Refusal to acknowledge guilt simultaneously to genocide.

Scape-goatism (blood-libel)'® Psychology of the onlooker. The seeing or the hearing. Three types of onlookers: A. Agreeing B. Disagreeing C. Drifters toward convenience. Distance weakens reaction, also lack of cultural affinity weakens the reaction. 16. Perhaps the most scurrilous charge in the entire anti-Semitic arsenal of those who hate Jews is that, in the spring, Jews wantonly capture innocent Christian children, murder them, and drain their blood to use in the making of the mazzot, the flat unleavened bread-cakes associated with the Festival of the Passover. See Darren O’Brien, The Pinnacle of Hatred: The Blood Libel and the Jews (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2011); and Alan Dundes, ed., The Blood Libel Legend: A

Casebook of Anti-Semitic Folklore (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1991).

The Project

16

Genocide and ethics. Relativism of an absolute norm. Devastation of ethics (Max Weber) The problem of ethical indifference Extension of ethical rules from practical relativity to absolute scope."’ 17. If the above was to be the “master outline” of /ntroduction to the Study of Genocide, included among these papers was an “alternative outline,” to wit:

Part | Chapter I

Chapter II

Chapter Ili

Part II

The New Word Genocide Meaning: Geno and Cide The Problem of Definition (Is it not a case of genocide) The Technique of Formation of Words: Nouns and Verbs The Significance of the “O” for the Concept Described: Genocide The Euphonic Importance of Words Words as Moral Judgments (Quote Mistral) Egyptian Theory of Words (Quote Maine, Sir H.) he Basic Groups of the Human Cosmos What is the Human Cosmos aqrIAWNWAWNH— Ve Interpretation of Human Personality in terms of Group Affiliation: (A wrong interpretation is reason for destruction) Groups as Creators of Culture Cultural Interdependence of Peoples (?) The National Group The Racial Group The Religious Group eran LW The Ethnic Group The Elements of International Crime 1 The Juridical Conscience of Mankind 2 What Interests have to be Protected through the Concept of International Crime? 3 The Analysis of the Concept of International Crime 4 The Enforcement of International Crime (a) Principle of Universal Repression (b) International Criminal Tribunal 5 Reasons why Genocide was made International Crime The Genocide Convention | History of the Convention 2 The Crime (a) (b)

3

Elements of the Definition Additionally Punishable Acts

Enforcement (Article 1) (a) Punishment

(1) Domestic Legislation (2) International Action (i) |United Nations (political) (ii) The Hague (Juridical) Articles 9 and 10

(b)

(iii) The International Criminal Court (3) Extradition Prevention (U.N. Article VII)

(1) Groups Organizing Tension (1) Majority Groups (ii) Minority Groups (2) Alleviation (to be worked out) 4 Ratification and Signature 5 Territorial Scope 6 Duration of the Convention

~

The Project

17

* Kk OK OK OK

THE OUTLINE II [Also included in the text is the outline for his three-volume History of Genocide, many chapters of which were never written or, if partially written, never completed]:

Antiquity Biblical Genocide Assyrian Invasions Genocide against Early Christians Genocide against the Pagans Carthage

Part |

1

nN WR & bd

Part III Chapter |

7 Revision 8 Other Formalities Criminology in Relation to Genocide Origins and Reasons for Genocide 1 Endogenic (a) (b) (c) (d)

2

(e) Hope for taking over the property of the victim Exogenic (a) (b)

Chapter 2

Blood revenge Lust for Power Sadism Greed

Urban Revolution and Exaction of Tribute Retaliation

Psychology of Genocide 1 Psychological Origins of Genocide (see Chapter 1) 2 Psychology of the Genocidists 3 Psychology of the Victim (a) (b) (c)

Fear Defiance Loss of Self Respect

(d)

Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5

Chapter 6 Chapter 7

Attempts to justify before history one’s own innocence (inscriptions on the Armenian tombs) Sociology of Genocide (Types of society conducive to genocide) Genocide and Economics (Volume trade 1932 Turkey)

Genocide and Demography Depopulation Psychological and other consequences of depopulation Loss of political power as a result of depopulation Sinking of civilization Repopulation Examples: Tartars genocide in Poland and German colonization; Repopulation — HNnbWN Commissions in Transylvania in post-Mongolian period Genocide and Cultural Losses Genocide and Ethics 1 Samoa: Centralized moral controls vs. decentralized Rule of Pluralistic Behavior (See Giddings)

Part IV

Genocide and Quasi-related Subjects

The Project

Genocide in Gaul Genocide against the Celts Genocide in Egypt Genocide in Ancient Greece and Oomon Middle Ages Part I Genocide against the Albigenses Charlemagne Genocide in Medieval England Genocide by the Goths Genocide by the Huns Genocide against the Jews Genocide by the Mongols Genocide against the Moors and Moriscos The French in Sicily The Spanish Inquisition Genocide against the Valdenses Genocide by the Vikings — —S HBWN NNN MOAI CUO Nr 13 Crusades Part IT] Modern Times Genocide by the Germans against the Native Africans Assyrians in Iraq Belgian Congo Bulgaria under the Turks Genocide against the Greeks Chios Greeks under France Greeks in Exile from Turkish Occupation Genocide by the Greeks against the Turks Genocide against the Gypsies Hereros Haiti Hottentots Huguenots Hungary under the Turks Genocide against the American Indians Ireland Genocide by the Janissaries HPWN ADN MOAN TU NDNMHAHPWNRK SOI Genocide by the Japanese against the Catholics ee ee ee ee

The Project

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31 $2 33 34 35 36 a7 38 39 40

4]

Genocide against Genocide against Genocide against Genocide against Korea Latin America Genocide against Yucatan Genocide against Genocide against Genocide against

19

Polish Jews'® Russian Jews Jews in S.W. Africa Rumanian Jews

the Aztecs

the Incas the Maoris of New Zealand the Mennonites Nuremberg Trials'® Parsis Serbs Slavs Smyrna South Africa Genocide against the Stedinger Tasmanians Armenians S.W. Africa Natives of Australia”°

[Two pages follow which are devoted to Lemkin’s “Categories” of examination]: Killing Conditions of life Prevention of birth Actions by individuals 18. This particular chapter would have been personally meaningful to Lemkin who lost forty-nine members of his own Polish-Jewish family during the Holocaust of the Second World War. 19. During the period of the Nuremberg Trials, Lemkin functioned as advisor to Justice Robert H. Jackson. See note 10. 20. What then follows are thirty-three pages of chapter outlines for the following groups: Native Africans, Assyrians in Iraq . . . Christians, Belgian Congo, Bulgaria under the Turks, Genocide by Suwaroff, Greeks, Chios, Greeks under Franks, Greeks in Exile from Turkish Occupation, Greeks vs. Turks, Gypsies, Hereros, Haiti, Hottentots, Huguenots, Hungary under Turks, Indians (Creek Nation, Choctaws, Cherokee, Seminoles, California Indians, Plains Indians), Ireland, Janissaries, Japanese . . .

Catholics, Jews ... Poland, Jews . . . Russia, Jews in S.W. Africa, Jews ... Rumania, Korea, Latin America, Aztecs, Yucatan, Incas, Serbs, Christian Massacres in Smyrna, South Africa, The Stedinger

20

The Project

Actions by officials Motivations Intolerance Religious hatred Racial hatred Greed Power consideration Killing for thrill of same Scapegoatism Cultural Conflict Competition Transfer of children Intent Destruction of four groups National, racial, religious, ethnical

Aftermath Depopulation of country Disease Depopulation of cities Destruction of trade Cultural losses Psychological reactions Victims Perpetrators Outside world Destruction in part . . . in order to end leadership Conspiracy Direct and public incitement Attempt to commit Genocide Attempts to prevent Genocide * oR KOKOK

PARTI

Chapter 1: The New Word and the New Idea Genocide is a new word, but the evil it describes is old. It is as old as the history of [hu]mankind. It was necessary, however, to coin this new word

The Project

21

because the accumulation of this evil and its devastating effects became extremely strong in our own days. New words are always created when a social phenomenon strikes at our conscience with great force. Blitzkrieg was accepted in the English language when Hitler’s army swept over Europe with a meteoric speed. The great number of new words came in the language recently with the advent of atomic science in particular and with the great progress of science in general. The growth of the phenomenon is the motivating force behind the creation of a new word. When people think about the new phenomenon, when they speak about it fervently, when they finally reach out for action in connection with this phenomenon, they feel they must have a name for it. Instead of describing this phenomenon with other words and scattering the meaning of this phenomenon among many words with different meanings, many people prefer to describe the meaning of the new phenomenon by one specific, clear, and incisive word.

Elemental Motivating Forces for the Creation of New Words It was said that the history of language is the history of the human race and in many a word we find an enlightening vignette of history universal, internation[al], national, social, individual. No word is a mere word but a conglomeration of social, moral, economic, and scientific evolution. Although words can be created spontaneously, like poetry they are es-

sentially the reply of man [sic] to a social need. As these needs emerge and become crystallized the necessity arises to describe them as shortly and as poignantly as possible. Section 1: Specific Needs Normally social events which make a deep impact on society call for special names. War which demands a sudden shift from innate human kindness to hatred of foreign nations (enemies) is a vast field for application and creation of new words. Take in the First World War the word Hun was revived to signify a German. A book published in 1939 entitled Words That Won the War points out the biased shifting of meanings and deviations from the communicative function of words. Indeed as Dr. Lasswell points out the specific objectives of

all propaganda are to “mobilize hatred against the enemy.”’' Hatred is a 21. Lemkin appears to be in error here: Harold D. Lasswell’s book Propaganda Techniques in World War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf) was actually published in 1927. If his comment was included in Words That Won the War: The Story of the Committee on Public Information, 1917-1919 (Princeton: Princeton University Press), this text was published in 1939; however, its authors were James R. Mock and Cedric Larson.

PR)

The Project

powerful motivation of human society in general and it is always put to use when the destruction of special human groups (enemy) are endorsed by the nation. After a war is over society reverts to friendly relations with former enemies as a matter of course. It is a promising phenomenon to observe how easy this reversion to friendliness occurs. Basically the second process does not require such a tense mobilization as the first. One cannot help but wish that the use of the words preaching friendliness and love would be carried out in time of peace with the same intensity as they are being used in time of war to spread hatred. Section 2: Names of Movements In a society in which ideas are appreciated the acceptance of diffusion among sympathetic members becomes a social necessity. In such a way ultimately a movement is created which requires individualization and a name. As a matter of fact its name becomes its distinguishing sign. Sometimes it is the members themselves who create it; sometimes they accept the name coined by some of the adversaries. Section 3: Formation of Scientific and Technical Terms When a scientific instrument is invented, a chemical substance identified,

a new

concept crystallized either in the field of physical or moral science, it often happens in addition that the discoverer bestows it with a name and if he does not do it himself it is done by someone in his field. Section 4: New Words and Expressed Criticism Sometimes a new word is coined to express scorn or criticism. The term “impressionist” was employed scornfully in 1874 by a certain Leroy, a critic of the French review Charinori in reference to Claude Monet’s (1840-1926) picture “Impression, Soleil Levant” (1872) and only some years later the members of the school began to use it. Section 5: The Desire for Freshness and Vivacity of Expression

In

such an emotional field like the world of words it is only natural that people are undergoing acute desires to be vivacious in expression, and to give the expression a color of freshness and novelty. This is exactly one of the reasons new words are born. Section 6: Giving a Special Shade of Meaning As human speech ever becomes more refined and ever more articulate a necessity is felt to

give a special shade of meaning which calls for a differentiation. Normally such a special shade of meaning can be obtained by stressing a particular association in which it frequently occurs. Section 7: Words as Moral Judgments Gabriela Mistral (18891957) said that certain words (she refers particularly to Genocide) carry

The Project

23

in themselves a moral judgment. Indeed proof of the emotional connection between the word and society, the creation of the word and its usage become more than a means of communications between [hu]man and [hu] mankind, but an index of civilization. Some words carry in themselves either a direct approval or disapproval or an implied one in such a way that the relationship of society to certain values and the very hierarchy of such values can be ascertained from some words. This is especially true of words which gradually change their meaning. Thus, a word which is predestined to communicate a fact becomes a judgment by being used in a derogatory way. For example .. . Jew and Catholic. Section 8: Historical Accident as Reason for Creation The term Omnibus was applied to the large carriages put into service in Paris during the spring of 1828 for the period of serving “all” (omnibus), but also the name itself contained a pun, inasmuch as a company manager was named Omnes, and the Latin dative could easily enough be referred to in a jesting manner to his surname. The word had a well-known success; it brought about the abbreviated form bus. Likewise the Scandinavian form bil, an

abbreviation of automobile, was proposed in 1902 following a contest sponsored by an important Danish newspaper. Section 9; Coiners as Witnesses Cicero (106-43 BCE) who coined many words says in his work De finibus that one branch of philosophy is usually called de moritius, but that it is permissible for one who wishes to

enrich the language to call it moralis. The humanist Giovani Potano [?], in his dialogue Acutis [?], tells us that he fomed the word alliteration to indicate that which consists of a harmonious repetition of lines. Jeremy Bentham (1748/6—1832) in his work Principles of Legislation wrote in 1780 that “the word international, it must be acknowledged is a new one;

though it is hoped, sufficiently analogous and intelligible.” Jeremy Bentham [was thus] the originator of the word international. Section 10: Science as a Source The word atmosphere came into use among the physicists of the early severiteenth century. Satellite, which among the Romans meant the guards of a sovereign, was used for the first time by [Johannes] Keppler (1571-1630) with an astronomical significance in a letter dated 1610 and later in his Narratio of Galileo’s (1564-1642) discovery of the celestial bodies revolving around Jupiter.

‘Section 11: Other Sources

Demarcation at first referred specifically to

the boundary line drawn by [Pope] Alexander VI (1431-1503) in 1493 be-

tween the Spanish and Portuguese possessions in America. Defenestration

24

The Project

is apparently linked to the hurling from a window in Prague in 1419 during the Hussites wars of the Burgomaster of Prague. In the same city in 1618 the Imperial Commissioners were treated likewise. The unhappy death of Jan Masaryk (1886-1948) has recalled the historical significance of the word. It is most significant that the same type of acts come back in history as if they were alive in the imagination of the people and call for repetition with the force of a magic hallucination. Annexation and annexion have entered political terminology respectively through the annexation of Texas and through that of Savoy by Napoleon the Third (1808-1873). Section 12: Private Authors A certain number of words and locations in many European languages go back to the Bible, Danke [?], to Shakespeare (1564-1616), and to Goethe (1749-1832), but other authors almost equally famous have contributed little. Gradley in The Making of English (pg. 232) says that Milton had a “genuine faculty of word making” as he demonstrated when he coined the nouns pandemonium and anarchy as designations of localized and personified words. A scientist with the name of Paracelsus (1493-1541) who lived some four centuries ago invented many words which are of [a] scientific nature. Louis Sebastian Mercier (1740-1814), the author of Neologie which he published in 1801, created many new words, such as caricature, undesirable, plagiary, sonitaire, selection, suburban, terminology, vaccine. These words were either coined by Mercier or at least first recorded by him. Section 13: General Rules for the Creation of Words A word must be as little arbitrary as possible. Rare are the cases of words formed really ex nihilo [L. “out of nothing”), without reckoning upon the traditions faced in national languages. George Eastman (1854—1932) the inventor of the word Kodak described this word as being a “rigorous and distinctive personality.” It is also onomatopoetic by the imitation of the sound of an opening and closing shutter. In this last word which originated from an invention which succeeded because it was onomatopoetic. Among the fantastic names invented by Gulliver and applied to the imaginary creatures of his Gulliver's Travels, several have prospered in English and one of them has acquired international fame . . . Lilliputian. Section 14; People and Individuals in the Creation of Words We have seen more clearly the interactions of the individual creator and of the race which accepts the creation only if, and insofar as, it meets popular needs and tastes, and that does not mean that linguistics denies its own

origins, linked to the flowering of romanticism. The same thing has hap-

The Project

Zs

pened to folklore which has drawn its origin from the myth ofthe folk and the people; but in the last few decades it has continued to adjust itselfto a more historic conception of reality; it, too, has described that “the people do not create but reproduce” and that much of what was believed popular creation is a cultural patrimony which has descended by imitation to lower strata. But that does not diminish its importance as social testimony, because the very fact that the people have accepted and incorporated among their own traditions a song, or a garb, or an object, proves the correspondence of lack of these things to the tastes or to the needs. The movement which [Johann] Herder (1744-1803) gave a philosophical content led through the efforts of [Johann] Fichte, Arndt [?], Jhan [?], [Heinrich] Treitschke (1834-1896), and others to the unification of Germany in 1879. In Italy Napoleon (1769-1821) indirectly supported the rise of nationalism by abolishing many of the medieval relics and by laying the foundations of modern government. At the beginning there was no popular support but inspiration came to this movement from poets and writers like Vettiori Alieri [?], Ugo Foscolo (1778-1827), and later Mazzini and [Giuseppe] Garibaldi (1807-1882), until unification came. Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872) was the prophet of [the] nineteenth-century idea of nationality in a humanist, democratic form with a strong admixture of romanticism. Every people, he thought, become an independent nation, for “nationality is the share that God has assigned to any given people in the progress of humanity. It is a mission each people must fulfill. . . . It is the work which gives a people the right to citizenship in the world. It is the sign of that people’s personality and of the rank it occupies among other peoples, like brothers.” Only when all people have become organized and independent nation-states, can an international federation of free nations be created. Mazzini advocated the dissection of the Austrian Empire into independent national states and had great influence on the Czech, Hungarian, Polish, Yugoslav, and Romanian

national movements.

The

Italian nationalist movement was to [a] great extent inspired by the 1848 Revolution which was called the spirit of the peoples. Simultaneous revolutions broke out in Berlin, Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Milan, and Venice. Germans, Italians, Slavs, and Magyar nationalists in Central Europe from

the North Sea to the Mediterranean greeted the dawn of the new day. In 1849 the English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) complained that nationalism makes men indifferent to the rights and interests “of any portion of the human species, save that which is called by the same name

26

The Project

and speaks the same language as themselves.” He characterized the new feelings of exclusive nationalism and of appeals to historical rights as barbaric, and remarked bitterly that “in the backward parts of Europe and even (where better things might be expected) in Germany, the sentiment of nationalism so far outweighs the love of liberty that the people are willing to abet the rulers in crushing the liberty and independence of any people not of their race and language.” ¥¥

RRR

THE CONCEPT OF GENOCIDE IN SOCIAL AND INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGY Emotional Basis of Genocide

Many protagonists of ethnic integration and some social scientists have argued that intergroup conflicts will never cease until the subjected group has become absorbed by the dominant one, thus losing its separate identity. Such a position fails to take into account the fact that the dominant element in prejudice, discrimination, and persecution patterns is emotional, not rational. White Americans do not lynch or discriminate against Negroes because they are at all times intellectually convinced that Negroes are stupid, dangerous, or anything else derogatory. German Nazis did not persecute the Jews because they knew, even in their more reflective moments, that the Jews were treacherous and degenerate. It is true that propaganda and a wealth of pseudoscientific literature has to an extent spread such beliefs. But it has been observed many times that attitudes and behavior patterns oriented toward an ethnic group will vary under different circumstances. Similarly the same persons often expressed contrary attitudes regarding an ethnic group at different times and under varying circumstances. This does not imply that genocide is an exclusively emo-

tional act. Vested interest groups often foster or actually supervise the carrying out of genocide for reasons of expediency. They may want to distract the people on whom their power depends from certain grievances or gain other advantages from the destruction of the victim group. In this case genocide is a premeditated act, a means to an end, and this is rational behavior. However, even those that plan mass murder in cold blood are rarely pure cynics. They may develop an emotional attitude toward the

The Project

P44)

victim group which is endangering their power, or they may single out a particular harmless group for attack because of their deeply rooted antipathy and fear of that group. Thus it is the psychology of emotions which can contribute most to the etiology ofindividual participation in genocide. In other words, it can help to answer the question: Why does a particular individual commit genocide?

Psychological Relativism At this point it is of utmost importance to call attention again to the fact that genocide behavior must be analyzed in terms of the culture in which it occurs. In Western culture the genocidist may be considered as deviating from the social norm to a greater or lesser degree. Therefore certain psychological mechanisms which lead to antisocial behavior must be studied here. However, genocide may more nearly approach socially accepted behavior in certain other cultures where the individual has not been endowed with the high value that Western culture attributes to him and where a particularly intense ethnocentrism exists. The same applies to Western culture during earlier historical periods. We may venture to say that the more “ideational” the culture, the more likely are we to find our clues to genocide behavior in the social values; and the more “sensate”

the culture, the more “abnormal” in terms of group values does genocide become. Genocide occurs in various cultures and therefore we will undoubtedly find certain common elements. But we must not conclude from this that human nature is the same everywhere. Murder, war, and other

types of violent behavior exist all over this world, but they are considered more or less normal and desirable in some cultures and more or less abnormal and undesirable in others, and they vary in degree and function. Similar emotions and non-physiological human drives and psychological aberrations vary from culture to culture, because they are culturally determined. There exists no one normal or abnormal psychology which can explain behavior everywhere in the world on the basis of one system of mechanisms. [Sigmund] Freud (1856-1939) did not realize this but contemporary psychiatrists and psychologists have taken their cue from anthropology and sociology and have become increasingly aware of their importance in explaining behavior in non-Western cultures on the basis of their empirical knowledge of the West. The following discussion will be limited to those mechanisms which are known to operate in Western

28

The Project

society and which have been intensively studied by social scientists and psychiatrists. These mechanisms may serve to explain the psychology of genocide in contemporary Europe and America but their application to genocide in other areas of the world is at best limited. Later in this chapter we shall describe the diverse behavior patterns which we have discovered through the empirical case research presented in this book. We shall, however, refrain from drawing any but the most tentative conclusions as to the psychological mechanisms involved. Crowd Behavior

Under certain suggestive circumstances people who are usually calm and reasonable may display highly emotional behavior. For instance, relatively sober men drinking together in an atmosphere of congeniality may without added provocation join in this fight of a small group of heated and perhaps intoxicated persons. The desire to show off, self-protection, and autosuggestion all condition such behavior. But there is no rationalization involved and, unless such behavior is socially approved, the casual participants tend to feel ashamed afterwards. There is no focal leadership and no central objective or object of violence. The emotional energies released are diffuse and undefined. Such a situation must be distinguished from that of the Audience Fanatique (e.g., political rally, revival meeting) which is focused on a leader who attempts to guide the crowd’s emotional tensions into particular channels of release. When such a crowd finds an object outside itself on which to release its emotional tensions it develops into a mob. The situation becomes one of “coordinated riot.” Such is the type of group commonly though not always involved in a genocide situation. Genocide may be the system of a mass movement (e.g., the medieval Crusades and the Nazi movement). The mass movement involves group domination by a particular idea which serves both to stimulate certain behavior and to rationalize it. Of course the coordinated riot may exist in the absence of a mass movement, but then it creates an idea or rationaliza-

tion of its own (witness the usual appeal of Negro lynching parties to the protection of white womanhood). Crowd behavior is a unique phenomenon and has been recognized as such since the beginning of recorded history. The first attempt at objective through chiefly descriptive analysis of crowds was made by Gustav LeBon (1841-1931), French social psychologist. He observed that the ac-

The Project

29

tive participant in an Audience Fanatique and particularly in a coordinated riot discards most or all of his rational and moral control and becomes a bundle of emotions easily guided by others. The processes of autosuggestion operate here. The sudden change in the individual’s behavior explains why the average participant in a mob need not be and is not a habitual criminal or a psychotic case. The clue to mob behavior lies not so much in the individual as in the nature ofthe situation. That does not imply that all types of persons participate in such situations; but it does mean that many persons who are ordinarily considered morally responsible and emotionally stable according to the particular social standards, may succumb to such socially unapproved behavior especially when under emotional stress. After the dissolution of the crowd they may and do recover their usual behavior pattern. It must be remembered that it is the temporary weakening ofthe social self not the violence involved which is significant here. In the war situation so-called normal and peaceable individuals in Western society also display violence but they do so because it has become socially accepted behavior.

Underlying Mechanisms Why do people succumb to such types of suggestions? The answer to this question must be sought in the deeper psychological processes of the individual. Our conscious self or Ego, to use a Freudian term, continuously

responds mentally to outer stimuli. If this Ego is injured, it elicits certain emotional responses such as hostility. Such hostility may remain on the conscious level and may work itself off on the subject which has elicited it. On the group level such hostility exists most often between groups who have much in common and thus have ample opportunity to offend one another. There is much latent hostility between French and German, Hindu and Moslem in India, Chinese and Japanese which has often flared up into actual aggression. Examples such as these could be greatly multiplied. In each case one group is aware of injustices and insults heaped upon it by the other. At times of intense hostility differences between the groups are exaggerated and similarities are minimized; imaginary offenses and insults are often added to real ones. Thus the situation becomes invested with more complex mechanisms. The same is true on the individual level. It is when the hostility impulse is directed against the self, against a vague cause of frustrations or when it is but one element of an ambivalent,

30

The Project

conflicting attitude toward the object that its suppression may become desirable, even necessary. Suppressed hostility causes anxiety (a dominating subjective and hidden fear) and anxiety is the basis of neurosis. Repressed hostility is dangerous because it is less controllable and less easily released than conscious hostility. It is often projected on persons or objects from which it was never derived. Such an object may merely be chosen, because current superstitions or attitudes regarding it serve conveniently to rationalize its choice as a victim of hostility. This is the genesis of scapegoatism. Neurosis is merely a larger quantity of suppressed hostility and resultant anxiety than is common to normal individuals. The dividing line is thin in our culture which increasingly favors those values and conditions which breed anxiety. Economic and social competition implies aggressive behavior. There is a constant generation of hostility and fear of the hostility of others. Self-esteem is built on a highly precarious basis; it stands and falls with success and failure. Social developments such as urbanization and industrialization have enhanced the isolation of the in-

dividual by depersonalizing human relationships. We match increasing stimulations and aspirations with increasing frustrations and inhibitions, To make the picture complete we have invested our social values with a fundamental ambivalence. For, not only do we cultivate hostility and undermine self-esteem by competitive values, but we also uphold the contrasting values of Christian charity*? and humility. Such a culture hardly fosters healthy individual orientation and social relationships. One social psychologist explains modern totalitarianism in Europe on this basis. He maintains that certain serious highly insecure groups such as the German lower middle class during the 1920s and 1930s have attempted escape from their psychic insecurities by losing themselves in a totalitarian regime. He applies here on a social level the more strictly psychological concepts of sadism and masochism. He calls this personality type the “authoritarian character.””’ It was this “authoritarian character” who carried out the most hideous genocide program the world has ever witnessed.” 22. Lemkin is here using the term “Christian charity” in its generic rather than parochially religious sense. 23. The “classic” text which addresses the psychological concept of the authoritarian personality is that of T.Adorno, E. Frekel-Brunswick, D.J. Levinson, and R. N. Sanford, The Authoritarian

Personality (New York: Harper & Row, 1950). 24. Lemkin’s reference here is obviously to Adolf Hitler (1899-1945).

The Project

31

Propaganda, Premeditation, and Professional Genocidists Genocide does not originate with the riot mob. As has already been indicated, there must exist certain myths and superstitions regarding the victimized group in order that genocide may be properly rationalized. Such myths are built up through a period oftime by nonscientific scholars who try to prove, often quite sincerely and by what seems to be scientific means, that there exist certain inferior races and religions, or that certain nations have particular destinies. These myths are strengthened in public opinion through systematic propaganda conducted by certain vested interests who play on public sentiment for their own purposes.”° Such interested groups may even create incidents to foster violent group responses against victim groups. They may use certain specially trained persons to carry out genocide. Scientists and pseudoscientists have been used to devise quicker and cheaper methods of extermination and to carry out mass sterilization programs. Militias and shock troops have been used to do the killing and pillaging. Some of these individuals may be psychotic but we are led to suspect that soldiers and henchmen who have been conditioned to such action as part of their duties regard their odious task as they would fighting a plague. They may even derive a certain prestige from their efficiency in slaughter, like medieval executioners. Oddly enough, they may even consider themselves humane when they are particularly proficient in killing. However, the numerous brutalities preceding and accompanying physical genocide in many cases cannot be explained by social conditioning. Undoubtedly, more complex psychological aberrations are here at

work.’°

The Psychology of the Victim Group So far we have been concerned with the psychological basis for the processes of committing genocide. However, the psychological reactions of the victim group must also be studied. There is abundant literature on the responses of ethnic minorities to their social environment. However, such analyses have stopped short of genocide, although the personal documents of recent genocide cases should encourage such investigation. 25. An excellent contemporary study on this very point is Jeffrey Herff, The Jewish Enemy. Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006). 26. Lemkin’s “social psychological summary” is not restricted here to only the Holocaust, but must be assessed in light of his massive reading in other genocides throughout history, for example, the Armenian Genocide of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

32

The Project

The several phases of genocide elicit varying types of individual and group responses. Each particular social situation conditions these responses in its own way. The individual may try to become absorbed by the power group; this process, whether gradual and fundamental or hurried and superficial, involves many complex psychological problems. Of course, it is only the hurried and superficial attempt at absorption such as conversion, name-changing, or even disguise which occurs as the threat of physical genocide becomes real. Conversely, the individual may reinforce his identity with his group and thus derive moral strength consolidated from opposition and defiance. In the absence of group leadership and the moral preparation for genocide situations, the individual may yield to panic and personal disorganization. An interesting comparison can be made in this connection between the Jews and the Gypsies who faced the Nazi firing squads together. The religious Eastern Jews, by dint of their conditioning to genocide situations and their peculiar group values, went into their deaths with calm dignity and defiance, while the Gypsies whose nomadic and free life had not prepared them for a situation which demands intensified group cohesion, pleaded and cried for mercy. The Jews made desperate and not always unsuccessful attempts to make the Gypsies die like themselves. This opens up another highly important aspect of the situation: the changing relationships between unsimilar victim groups under the impact of the common fate of genocide.?’ From our recognition of the social self it is evident that the mere objective status of the victimized group need not necessarily lead to personal disintegration. If the individual’s status within his own group remains intact, and if his ties with the group are strong, he may be able to suffer many adversities and humiliations without seriously injuring his selfrespect, especially if he believes that he does so for a cherished idea. This has been true of persecuted groups throughout history. Two psychologists 27. Lemkin’s conclusions here are too simplistic and somewhat too cavalier and charitable, based,

perhaps, on limited access to data in the immediate aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust. In the 1950s Jews, including survivors in the United States, were most feluctant to talk about their own

experiences as well as those of others during the Nazi reign. Only in the 1960s (Lemkin died in 1959) do we begin to see a plethora of texts detailing such experiences which continues on into the present. They indicate that yes, there were those Jews who approached their deaths nobly and with dignity, while others debased and disgraced themselves in the process. The Roma peoples (a far better term than the pejorative “Gypsies”) have been far less studied during this same period, and the analyses remain somewhat tentative. On this very point, much, much more work needs to be done. See Radu

loanid, The Holocaust in Romania: The Destruction of the Jews and Gypsies under the Antonescu

Regime, 1940-1944 (Chicago: Ivan R, Dees, 2008); and Guenter Lewy, The Nazi Persecution of the

Gypsies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).

The Project

33

have advanced this theory with respect [to] war situations and economic disasters which affect whole groups. But wars unlike genocide are not wholly defensive and, at that, sustain patriotic vigor only while there is any hope for victory. Besides, the records of mass hysteria and suicide during the American crash of 1929 are only too well known. The psychologists mentioned in fact doubt that eventually personal disintegration can be avoided. There is one social situation characteristic of modern genocide which presents special problems; this is the concentration camp. Here again personal documents should be illuminating to the study of heroism, fear, psychosis, and asocial behavior (loss of social aspirations, controls, and emotions such as altruism and resistance).”® Finally, the survivors of genocide should receive attention. There are many examples of survivors who have developed conditioned responses to certain situations which were used to symptomize danger to them. In the case of children, the effects are most fundamental. For instance, a Pol-

ish orphan who was hidden by a family during the Nazi occupation in the Ukraine had to spend most of his time under the table. Two years after the liberation he still kept [himself] under the table in manifest panic whenever a stranger entered the house. The permanent psychological injury and the arrest of normal development of the child victim is perhaps the most shocking and tragic result of genocide.”

kK

KOK

THE CONCEPT OF GENOCIDE IN SOCIOLOGY Definitions

Genocide is one of the most far-reaching and dramatic of social processes.°° Like all social phenomena, it represents a complex synthesis of a diversity of factors; but its nature is primarily sociological, since it means

28. The two most important studies of life in extremis are Elie Cohen, Human Behavior in the Concentration Camp (New York: Grossett & Dunlap, 1953) and Terence Des Pres, The Survivor: An

Anatomy of Life in the Death Camps (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976). 29. Throughout this section Lemkin indicated by hand seventeen (17) footnotes, none of which were found included with this text. 30. It should be noted that Lemkin’s actual manuscript notes ten (10) footnotes or endnotes which

are not part of the actual text. Whether they were to be addressed later or have been lost is impossible to determine.

34

The Project

the destruction of certain social groups by other social groups or their individual representatives. As the concept of social groups is being repeatedly used in this volume, it will be useful to analyze it sociologically at this point. The social group as such is a meaningless concept. Any two or more persons who stand in any social relationship to one another form a social group. We are here concerned with particular types of social groups, namely racial, religious, national, linguistic and political groups.*! We have also pointed out that such groups are exposed to genocide only when they constitute a minority or subjected majority within the community or sphere of control in which they are destroyed. If this not the case, we are dealing with manifestations of war or revolution rather than with genocide. It must be clarified here that a subjected group may be a majority controlled by a powerful minority as is the case in colonial societies.** If the majority cannot be absorbed by the ruling minority and is considered a threat to the minority’s power, genocide is sometimes the result (1.e., the American Indian). There are also certain regions in various countries in which the proportion of the members of two major groups is the reverse of the proportion typical of the rest of the country (See, for instance, the Blackbelt in the American South and certain regions in India). Such areas are potential trouble spots. The minority as well as the majority groups referred to here, with the exception of the political and some of the religious, may be broadly classified as ethnic groups. These are groups tied by common bonds of race, nationality, or culture. They always retain a separate identity, although they may have extensive contacts with the surrounding population. The chief cohesive factor is race, but such factors as language, customs, reli-

gion, and historic tradition may be dominant in the absence of the racial. They may have separate economic institutions like the Gypsies or be united by common socioeconomic status like the American Negro whose racial identity is in many cases approaching a fiction. Leadership may be highly important as a cohesive factor. 31. Lemkin’s comment here is particularly significant, all the more so because “political groups,” much to his disappointment, were ultimately removed from the final passed version of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as a result of compromise negotiations with the USSR. 32. The work of Australian academic Dirk Moses is particularly relevant here in addressing genocide in the context of colonial and settler societies. See his Empire, Colony, Genocide: Occupation and Subaltern Resistance in World History (2008); Colonialism and Genocide (2008); Genocide

and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History (2004).

The Project

35

The political groups which concern us here are those united by common political beliefs and policies such as political parties. Similarly, religious groups like the Catholics in the United States are tied by one common set of ideas alone. Such groups lie outside the sphere of ethnic groups and should be classified as associations. An authoritative sociologist defines an association as “a group specifically organized for the pursuit of an interest or group of interests in common.” Like ethnic groups, associations need not comprise a minority within a community, but are only attacked and destroyed when they constitute an inferior power group. It must be noted, of course, that political and religious groups are joined by members of diverse ethnic groups and may be dissolved without the actual destruction or social disorganization of its members. Ethnic groups, on the other hand, cannot be liquidated unless their members are physically destroyed or socially and culturally uprooted. To summarize, the social groups which may become victims of genocide are ethnic groups and religious or political associations all of which have a relatively weak or subjected status within the larger society. The nature, development, and conflicts of ethnic groups constituted an important part of contemporary sociological investigation, especially in the United States. The word genocide is relatively new, but the recognition of group persecution and disintegration is not. Genocide is merely a comprehensive term for the most violent manifestations of intergroup conflict.

Sociological Analysis Genocide is a gradual process and may begin with political disenfranchisement, economic displacement, cultural undermining and control, the destruction of leadership, the breakup of families, and the prevention of propagation. Each of these methods is a more or less effective means of destroying a group. Actual physical destruction is the last and most effective phase of genocide. The victim group may respond in various ways. It may lose its group identity through conversion or other ways of assimilation. Its members may attempt temporary loss of group identity by hiding or through disguise. There may be more or less systematic emigration. The group may prefer stoic submission and martyrdom or struggle for its rights, in other words, reinforce its group cohesion during the crisis. Finally, the group may disintegrate because its members yield to personal

36

The Project

disintegration expressed by panic and disorganized flight. The nature of the genocide process and the types of response of the victim group in each case depend on the particular group personalities and social situation involved. There are three main types of groups which commit genocide: 1) Vested interest groups including governments, 2) Soldiers and others especially trained in mass sterilization, violence, or extermination methods who stand in the service of the vested interest groups, 3) Mobs. Each of these will be discussed in greater detail in another context. If a sociologist were to analyze a case of genocide, he would probably want to ask the following questions: 1. What is the social status of the victim group within the larger society? 2. What is the local history of intergroup conflict?

3. What are the social structure and value systems of the larger society

Me io aed So tA

9. 10. 11. 12.

and of the victim group? By what methods is the genocide process prepared? What groups prepared it and what groups carried it out? What motives can be attributed to the instigators? What groups oppose genocide; are there attempts at intervention? What values, needs and emotions are appealed to as justification for genocide? What is the precipitating event? What is the nature of the genocide process? What are the responses of the victim groups? What are the aftereffects (on the instigators; on the survivors; if any; on the larger society)?

Later, we shall attempt to analyze the cases we have selected more or less according to the above scheme. For comparative analysis, the statistical approach would, of course, be useful, but the relatively small number of cases would make its validity somewhat doubtful. The frequency and extent of genocide might be correlated with social variables such as population changes, economic indices, political fluctuations (oppressionliberty), etc., or by comparing nations, localities, periods in history, etc. Sorokin’s statistical analysis of internal disturbances in various countries

is an interesting example of such an approach. Individual participants 33. Reference is to Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968).

The Project

oH)

might be studied on the basis of sex, age, ethnic identity, occupation,

educational, physical and mental health, socioeconomic status, etc. Of course, the practical difficulties involved might make such an investigation well nigh impossible. At any rate, it must always be remembered that such analyses are meaningless unless they are based on the fundamental differences which have been properly assessed; then we can proceed to generalize from specific manifestations of genocide, and this begins to make effective predictions. Our social and psychological knowledge being what it is, that day is sadly far off. Certain sociological findings will, however, be useful in the study of genocide. The less racial types of violence persecution such as lynching and race riots have been studied. The behavior patterns at the nonviolent end of the scale of intergroup relations have received much attention. Our limited understanding of mass movements should cast some light on the origin of genocide. Also the sociology of ideas is significant here, especially as it relates to the nature of propaganda.

The Nature of Prejudice It is not within the scope of this book to do more than point out various points of departure and basic problems. However, a few words should perhaps be said about the nature of prejudice. Prejudice is a social attitude which has to be sufficiently crystallized before such violent behavior such as genocide may occur. Its socio[-]psychological and economic etiology will be discussed elsewhere. But there have been certain illuminating changes in the objects of prejudice which we shall briefly outline here. Prejudice always implies standards of superiority-inferiority or the “I belong to the elect” formula. In sociology this attitude of exclusiveness is called ethnocentrism. During antiquity prejudice was directed against

those people who had different cultures. The ancient Jews looked down on the idolaters who worshipped other deities and were not part of the divinely chosen and inspired nation. Among the ancient Greeks those who did not share Greek culture, the “Barbarians,” were considered inferior.

In old Rome the same general attitude prevailed in varying degrees at different times. Such lesser peoples were conquered, enjoyed at best an inferior political status and at worst slavery or actual physical destruction. The physical characteristics of such peoples were often alluded to but were never of primary importance. The Ancients did not consider race in

38

The Project

itself an obstacle to equality. With the evolution of the Christian church differences in religion became of paramount importance. The earlier attitude toward total cultural differences receded into the background as the church embraced many cultures and felt no need to destroy them for mere difference. The heretic and the heathen became objects of prejudice. The Christian ideal of human brotherhood in religion prevented racial considerations from becoming important. It was during the modern era of colonial expansion that racism first appeared. However, it did not become well formulated until much later when it became a factor in national strife. It reached its peak in those modern totalitarian nations which evolved ideas of racial unity and destiny. Perhaps its deepest roots have been cast in the non[-|totalitarian culture of North America because of its unique social composition and history, and there dig into the same soil as the equally powerful roots of liberalism and democracy. Religious prejudices still exist and assume medieval intensity in many parts of the world. But in the West race prejudice is foremost today. Genocide as a Social Evil

Without a doubt, the recognition of genocide as a major social problem today will help to focus on it the attention of sociologists.*4 Sociology has evolved primarily out of the gradual recognition of the social group as a dynamic and conditioning force in human life. The logical conclusion one may draw from such a recognition is that social groups of all types, except those whose major function is the destruction of other social groups, have a right to existence, since, if they were destroyed, we would destroy society itself. The social group is as essential to social existence as individual man is to the physical existence of [hu]mankind. This does not imply a preference of a static social structure any more than it is expected that a human being will live forever. But violent and systematic destruction should be prevented. Thus the problem of genocide becomes as vital to the sociologist as the problem of disease is to the physician. It calls for diagnosis, cure, and above all, prevention. These conclusions can be

derived without far-fetched or controversial moral arguments. Legislation against genocide is one attack on the problem, though hardly a panacea. It is the only kind of attack [hu]mankind can make today. There remains the 34. The important and breakthrough work of such distinguished scholars as Helen Fein, Vahakn Dadrian, and Leo Kuper, among others, come readily to mind.

The Project

39

great and tedious task ofthe social scientists to discover the kind of social

conditions under which [they] would tend to disappear.*® * OK OK KOK

THE CONCEPT OF GENOCIDE IN ANTHROPOLOGY

The Meaning of Race The contributions anthropology can make to the study of genocide lie mainly in the field of cultural and comparative anthropology. However, physical anthropology offers the scientific answer to an issue which is dominant in many genocidal cases: the nature of race. Race is a purely biological concept and as such a vague one. By way of description it is the unique combination of certain hereditary traits which roughly distinguish large divisions of [hu]mankind. Responsible contemporary anthropologists are not yet unanimous regarding the nature of hereditary physical race characteristics.*° But they have found ample evidence that nonphysical characters which are shared by members of a race are the product of physical and social environment, not of heredity. Even certain physical characters of groups are conditioned by environment and therefore are not racial traits (witness the difference in physical appearance between Eastern European Jews and their offspring born in the United States).°*’

35. In terms of such factors, the work of Israel Charny (psychology), Franklin Littell (religious studies), Barbara Harff (political science), Ted Robert Gurr (political science), Rudolf Rummel (political science), and Kumar Rupesinghe (economics) have all addressed in their work pregenocidal

conditions leading to outright genocide. 36. [Lemkin’s footnote |] “Compare Kluckhohn, Benedict, Boas, Linton, Herscovitz, Klineberg.” Clyde Kluckhohn (1905-1960), American anthropologist, known for his ethnographic work among the Native American Navajo as well as his contributions toward a theory of culture. Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), American anthropologist, whose 1934 work Patterns of Culture explored the relationship between culture and human personality. Franz Boas (1858-1942), German-Jewish-American anthropologist, known as the “Father of American Anthropology” for his work in applying the scientific method to the study of human cultures and societies. Ralph Linton (1893-1953), American anthropologist, best known for his two books The Study of

Man (1936) and The Tree of Culture (1955) and his drawing distinctions between the concepts of status and role. Herscovitz (?)

Otto Klineberg (1900-1992), Canadian-born social psychologist, taught at both Columbia University, New York, and the University of Paris. Klineberg pioneered studies of intelligence while remaining unalterably opposed to false theories of racial superiority and inferiority. 37. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] “L. L. Snyder, Race: A History of Ethnic Theories.”

40

The Project

The popular and frequently propagandized belief that racial mixture is injurious to the human stock is also unfounded.** It is even unnecessary to cite the ample evidence. If race mixture is harmful, almost all human beings are inferior specimen of their species because almost all are the products of more or less extensive race mixture through the centuries.” This fact should dispel once and for all any pseudoscientific justifications for racial persecution.*°

The Significance of Cultural Genocide In our definition of genocide we have included cultural genocide. The question might arise whether we are justified in including the attack upon a culture per se in the definition of a concept which is primarily concerned with the destruction of a social group. This question has already been answered by implication in our discussion of sociological factors. Using the conceptual scheme of the anthropologist, we may arrive at the same conclusions. Frazer who is generally considered to be the father of modern anthropology was aware of a sociological fact; that all human beings have so-called derived needs which are just as necessary to their existence as the basic physiological needs.*' These needs find expression in social institutions,” or, to use an anthropological term, the culture ethos. If the

culture of a group is violently undermined, the group itself disintegrates and its members must either become absorbed in other cultures which is a wasteful and painful process or succumb to personal disorganization and, perhaps, physical destruction. Malinowsky, the founder of the functional school in anthropology, regards culture as having three interdependent dimensions: a material base, social ties, and symbolic acts.*? He believes that no definite lines

38. Ds 39. 40. called

[Lemkin’s footnote 3] “See, for example, Herbert Seligmann, Race Against Man, pp. 111— t : [Lemkin’s footnote 4] “L. L. Snyder, op. cit., p. 37.” To be sure, Lemkin must have also had in mind in this section the false Nazi ideology of soracial science which attempted to prove the biological differences between purebred Aryan

Germans

and lesser and inferior Jews, Poles, blacks, etc. See Steven Leonard Jacobs (2008/09),

“Revisiting Hateful Science: The Nazi ‘Contribution’ to the Journey of Antisemitism,” Journal of Hate Studies, 7(1): 47-75. 41. Reference is to James George Frazer (1854-1941).

42. [Lemkin’s footnote 5] “B. Malinovksy, A Scientific Theory of Culture, p. 212.” 43. Bronislav Malinowsky (1884-1942).

The Project

41

of demarcation can be drawn between form and function.’ According to this view it is clear that the destruction of cultural symbols is genocide because it implies the destruction of their function and thus menaces the existence ofthe social group which exists by virtue of its common culture. Diffusion versus Cultural Genocide

It will be noted that the phrase “violently undermined” has been used earlier. Cultural genocide is a more or less abrupt process; that is it must not be confused with the gradual changes a culture may undergo. Such gradual changes occur by means of the continuous and slow adaptation of the culture to new situations. The new situations arise from physical changes, creative energies within the culture, and the impact of outside influences. Without them, the culture becomes static; if they appear but are not met with adaptation of the whole culture pattern, the culture becomes less integrated. In either case, it becomes weaker and may disintegrate entirely when exposed to strong outside influences. The rise and fall of civilizations have been explained on this general basis.” A very common type of adaptation to outside influences is the assimilation of certain foreign culture traits (sometimes erroneously called borrowing). This is the process of cultural diffusion. The greater the proximity between cultures, socially as well as physically, the more frequently

does diffusion occur. Within Western culture diffusion is a familiar process. It is the essence of modern science. For better or for worse, Western

culture has been and still is the master diffuser of the world. What then is the exact distinctiveness between diffusion and genocide? In the first place, genocide implies complete and violent change, that is, the destruction of a culture. This is the premeditated goal of those committing cultural genocide. Diffusion is gradual and relatively spontaneous, although it may lead to the eventual disintegration of a weak culture. Secondly,

cultural genocide need not involve the substitution of new

culture traits (such as forceful conversion), but may maliciously undermine the victim group to render its members more defenseless in the face of physical destruction. Where cultural genocide appears to be merely a step toward physical extermination, there will certainly be no difficulty in distinguishing it from diffusion. 44. [Lemkin’s footnote 6] “Op. cit., p. 152.” 45, [Lemkin’s footnote 7] “See, for instance, Toynbee, A Study of History.”

42

The Project

The Doctrine of Hope Frequent reference has already been made to the fact that individual and group behavior can only be understood with reference to the particular cultural configurations in which it occurs. Comparative anthropology in the widest sense holds the key to the fundamental understanding of personality differences as well as to the basic common needs from which all human endeavor derives. Most anthropologists have developed a keen appreciation for the cultural diversity which they have found, but they recognize both the functional reasons for diversity and its intrinsic value as an enrichment of human life through the presentation of various answers to common challenges of human life. Cultural relativity can be a doctrine of hope rather than despair.*° In our present endeavors at unifying the world for peace, this doctrine has a twofold significance. It means that we must respect every culture for its own sake. It also means that we must prove between specific cultural differences in our search for a unified conception of human values and human rights. We know that this can be done. * * OK OK OK

GENOCIDE IN ECONOMICS Economic conditions are that specific sphere of social life which has most frequently played a dominant role in ethnic persecutions and genocide. Interesting correlations have been established between economic fluctuations and attitudes toward particular ethnic groups. During the Gold Rush in the American West manual cheap labor was needed and easily provided by the large-scale immigration of Chinese. At that time the Chinese were regarded as “our most orderly and industrious citizens.” As gold mining became less profitable, the white population felt that the Chinese were becoming an undesirable competitive element. They suddenly became “unassimilable, clannish; debased, and servile.” In°1879 there was a state-

wide vote for the exclusion of Chinese in California which, however, was not realized until 1924.*’ 46. [Lemkin’s footnote 8] “See Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture, Chpt. 8.” 47. [Lemkin’s footnote 1] “Herbert Seligmann, Race Against Man, p. 216.”

The Project

43

The history of Japanese immigrants is almost identical. That of the European immigrants is also similar, although in this case antagonisms were based on customs and traditions rather than race.** Lynching of Negroes in the American South has been correlated with business fluctuations and race riots in the North have similarly been analyzed. With regard to the Jews, the classical victims of genocide, economic

considerations entered into every case. During the Middle Ages, the money-lending monopoly of the Jews, which in itself was the result of severe economic restrictions, fanned hostility against them in times of economic difficulties.” In modern times, the Jews have been economi-

cally displaced and robbed for the enrichment of vested interests and governments. As has been pointed out in another chapter, racism evolved during the era of colonial expansion. As the natives in the colonies of European powers became Christianized, a new justification had to be found. This was racism. Racist dogma made it possible for Christian empires to exploit and exterminate and Christianize without any manifest embarrassment.°° *

KOK

KK

REFLECTIONS ON CURE AND TREATMENT We have now discussed genocide in relation to each of the major social sciences. We have done so in order to call attention to its infinite complexity and to impress our readers with the undisputable though hardly encouraging fact that social science must advance greatly before it can hope to tackle genocide and other fundamental and perplexing social problems therapeutically. A few very general words should be said about the problem of societal causation. Most laymen have a naive conception of it and many social scientists know that they are still groping in the dark in their search for causes. In order that genocide may eventually be controlled scientifically,

48. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] “Ibid.” 49, [Lemkin’s footnote 3] “Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, ‘Mass Expulsion’.” 50. [Lemkin’s footnote 4] “Ruth Benedict, Race: Science and Politics, p. 161.”

44

The Project

an understanding of the basic elements of social causation is essential.”' First of all we must know what kinds of questions we may ask to gain social insights. We cannot fruitfully inquire into the cause or causes of crime, war, genocide, etc. as these are not absolute phenomena but are

conditioned by the social institutions and group personality of a particular culture and a particular period. Rather, we should study such phenomena within a given social framework. Secondly, we should distinguish between correlations and causes (e.g., the correlation between crime and

climate may have no direct causal significance); on the other hand, correlation is the most reliable technique for the discovery of causes (that is, the quantitative analysis of change—the more or less of phenomena). Thirdly, we should be aware of key causes on the one hand and of unrelated multiple causation on the other. Fourthly, it should be realized that factors are not in themselves causes; factors are static and exist apart from social change. Rather, it is the peculiar combination of factors at a given moment (i.e., the introduction of new factors) which gives rise to change. In social action such factors range from the purely physical, the biological, the psychological, and the sociopsychological (in brief, the conditions) to the social (the means and ends of action). Finally, it should

be pointed out that the question of incentive is peculiar to the social sciences. “Why does such a change occur” can only be asked by the social scientist, never by the physical scientist who may content himself with the “How.” There are three types of “Why” or incentive in social investigation: The Why of objectives or goals; the Why of motivations; and the Why of design or methods. From this brief discussion, it has already become clear that the social sciences are really one science, with particular techniques applied to a unique sphere which is qualitatively different from the physical sciences. It is therefore useless to apply to it the same standards and methods used by chemists or biologists. It is also impossible to study social phenomena from a special angle without at least a basic understanding of the others. Most social scientistsand millions of others throughout the world are acutely aware of our contemporary social crisis and their helplessness in controlling human behavior in the face of the vast unknown which is 51. [Lemkin’s footnote 1] “The discussion of social causation is based on Maclver, R. M., Social

Causation.” Robert Morrison Maclver, Scottish-born American sociologist (1882-1970), taught at Barnard College where his philosophical and analytical acumen were brought to bear on such important sociological issues as societies and communities.

The Project

45

social science. They know how fearfully [hu]mankind has run amok in the twentieth century and what infinitely greater disasters we may expect in the future, if strife continues. Therefore, these men [sic] know that we need stopgaps, as many and as effective ones as we can devise to stem the impact of violence brandishing ever more horrible weapons. One of these stopgaps is law and law enforcement. Another is propaganda and still another is peaceful debate and arbitration. The United Nations has been created to serve primarily as a coordinator of stopgaps. It has higher and more far-reaching goals but today this function is clearly dominant and rightly so. It is our responsibility to be sure that no leaks are left in the dam anywhere because one sphere of violence untouched and uncontrolled means the undermining of the whole structure. Sooner or later the dam must break and all our efforts will have been in vain. It is almost a platitude today that any disturbance anywhere in the world may be the spark which sets the world on fire. This adds a purely pragmatic consideration to the problem of genocide. Those who still believe that we have no rights to interfere with the internal tensions of other nations on mere humanitarian grounds should come to realize that in the atomic age other nations and other continents are merely extensions of our own celebrated “backyard.” It that sense, at least, we have truly one world. * OK OK OK x

THE CONCEPT OF GENOCIDE IN LAW “Man, because of his social nature and his defenseless condition, is found

associated with his fellows in organized groups. The ambitions and conflicts of group and group have tended to eliminate the weaker and hence to reduce the number of the surviving groups, but the political unity of the human race has not yet been achieved. The inhabitants of the world are still divided into about halfa hundred politically independent groups or states. The people of these states, the survivors of these struggles ages long, are still engaged in an intensive competition for national growth and survival! In the course of this long rivalry, the groups or states best fitted to survive under existing conditions, have found a certain degree of cooperation between them to be absolutely indispensable, in order that each state might preserve its own strength and foster national growth” (Stowell, International Law, 3).

46

The Project

In all these cases, however, it is the governments of the states which act

as the machinery for enforcement. Because of this uniform governmental action in enforcing these different kinds of governmental rights, it has been rational to confuse agent[s] of enforcement with subjectivity, and to regard states alone as the subject of all the rights which they protect; that is, to take the half-truth for the whole, and even in the case when a state is the subject, it will be found in the ultimate analysis that international law is always and necessarily concerned with the conduct of individuals. Fundamentally the law of nations is a law of individuals enforced through the agency of the governments of the communities into which [hu]mankind is apportioned.

International Law and Morality International Law includes, as has been said, only that portion of the customarily observed practice of states which is enforced by the states in the event of infringement. When this effective sanction does not exist, the matter cannot be considered as part of international law, even though it may be a rule generally observed on the ground of international courtesy or vigorously supported in some quarters as a precept of morality. When, however, a preponderating majority of the states supports a precept of morality, it is practically certain that it will be enforced, which is the same as saying that it has the sanction and general recognition essential to make it law. ... Years before the commerce in human beings (the slave trade) had ceased to be lawful, it was perceived to be unethical and in violation

of morality. As soon as the recognition of its iniquitous character became general, the necessary sanction was secured to prohibit its continuance.

Enforcement of International Law The danger that international law might seriously interfere with the pursuit of political aims has been provided for in a manner which is at the same time subtle and effective through the option of law enforcement. For the enforcement of international law is entrusted, as has been seen, to the

very government most interested in the pursuit of national policies. The method employed by states to enforce the law of nations affords several opportunities of injecting politics into law. First, an opportunity is found in the right to declare what law is. The exercise of this right in-

The Project

47

cludes state action when sovereignty is enforcing international law within its own jurisdiction, and also when intervening abroad; that is, within the

Jurisdiction of another sovereign against what is declared to be a misinterpretation of the law injurious to the exercise of its own rights. Second, each state has the opportunity to inject policies into law, because it may decide for itself what are the facts in any matter, as when the existence of unsettled conditions is alleged as a basis for withholding the recognition of a new state or government. Third, each state may exercise its own discretion as to whether it will

or will not respect for a right recognized under international law, either by sovereign action at home, or through intervention abroad. Fourth, each state may enter into international commitments or treaties in regard to the manner in which it will employ its discretion in the instances referred to above. Upon a basis of quid pro quo, desired action may be secured from other states.>”

Intervention

Two methods of enforcing: a. retaliatory reciprocity b. intervention “Intervention as thus employed in the relations between states may be broadly defined as the rightful use of force or the reliance thereon to constrain obedience to international law” (Stowell, Jnternational Law, p. 72).

Humanitarian Intervention

“Humanitarian intervention may be defined as thejustifiable use of force for the purpose of protecting the inhabitants of another state from treatment so arbitrary and persistently abusive as to exceed the limits within which the sovereign is presumed to act with reason and justice” (Stowell, International Law, p. 349).

52. The four-decades-long struggle to have the United States affirm the United Nations Conven-

tion on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (originally passed by the UN in December, 1948, and initially ratified by the requisite number of nation-states to make it international law for its signatories) is particularly relevant here. See, for example, John Cooper, Raphael Lemkin and the Struggle for the Genocide Convention (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008); and Lawrence J.LeBlanc, The United States and the Genocide Convention (Durham: Duke University Press, 1991).

48

The Project

Authorities disagree with respect to the legality of humanitarian intervention. Professor Arnst named as one justification for another nation’s intervention on humanitarian grounds into the internal affairs of a nation when it “makes impossible the regular co-existence of the states” (Revue Internationale, 1876, Vol. VII, p. 674). President [Theodore] Roosevelt in 1904 wrote: “Brutal wrongdoing, or impotence, which results in the general loosening of ties of civilized society, may finally require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere, the United States cannot ignore its duty” (J. B. Moore, Principles of American Diplomacy, p. 262). Grotius, Woolsey,**? Bluntschli, Hubery,™ Wheaton, Westlake, Heffter, and K. von Rotteck is a partial list of au-

thorities who recognize the legality of humanitarian intervention. To some other authorities, however, the independence of each state to regulate its internal affairs is inviolable.*> Rougier,°° while affirming the legal right of intervention on the grounds of humanity, nevertheless remarks on the danger: “It must be recognized that the ground of humanity is the most delicate of the causes which may be expected to justify the right of intervention and that it raises juridical difficulties in regard to the basis and the extent of this right” (Revue Général, Vol. XVII, p. 478). But Stowell asks “Why ... should the independence of a state be more sacred than the law which gives it that independence? If, where such intolerable abuses do occur, it be excusable to violate at one and the same time the independence of a neighbor and the law of nations, can such precedent of disrespect for law prove less dangerous to international security than the recognition of the right, when circumstances justify, to ignore than independence which is the ordinary rule of state life?” (Stowell, Jntervention in International Law, p. 62). kK OK RX

53. Whether Lemkin is here referring to Theodore Dwight Woolsey or his son Theodore Salisbury Woolsey (1852-1929) is unclear.

54. Hubery (?) 55. See, for example, the text edited by Gene M. Lyons and Michael Mastanduno, Beyond WestPhalia? State Sovereignty and International Intervention (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), as well as the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2131 of December 21, 1965, “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty” which, together, reframe these arguments. Also

important is Jonathan Moore’s edited text Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998).

56. Louis Rougier (1889-1982).

The Project

49

PAST FAILURES BY INTERNATIONAL LAW TO PROTECT NATIONAL, RACIAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ETHNIC GROUPS FROM EXTERMINATION I.

Genera! Limitations of International Law A. Problem of Sovereignty B. Enforcement Difficulties If. International Standards of Ethics A. The Universal Drive of Human Compassion B. Humanitarian Intervention C. Its Misuses for Political Purposes D. Refusal to Comply E. Retaliation Reciprocity F. General Inadequacy III. Protection of Minorities and Genocide A. Lack of Definitions B. Lack of Universality C. Political Nature of Enforcement D. Repudiation by Poland (1934) E. Disintegration of the System IV. Legal Inadequacies in the Nuremberg and Tokyo Cases A. Lack of Sanctions in The Hague Conventions B. Ex Post Facto Argument C. Subordination of the Concept of the Crime Against Humanity to the Concept of Aggressive War D. Discrepancies between Indictment and Judgment E. Dissenting Opinions as to Crimes Against Humanity V. What was Left Unsettled in International Law in Respect to Genocide A. Common Law (Customary Law) versus Conventional Law B. Legality of Crimes C. Importance of Legal Definitions D. Voluntary Acceptance versus Imposition of a Law on the Vanquished ies). Lack of Protection in Time of Peace or in Conditions of Non-

aggressive War?’ 57. While some of these topics were addressed in “The Concept of Genocide in Law” (the previous section), the majority were not, leading one to assume Lemkin fully intended to write the additional material prior to the completion of the manuscript.

The Project *

KK

KK

LIST OF PERSECUTIONS AS GROUNDS FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION . French Intervention Christian Maronites.

in Syria, August

1860—Druses

massacre

of

. British and Netherlands notes to Maria Theresa, 1745, to revoke the

decree expelling the Jews from Prague. . Persecution of Jews in Rumania, 1867, Lord [Frederick, 1841-1908] 1872, Secretary of State [Hamilton, 1808-1893] Fish, Secretary of State [John, 1838-1905] Hay . Pogroms in Russia against the Jews 1880-1891 . Kishinev massacres—{Theodore) Roosevelt (1858-1919), 1903; 1919, termination of treaty of 1866 . Prussian abuse of the Jews at Frankfurt, 1866 . Turkey’s abuse of Bulgarians and Armenians, 1877 . Turkey’s abuse of the Armenians, 1915, Morgenthau . Abuse of the Greeks, 1827

. Persecution of the Protestants in Tuscany 1855

—fe} fon SS} we) No}

KK

ROKK

COLLECTIVE FRUSTRATION AS A PRELUDE TO GENOCIDE . Analogy between individual frustrations in their relation to crime and collective frustration in its relation to genocide. (Russian religious sects, ““God-seekers,” Doukhobors, Germany between the two wards,

Tsarist pogroms, and the defeat in the Japanese war, the war of 1870 and the Dreyfus case, and others.) . Content of frustration; military humiliation with strong military caste;

Economic debilitation, inflation, mass poverty (slogans used in pogroms under Tsarist regime), breaking up of a nation . Artificial deepening for a change which is promised by the Genocidist to the people. . The role of mysticism and “secular mystics.” In organizing relief from frustration. The doctrine of infallibility of the leader. The process of secularization of the messianistic concept.

The Project

51

5. The hereditary nature of collective frustration. (Example: Civil War in the USA—Gone

with the Wind)

6. The role of cultural tradition in accepting irrational patterns of behavior. Medieval influences in Germany and Central Europe. 7. The role of entertainment in approaching frustrated collectivities by organizers of genocide. 8. The specific nature of economic miracles and economic fallacies, and their role in the incitement to genocide. 9. The problem of group behavior (LeBon) in the light of frustration as a psychological phenomenon and new techniques in of propaganda. (Reduction of the time element in obtaining results) (For example, in their ten-year rise to power, the Nazis made more converts than Christianity had made in the First Century and a half of its efforts at the conversion of the Roman Empire.) The loosely applied name “Community of Nations” does not imply that the nations are forming a community for all purposes and all interests in the life of nations. Nations might get together in order to formulate a common effort for the furtherance of specific interests and endeavors which can be better achieved by concerted action, vis-a-vis facilitation of navigation and circulation of goods. In this respect, the Community of Nations is being reduced for all practical purposes to the concept of nations, having organized themselves for the sake of protecting certain common interests. The United Nations is not a community of nations as such, but nations united to achieve

certain purposes outlined in the Charter. This is a legal position now, and it does not preclude further developments in the direction of a more integrated and stronger merger of nations. Should it ever happen, the road to this goal must lead through the experimental channels whereby more and more interests and functions will be pulled together. Human progress in general is not a decision but an experience. Only experiences, and in this particular field we are sorry to say, only great disasters, can convince nations to give up more of their sovereignty in order to achieve bigger international goals. In the case of genocide, we unite because history is full of overwhelming disasters, which many times brought civilization to the abyss of annihilation. After noting the mass slaughter of twenty million human beings in this, the civilized twentieth century, by the most barbaric methods and conversely scientific devices, the conscience of [hu]mankind can no longer pusillanimously acquiesce to these Gordian outrages.

52

The Project

In Pareto [?], one finds a description of the twentieth century as the most impatient and violent of centuries. It is a century which engendered Fascism, Nazism, and Militant Communism.* It is also a century of upheaval in the fields of government, economics, social planning, and the like matters of common living of societies. The future created in some people fear and anxiety. There is a tendency well founded in psychology, morality, and religion to protect the past. Fear and impatience lead to violence. Impatience in dealing with the vexing problems represented by a group of human beings might easily lead to the temptation of attempting a final solution of the problem by liquidating the group. This is exactly the climate which originates genocide. In addition, in the twentieth century despite the fact that it was abundant in technological progress and in social concepts, nevertheless the feeling prevails that the road to human happiness—to peace, stability, and security—is being constantly obstructed by internal and external factors beyond control. There is a limited amount of energies to be spent in every society. If these energies are spent predominantly for the purposes of economic and technological progress, not enough energies can be put into the service of moral progress. This applies both to the number and qualifications of people engaged in these processes, but it affects mainly and unmistakably the general direction of thinking and the choice of values which are to be given a preferential treatment. When nobility is being bestowed in most of the cases upon the physicist, manufacturer, practical statesman, party worker, and propagandist, not much room is left for the clergyman, teacher, and philosopher. A century dedicated to technological pragmatism becomes naturally denuded of forces of compassion. *

KK

KK

We note the evolution of nationalism from the eighteenth-century Herderian®” Romantic approach brought the cultural self-determination concept of the Revolution [in Europe] of 1848 up to the power complexes of twentieth-century nationalism. If nationalism was only contemplative in the eighteenth century, it became culturally atavistic in the nineteenth 58. See Alain Besancon. A Century of Horrors: Communism, Nazism, and the Uniqueness of the Shoah (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2007). 59. Reference is to German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803).

The Project

By)

century and politically aggressive in the late nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries. This idea of self-determination becomes more and more dynamic in Asia and Africa (Reporter, June 1, 1953, Mau Mau

Movement’). It is already strong in Latin America. Nationalism in itself, as long as it is limited to cultural expression and both economic and political independence, has nothing to do with genocide. However, when coupled with the strive for power, aggrandizement, internal anxieties, and

disrespect for minorities, it can well create a climate which, with certain conditions, might be misused for the perpetration of genocide.

60. Reference is to the Kenyan uprising.

Part II

HISTORY OF GENOCIDE Raphael Lemkin

G

y)

?

pil

a ay

hs its

rs |

for oe

i i

ler4

hh

o) Pen

a

.

7

5a

Volume I

Antiquity

Chapter One

The Albigensians

BACKGROUND The origin of the religious sect known as the Albigenses is shrouded in mystery, largely because all their documents were systematically destroyed by the Inquisition and the two crusades carried on against them. They were called after a town in southern France name Albi, because large groups of them settled around there in the province of Narbonne. This section (Provence) was as noted for its heresy as for its progressive character (obviously related factors). In the fifth century, we find that the city of Albi had a patron saint, known as St. Amarand.' At this time, the Visigoths were settled there and were divided between the Arian and the Roman Catholic faiths. The Arians were for a long time tolerant of Catholicism, but gradually had recourse to a “retaliatory course of action” (Religion & Ethics, |, 277). In the early eighth century, the Visigoths were overthrown by the Saracens and Mohammedanism gained many converts. Sometime in the later tenth century and early eleventh century there were large migrations of Paulicians (or Publicani, from Bulgaria or Thrace to central Europe). Some settled in northern Italy, some in southern France, some north of

the Loire [River] and some in Flanders. These were called Catharists (deriving from the Greek word meaning pure, but pronounced “cazarists” and therefore perhaps emanating from the French town, Cazares, near Toulouse (Chamber’s Encyclopedia, 1, p. 128). In 1012 and 1020 the first

Catharists appeared in Limousin under the protection of William [X, Duke

1. Lemkin is in error here.

A Benedictine Abbot of the Moissac Monastery, Amarand later became

the Bishop of Albi in ~700 CE, not the fifth century.

59

60

Chapter One

of Aquitaine [1071-1126] (Ency. Britannica, 1, 528). William of Nueberg, writing in 1160, stated, “the Cathari, commonly called Publicani, existed in countless numbers not only in France but also in Spain, Italy, Germany (Hist. Rerum, Anglic., ed. Hamilton, I. 120). The Catharists were mostly weavers and so gravitated to industrial centers. They were intellectually keen and frequented university “campuses” where they tried to convince their foes by argument (Re/. & Eth. 1, 280). During the “Dark Ages” Southern France maintained a light. Here seaports and commerce led to ithe interchange of ideas, cultures, and hence tolerance and progress. The

Jews were not persecuted there; on the contrary their talents were given full opportunities of expression. The famous troubadours originated here during the Middle Ages, forerunners of poets, musicians, and historians. The nobles, who were always fighting with the Catholic Church, welcomed a new religion as a powerful ally (The Albigensian or Catharist Heresy: E. G. A. Holmes, p. 60). To return to the question of Albigensian origin, Maurice Magre (The Return of the Magi, translated by Reginald Merton) asks: Who was their original teacher? Was he a certain Moor with a blue light round his head that certain peasants described to the Inquisitor? Was he Pierre, the pupil of Abelard, a mystic named Girard near Turin (whose patroness, a countess, and group of believers were seized in the castle of Monteforte and burned at the stake), who said before his death, “I have a large family on earth.” Did he mean the Cathari? (Ibid., p. 51). Or was he Nicetus, the Bulgarian mystic, who set up several churches in southern France and kept in touch with his followers for many years (by some he was said to be the Albigensian “Papa” or Pope)? Or did the doctrines spring from the martyred Etienne and Lisoi of Orleans who described the Old Testament God of wrath, or was he the Breton Eon of Loudeac, who founded

a church of priests, doctrines, who were have been a certain ness of sacraments

who possessed nothing and preached the Catharist dispersed by the Archbishop of Rheims? Or could he Tanquelin in Flanders, who proclaimed the uselessand.sought to communize women? Then there was

Pons in Perigord, Henri in Toulouse, and Guillabert in Castres, all teach-

ing Catharist doctrines in writing.

According to Chambers, the name Albigense was loosely applied to all heretics. However, in most sources the name Cathari is used as the wider nomenclature. Encycl. Americana (1, 337-8) finds them similar to the Pa-

tarins in Italy and the Bulgarians in France and traces their doctrines to the

The Albigensians

61

Manicheans, an oriental mystical religion based on dualism. The Bogomils, from Bulgaria (or Thrace) held similar doctrines and according to [the] Encycl. Brit., the native Bogomils kept up intercourse with these Narbonne Cathari over some period of time. Other sects which the Albigensians were supposed to spring from were the Paulicians (also from Bulgaria), Donatists from North Africa, Priscillians from the Pyrenees. Magre describes them as a “western branch of the Asiatic tree, the flower of ancient Vedas, the pure

truth of the Orient . . . creed was born under the fig tree of Kapila-vastu where Buddha preached his reforms” (op. cit., p. 95). He calls them “Western Buddhists,” a blend of Gnostic Christianity with Oriental doctrines.

However Warner points out (The Albigensian Heresy, p. 91) that the terms Gnostics and Manicheans were names of opprobrium in Middle Ages Christendom and the fact that the Albigensians were sometimes called that may have no firmer basis than calling Lilienthal’ and Couden [? Handwriting unclear] Communists. Other names they were known by (from more tolerant observers) were Bons-Hommes, Friends of God, Comforters, and Paracletes (Holmes, op. cit., p. 24). Those Cathari who settled in Flanders and

Picardy were known as Piphili (believed to be a corruption of Pauliciani), farther south they were called Bulgari or Bougres, and in Italy Patarini. Venice was their main center on the Adriatic. These people all emigrated from Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, and Dalmatia. The Puritans who

landed at Plymouth were the descendants of the Cathari in Flanders (Rel. & Eth., vol. 1, 280). Holmes points out that this religion spread first among the Slavs, who were slow to accept orthodox Christianity, partly because of the demand that Latin be used. This injunction was more difficult for them since their native language was now derived from Latin. The Catharists taught in their native tongue. S. R. Maitland (Facts & Documents, p. 92) states unequivocally that “the persons called Albigenses in the south of France were Paulician emigrants.” Karl Muller of Giessen recently decided that the Albigensian doctrines represented a fusion of the Paulician with the Euchites with a Gnostic dualistic tendency (Rel. & Eth. 1, 277). To sum up, “the Catholic persecutor could assume it as a recognized fact that in consequence of the Gothic and Saracen occupation, the inhabitants of Septimania, and more especially those of the Toulousian, had

inherited a taint of heresy from which many of them were still unpurged” (Peter de Cernay, Migue, PL ccxiii, 541). 2. Reference to David Eli Lilienthal (1899-1981).

62

Chapter One

DOCTRINES As said above, the Albigenses had a dualistic philosophy, that is, they believed that there were two creators, one good and one evil, and that

consequently everything springs from one or the other and herently good or evil. The material world was considered invisible world of the spirit good. They believed in life as a gatory, to which one must return again and again unless one

is either inevil and the kind of purhad attained

to perfection, which was the aim of their ascetic leaders, the “Perfecti,”

They believed in transmigration of the souls which had not accepted the Catharist way of life (hence they never ate meat or anything like eggs, which originated in an animal) and in reincarnation for themselves (new lives in human bodies only) and for the Perfecti who had managed to attain the complete detachment from the world—eternal bliss. They did not use the Old Testament and the New Testament was regarded metaphysically (hence material miracles were viewed metaphorically)—only the Virgin Birth represented “true penitence” by which means only people were born into the true (Albigensian) church. Hell occurred in this world (Warner, p. 55). They had a horror of lying, never took an oath (hence marriage ceremony was forbidden—and actually marriage meant to them the union of soul and spirit because when Christ said “the two shall be one flesh” he could not have referred to human flesh, since they were still two and not one—this attitude toward marriage precipitated some of the slander regarding the licentious practices of the Albigenses). Actually, many of their practices were extremely advanced—for example, the only basis for “marriage” had to be actual love. The noblest families “married” their sons cheerfully to prostitutes in order that they might lead the erring ones back on the right path (Magre, p. 100-101). Property was completely communized. Women were the equals of men in all but preaching. Suicide was permissible only under certain conditions when the subject had reached a state of calm and indifference (since if one died in a state of mental agony that state could influence his next life). It is quite obvious from the foregoing that the Albigensians were deeply influenced by Hindu philosophy, although their connection with the discredited Manichaeans (who were supposed to be a blend of Christianity and Hinduism) were often denied even by Warner who says (op. cit. p. 10) “no Manichaean writer or leader or emissary has left the slightest trace of his name or influence upon this Catharist propaganda.” They preached in

The Albigensians

63

the vernacular (which was considered a schismatic not heretical offense).

They considered Christ as a sort of “archangel,” not a real human and “not God, but one with Him in will and intention” (Re/. & Eths., p. 281).

Apparently there were two schools of Catharists, the absolute, who believed in the eternal opposition of good and evil, two Gods, two natures,

etc., and the modified, who believed that originally all was good, but the spirit of Evil separated himself voluntarily (Holmes, op. cit. p. 15). The “absolute” Catharists were in the greater number and were those against whom the crusades and inquisitions were largely directed. The Catharists, themselves, claimed Pauline authority for their doctrine of body, soul, and spirit. They rejected infant baptism, the communion of saints, the virgin birth, the Holy Sacraments, the efficacy of any priest or preacher who was not pure. (If their own Perfectus were to sin by eating cheese or eggs, all those whom he had “consoled” would have to have the ceremony repeated under some pure perfectus [Warner, p. 52 quoting Reineri Saccho, contemporary ].) They divided themselves into three classes: the Perfecti, who played the part of pastors and led rigorous, ascetic lives, so much so that few could attain to the rigors. Schmidt states that in 1240 at the height of the movement, there were only four thousand perfecti in all Europe (Holmes, p. 24). Three times a year they fasted on bread and water for forty days at a time. During the rest of the year they fasted three times a week—next the Credentes, the mass of believers, who were allowed much freedom

and were required to (1) renounce the Church of Rome, (2) declare their Catharist faith, (3) agree to take the Consolamentum before their death (it was usually performed before death since it was feared that the recipient could not maintain the heights of purity and world-detachment that it required for any long period). According to Holmes (op. cit. pp. 22 and 23), the following were mortal sins for the Credentes:

1. the possession of property 2. communication with those who were still attached to the world, except to convert them. All ties of friendship and relationship were to be broken. 3. disloyalty to truth. The truth was to be told with absolute frankness at whatever cost. Swearing in the sense of taking an oath was a mortal sin. 4. the shedding of human blood for any purpose or on any pretext. The soldiers who killed an enemy in battle, the judge who sentenced a

64

Chapter One

criminal to death, and above all the priest who delivered a heretic to the

secular power were as culpable as murderers and assassins. 5. the killing of animals other than reptiles and fishes (they believed that evil was embodied in serpents). 6. the eating of the flesh of animals. 7. sexual intercourse. For sexual intercourse, besides involving the gratification of a carnal lust, was the means devised by the Devil for the propagation of the human race and the consequent perpetration of his own empire (from other sources it seems apparent that sexual intercourse was not forbidden the Credentes until after they had received the Consolamentum). Last of all was the category known as the “auditors,” those who listened to the Perfecti, but did not practice their tenets. After the consolamentum

was given to the sick Credent, “every inducement was made to the sick man to end his life by an means other than by direct violence. He was urged to undergo the ‘Endura,’ which took various forms” (Warner, op. cit. p. 85). The Cathari felt that death by illness or senile decay showed that Satan was still master of the situation and could send the soul into another body. The Consoled was asked if he wanted to be a “Martyr or a Confessor.” If he answered the former, a pillow as held over his mouth for some time. Whether or not he succumbed, he was still held to be a martyr. If he chose to be a Confessor, he had to go without food or drink for three

days. Another method of becoming a martyr was to open the veins and allow the Consoled to bleed to death in a bath, or to give him a drink of cucumber juice mixed with ground glass (Ibid, p. 86). There was some hierarchy in the church, although it was essentially a socialistic commune. Some believed that Nicetas, the Bulgarian Paulician who set up several churches in southern France, was the Pope. That is unlikely, although he did maintain some leadership by mail even after his return to Bulgaria. But the Perfecti were divided into three groups: Majors (the equivalent of Bishops), Presbyters, and Deacons. ' Reineri Saccho, a former Catharist, who recanted, described them as

“sedate, modest . . . would not carry on business dishonestly, would not multiply riches, did not go to taverns, dances, etc... . were chaste...

temperate in meat and drink, not given to anger, always at work teaching and learning. A man swam the River Ibis every night in winter to make one convert” (Warner, op. cit. p. 29).

The Albigensians

65

HISTORY in 1012, the Albigenses are first heard ofin Limousin, France, under Wil-

iiam IX, Duke of Aquitaine (1071-1126).° That same year the Emperor Henry IT (1133-1189) issued the following proclamation: “Refuta est insania quorundam haireticorum” (the heretics were believed to have referred to the Manicheans). In 1017, thirteen Canons and ecclesiastics of Orleans

were brought before a special Synod and convicted of Manichaean tenets and burned outside the city gates (Re/. & Eth. Vol. I, p. 278). In 1030, Catharism made its first appearance in Italy (Holmes, op. cit. p. 25). In 1045 the Bishop of Chalous-sur-Marne instructed his diocese to “abstain from communion and intercourse with such as were known to attend the gatherings” (of Catharist preachers). In 1049 there was a Council of Rheims which excommunicated all members of the Catharist sect and “those who encouraged or protected them.” (After only sixty years, Catharism completely disappeared from northern France.) 1119: Council of Toulouse ordered secular powers to help ecclesiastics in quelling the Catharists. 1139: Lateran Council reenacted provisions of the 1119 Council of Toulouse. 1148: Council of Rheims Further condemnation of the Catharists. 1163: Council or Tours 1165: the Bishops in [the] province of Narbonne carried on a halfhearted movement against the Catharists, inviting them to public discussion—

they were denounced as heretics, but nothing done about it at this time (Holmes, op. cit. pp. 64-65) 1167: Nicetas (“Chief of Paulicians in Constantinople”) arrived in Tou-

louse to preside over the synod of Catharist teachers. He instituted five new Bishops for Septimania and reasserted Manichaeistic doctrines in “more aggressive form” (Rel. & Eths., I, 281) 1178: Raimond V of Toulouse (1134-1194) appealed to Kings of France and England and Pope Alexander III (1100/1105—1181) to fight with

3. Given William IX’s years, he obviously came after the start of the Albigensian beginnings. The same is true for Henry II. Obviously Lemkin is in error here regarding these two royals. Henry’s decree would occur more than a hundred years after the birth of the Albigenses.

66

Chapter One

his Albigensian neighbors. They sent a mission of Bishops to Toulouse. First time in history of Christendom that a Papal legate took military action against Christian heretics (Holmes, p. 35). Castle of Lavour captured. Took some action, such as making an example of the leading Catharist citizen, Peter Moran—known as “John the Baptist”—making him undergo terrible penances publicly over a period of years (see again under cultural genocide). 1179: Lateran Council under Alexander HI excommunicated both preacher and pervert. Commanded ecclesiastics to proceed against heretics “quos alii Catharos, alii Patrinos, alii Publicanos, alii aliis

nominibus vocant.” All were forbideen to give shelter in house or on land to Catharists under penalty of anathema. (Mansi: Concilia [1644] XXVII pp. 460-461) 1183: “Large numbers of heretics, bearing the same appellations (as the Catharists) were burned in Flanders and various parts of France” (Vignier, Histoire de 1’Englise, p. 391) 1184: Council of Verona. Bishops instructed to “search out heretics to be dealt with by secular authorities” (Rel. & Eths. 1, 279) 1185: First armed force used against them, with Cardinal Bishop of Albano at the head. 1195: Council of Montpelierl—more decrees against Albigenses. 1200: Pope Innocent IIT (1160/1161—1216) sent Parentio as Podesta to Orvieto, but he was so severe he was assassinated 1203-1204: Peter de Castelnau (d. 1208) and Arnauld Amalfric (d. 1225)

sent as proselytizers. 1205-1215: St. Dominic (1170-1221) tried to win back the heretics of Languedoc by copying Perfecti asceticism (finally gave up and took to violent methods). 1206: Small group sent out barefoot (following Dominic’s style) to convert. 1207: Measures against Albigenses drawn up; they included imprisonment, banishment, confiscation of property, deprivation of citizen rights, refusal of Christian burial—but no death penalties, (Holmes, op. cit. p. 69) Innocent HI sent legates to Viterbo, where several Catharists had been elected Consuls. They confiscated their property and demolished their houses. 1207-1209: Papal legates held open debates in Languedoc with Albigenses, trying to convert them (in vain) and scoring up heretical admissions against them. Finally Innocent urged Seigneurs to band

The Albigensians

67

together against heretics and to isolate Raymond, Count of Toulouse (1041/1042—1105),

their protector. He was excommunicated

and his

property placed under the interdict. 1209: Papal legate, Peter de Castelnau murdered (said to have been contrived by the Count of Toulouse. Raymond was excommunicated again,

but after submitting to humiliating penances and promises to suppress heretics and expel Jews and to take a personal part in the Crusade, which was being planned, he was reinstated in the Church). Pope ordered the Cistercians to preach a Crusade. Pope sent eight pleas for help to King of France before he finally consented to send some troops under his son Louis. Viscount of Beziers represented the Albigenses and later again the Count of Toulouse (since the local ecclesiastic power refused to grant the amnesty recommended by the Pope). He was excommunicated for the third time. King of Aragon joined him later, but was killed in battle. Simon de Montfort (1160-1217), father

of the well-known English Earl of Leicester, was at the head of the Crusade, under the legate Arnauld Amalric. All lands taken were given Montfort as a reward. The struggle altogether lasted nearly twenty years, although Montfort was killed in 1217. “All who refused to listen to the summons (to the crusade) were forbidden the enjoyment of social life and interdicted from Christian burial at death” (Rel. & Eths. 1, 283). The troubadour in his Chanson de la Croisade boasted that more than 20,000 fully armed knights and 200,000 foot soldiers answered the call

(Luchaire, U.S., pp. 126-127). June 1210—-September, 1212: “a long series of plunderings and massacres, accompanied by almost unprecedented atrocities, wherever the defenceless victims refused to abjure their errors” (Re/. & Eths. 1, 284) 1211: Amalric de Montreal took Lavaur. Eighty knights hung. January 1213: the Crusade officially ended. King of Aragon killed. All of Southern France incorporated into French Kingdom. 1214: Another Crusade begins. One hundred thousand “pilgrims” poured into Languedoc. 1215: Council of Montpellier. Simon de Montfort elected Prince and Sovereign of Languedoc. Lateran Council. Pope took side of Raymond, but was again overruled. The latter, with financial help from England, fomented uprising. Simon was excommunicated. Honorious III (1148-1227) became Pope and augmented attack on Albigenses.

68

Chapter One

1217: In third attack on city of Beaucaire, Simon was killed (he had previously prayed that he would be killed if he did not succeed). This encouraged all neighboring Catharists to rise up. Philip of Spain (1165-1223) finally consented to send troops to join the Pope’s forces, with Prince Louis (1187-1226) at head of Army. Seized Toulouse but after forty days, Louis got tired and went home. 1222: Raymond VI (1156-1222) died. A large number of the Albigenses

who had fled to Bulgaria and Croatia returned to fight. Bishop Conrad of Porto (1170-1227) excommunicated all inhabitants of thirty towns. 1227: New Crusade whipped up. 1229: Raymond VII (1197-1249) submitted after gallant struggle. He did recant and espouse the cause of his former enemies. He became a vassal to the French King. He allowed the Inquisition to be set up and took an active part in suppressing heresy. With the Inquisition in full action, it did not take long for the Catharists to be completely cleared away in France. By the beginning of the fourteenth century, they had virtually disappeared. However, they continued to exist in Bosnia (where they were known as Bogomils) and in the Valleys of the Pyrenees, where they became confused with (and in many cases were actually fused with) the Waldenses. As late as 1875 they were mentioned in the French “La Tempa” as a sect in Bosnia. 1308-1309: the last Inquisitions against the Albigenses. Peter and James Auteri and members of their family were the last leaders of the Albigenses to be martyred (Warner, op. cit. pp. 59 and 60). The main legendary heroes and heroines of the Albigenses were: The women Esclarmonde de Foix (1151-1215), the chaste, and Exclarmonde d’Alion, the bastard, known as L’ Amoureuse, Guilhabert de Castres, rov-

ing minister, and Guilhem d’Airons, known as a healer. During the Inquisition, bands of Albigenses lived in the mountains and the Perfecti would sneak into town every night or so to give Consolamentum to the dying and give the secret sign of the faith to a martyr being tied to the stake. For many years they lived like homeless animals. Holmes says of the Catharist “survival for another century” (actually if they were still existent in 1875 it must have been almost six centuries) “in Bosnia (that this) no more affected its general decline than the retention of ebbing waters in a sea pool affects the general recession of the tide. When

The Albigensians

69

it (the Albigensian movement) died in Languedoc, it had, by all intents and purposes, passed away” (op. cit. p. 97). Holmes claims that it died of its own dualistic philosophy, and through the infiltration of Northerners, who came with the Crusades and settled there, thus weakening the individual flavor of the South (whose prevalence of heresy was a part of her whole unusual, advanced civilization at that time).

CONDITIONS

LEADING TO GENOCIDE

“The impact came at a time when the Church of Rome was putting forth all its power to extend its spiritual supremacy northward and the Kingdom of France its territorial domains southward; it suited their respective interests to unite their forces in a home Crusade against Southern France” (Warner, op. cit. p. 6). Provence was enjoying a brilliant civilization compared with the rest of Europe, and the eyes of greedy, power-coveting men were jealously on her and her wealthy counts and barons. There was much jealousy and fighting between the ecclesiastical powers (who were very corrupt and materialistic at this time) and the nobles. In a sense the heretics, which abounded in this progressive society, acted as a shock absorber between the Church and the Seigneurs and as such were at first welcomed by the nobles. But the example of purity, abstinence, and renunciation of the Catharists was goading and irritating to both groups. “Never before had organized society, with its edifice of priests and Barons and Kings, been in such danger” (Magre, op. cit. p. 103). “In the eyes of selfish men, there can be no greater crime than a crime of disinterestedness and love. The hatred aroused by moral superiority shows no pity” (Ibid., p. 56). “What excited the greatest hatred of them was their contempt for the things of this world . . . as far back as one goes in history it can be seen that the man who has renounced this (world) and deprived himself, with love in his heart, becomes the object of execra-

tion on account of the social danger he represents” (Ibid., p. 101)... “though asceticism may have been permitted to obedient monks within the Church, it was not permitted in the case of a race which practiced it wholesale.” “The principal cause of the great massacres of the Albigenses, the hidden cause but the true one, was that the ancient teaching of the Masters, so jealously guarded by all priesthoods in every temple in the world, had been revealed. More than that—it had not only been revealed,

70

Chapin Ome

it had also been understood. . . . The hierarchies of the Greek and Romar priests, supported by republics and Baapires, also punished with death the disclosure of the mysteries. ... The Albigonsian war was the greatest tut ing point in the religiows history of humanity” (Ih, p. 102) Of course there were many fmatics among the Catholics, hike the Yee spired Abbess of St. Rupert's Mowat.” Hiklegard (1088-1179), whe ap pealed to the clergy of Mainz and Cologne, threatening destruction upon them if they did not eject those “pefiriows men, worse than Jews, like unt the Sadducees.~ whom she desorbed as “meager with more fasting and yet addicted to incestwous hast” (Ral. & Hehe. 1, 27) The degeneration of the Roman Catholic Church at this particular time played a large role im the development of the fanatic t crush all dissenters from existence. In a letter dated May 1204, adeiressed to his legate at Narbonne, Innocent UT wrote: “nothing was more CORUROR

than for monks even, and regular canons, to cast aside their attire, take to gambling and hunting, Consort with concubines and turn jugglers ar

doctors” (Epist. Bk. VI na. 75, Migee, BL L. col 355-357) Everyone looked down on the Catholic clergy, Counts took special delight in desecrating churches and insulting the clergy. It is adimitted that the Albi genses provoked some of these actions (Migue), bat generally speaking the pure, blameless lives of the Boni Homines “was im direct contrast with the dissolute Seigneures” (Ibid, ool. 553). The Lateran Council of 1215 was described as “nothing less than a great political congress at which the passions and ideas, ambitions and soouler sins of the time are to be discerned in actual conflict” (Histoire ae la Podsie Prevercade, iii,

159). One of the inconsistencies of Catholic inunction was that they did not allow the “Word of God” spoken in the vernacular, while at the same time they “allowed immodest songs composed by people to be sung ie Church” (Warmer, op. cit, p. 26) In 1236 the Papal Legate ordered an investigation of Lagrasse and found that the monks led “a most depraved and abominable life” (Langlois Regisires de Nicolas IV, 738—Emery, Heresy and the Inquisition in Narbonne, p. 115), Typical of Catholic moral decline was the episode of 230 to 300 poor people being crushed

to death while waiting to receive bread at a monastery in Narbonne in 1322. The Viscount investigated the cause and called it negligence, bat the Council charged deliberate slaughter of the poor (Ibid, p. E12) In protest to the growing dissoluteness and also in imitation of the Perfteti, Catholic groups became mendicants and a new movement and refoem

The Albigensians

71

swept through Europe. During the thirteenth century when these orders first sprang up, they interfered seriously with the former high revenues of the parish churches and caused frequent friction between clergy and the mendicant friars. The donations for the monasteries fell off and the monks began selling rights for pasture or wood cutting, which had formerly been given the peasants free. Naturally the Albigenses, with their policy of absolute honesty, criticized the Roman Church whenever they were “drawn out” on the subject. In the open arguments they held with the Catholics, they stuck out their necks to the Inquisition by openly referring to the R. C. Church as the Babylon of the Apocalypse, the “Synagogue of the Devil” (Vignier, pp. 407, 410) and proving that it was not the “true” church by the “By their fruit ye shall know them” logic. Such indictments, coupled with their own guilty consciences, naturally raised the anger of the clerics to a perilous pitch. Their defense lay in the calumny of the Albigenses, and what started as a defense mechanism snowballed into one of the most conclusive cases of Genocide in religious history. Some Catholic historians tried to justify it in the following manner: “It is to be noted that at the very time when Innocent III resolved upon the Crusade in Languedoc, the doctrines of the Cathari had assumed a form which can only be described as subversive, not merely of the teaching of the Western Church, but of Christianity itself’ (Julian of Palermo, Rel. & Eths. I, 281).

More obvious provocations on the part of the Albigenses did occur spasmodically (but to a lesser degree than among most victim groups, since they eschewed all bloodshed). However, we find instances of vio-

lence on their part such as during the First Crusade (1096-1099), the “heretics from some of the unconquered villages in the north of Languedoc

attacked Narbonne because that city had earlier raised a small army for Simon de Montfort (although they later deserted). Narbonne was forced to appeal to the Crusade for aid” (Emery, op. cit. pp. 58-59).

METHODS AND TECHNIQUES (CULTURAL, BIOLOGICAL, AND PHYSICAL GENOCIDE) “Wherever the Catholic leaders carried their arms, massacre, plunder, con-

fiscation and general devastation went with them and famine and pestilence stalked behind.” “Each forward move on the part of the invading army was

iP

Chapter One

marked by a butchery” (said the contemporary Achille Luchaire—Holmes, op. cit. pp. 85-86). As in all Genocide cases, there is a gradual descent toward the violence which seeks utter extermination. The church tried to dissuade the “heretics” by all methods for several years before they committed themselves to force. A series of Councils warned Catholics to avoid the Catharists: for example, Council of Tours, 1162 “all should avoid the company of the Albigensian heretics” (first time they were called by that term) (Warner, op. cit., 34), and several councils, which pronounced anathemas and penalties on all who in any way supported the heretics. Wandering monks were missioned to draw out the Alibigenses in debate and if possible convert them. No conversions by this method were found recorded. Gradually the local clerics were given a free and stronger hand. They were allowed to deprive “unworthy” (lenient toward the Catharists) clerics of their benefits and fill their places at will, thus making them autocrats (Holmes, op. cit. p. 70). Once a course of violence was decided upon, pressure was brought to bear in all conceivable ways on the people and especially on the nobles and princes. For instance in October, 1209, Otto IV (1175-1218) was “con-

strained to promise his cooperation in a religious Crusade before he could receive his imperial crown in Rome” (Rel. & Eths. 1, 279). Redemption of sin and even eternal life, as well as material advantages were offered as reward (Magre, op. cit. p 56) and social benefits were deprived of those who did not join the Crusade. Cities escaped general massacre only by hastening to execute a great number of suspected Cathari (thus Narbonne saved itself the fate of the massacres of Beziers). We find similar pressure applied by Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, on the other side. His chaplain offered indulgences to those in Marseilles who engaged in building defenses against the Crusaders (Rel. & Eths. 1, 285). During the Inquisition, “indulgences, pecuniary rewards, were offered to all who denounced heretics, while unwilling witnesses could be put to torture.” Convicts were used as hostile witnesses. The Council of Narbonne in 1233 decreed that all adverse testimony of witnesses should be regarded as conclusive. The accused could not defend themselves, nor know the names of their accusers. Later in the Councils of Verona, 1248 and Albi, [12]54, any witnesses

offering to testify in favor of the defendants were regarded as supporters of heresy. Condemnation for heresy involved: (1) confiscation of all property, (2) deprivation of civil rights, (3) liability to death at stake. Heretics who voluntarily repented had to do rigorous and humiliating penances for

The Albigensians

73

the rest of their lives. Those who recanted under compulsion were liable to life imprisonment in solitary cells, often underground. Disabilities were inflicted on descendants, even if they were good Catholics. Church orders were carried out by the State through threats and bribes. The money from confiscations, etc., went mostly into the State coffers. Therefore heresy hunting was very profitable for the states. Stool pidgeoning was encouraged in every way. Between 1204 and 1213, Innocent III issued four “decretals in which the system of secret inquiry was formerly recognized and directions given that investigations should be instituted throughout” (Re/ & Eths. 1, 285). The Inquisition granted pardon to penitents who would rout out other heretics. Magre points out that the rich Barons who recanted had to often scourge themselves publicly, throw themselves at the feet of the Cardinal in front of the cathedral, or walk

barefoot to Jerusalem (or all three) before they were reinstated—but that last ofall and most important they had to point out other heretics (op. cit. 181). He further shows that a person could be brought before the Inquisition and, if necessary, tortured, in order to recall the names of persons he

saw at an Albigensian sermon ‘thirty years before (Ibid. p. 82). Defamation was another timeworn device made use of. The usual accusations of “abominations” were commonly directed against the Albigenses, just as the “abbess of St. Rupert’s Mount” had inveighed against their addiction “to incestuous lusts.” One story circulated about them was that the children begotten from “promiscuous intercourse were solemnly burnt the day before their birth, their ashes preserved and given to the dying as a Viaticum” (Warner, op. cit. p. 34). Another timeworn defamation device was deployed—accusing the victims of subversion. In Spain it was rumored that the Albigenses were trying to seek an alliance with the Saracens against Christianity (Joachin in Apocalyp, p. 134—Rel. & Eths., 280). Innocent II described the Albigenses as “lascivious sects,

who overflowing with libertine ardor, but slaves to their pleasures of the flesh” (Magre, op. cit., 24). Duplicity, as usual, was a common device. As early as 1017 we find that in the executing of thirteen canons and ecclesiastics of Orleans for Manichaean tenets, “artifice on the part of a Norman knight” produced the necessary evidence (Rel. & Eths. I, 278). Magre says that Innocent III (who has gone in history as one of the more humane and good Popes) “exhorted his envoys unscrupulously to betray the Count of Toulouse

by making promises which they had no intention of keeping” (op. cit. p.

74

Chapter One

60). Dominic de Gryman (1170-1221),* a Spaniard, one of the leading

figures in the Crusade, used to disguise himself as an Albigensian mystic and thereby discover adherents to the heretical faith. Bishop Raymond, a Dominican monk, tricked a dying Albigensian woman, who asked for Consolamentum, into believing he was a Catharist Bishop. She affirmed her faith to him and gave the names of other heretics. He immediately had her dragged from bed and burnt, and, of course, rounded up the people she had implicated (Ibid., p. 64). One of the most nefarious acts of duplicity in the Crusade was the invitation to the Viscount Trencavel (1185-1209), who was heroically holding out in a stronghold of Carcassonne, to enter the Crusaders’ camp unarmed “under the protection of Christ” to discuss peace. He did so and was immediately seized and made a prisoner. According to some accounts he was later murdered; to others he died in prison. At any rate, his death followed ten days later and the stronghold was taken (although most of the defenders miraculously escaped, but were later caught and sealed alive in a cave). Cultural genocide was applied early in the Albigensian case. In 1178 when Raymond V appealed to the Pope and the Kings of France and England about the Catharists, envoys were sent, who made an example of the

leading and wealthiest Albigensian citizen, one Peter Moran. Although he recanted, all sorts of humiliating penances were heaped upon him which lasted many years and finally killed him. Many of the recanting nobles were forced to take action against other heretics to prove their faithfulness to the Church, and so they took advantage of their high positions to have professors removed from the University of Narbonne and to reorganize the university as a tool of the Church. In their enthusiasm or desire to impress their monitors, they battered down Catharist symbols which adorned the facades of houses (Magre, op. cit, 81). Magre says “it was not enough to take the maize fields, the blue vineyards and the beautiful houses with their Saracen architecture, the brains of these rebels had to be altered, their thought had to conform to the icy rigidity of Roman thought” (Ibid. 81). The most complete job of cultural genocide was accomplished so far as the religious and historical documents of the Albigenses were concerned. Their “books were carefully destroyed down to the last page” (Magre, p. 94). “They did not allow the survival of a fragment of teaching, a page of a book, an inscription on a wall” (Ibid., pp. 103-4). 4. Reference is to Domingo Félix de Guzman (1170-1221).

The Albigensians

75

Incidents of Physical Genocide: One hundred forty Perfecti were captured in Castle of Minerve, three recanted and the rest were burned at

the stake. In 1211, Amalric de Montreal took Lavaur and ordered eighty xnights hung. The gibbet gave way so Montfort ordered their throats cut. The Commandant’s sister and her daughter were thrown down a well (which can still be shown the curious tourist). The whole population of Lavaur was destroyed and Dona Geralda thrown alive down a well “in order that her death might be slow and worthy of her great sin” (Magre, op. cit. p. 73). The Castle of Casser surrendered and sixty Perfecti were sent to stake with not one recanting. Amaury de Montfort captured Marmande and “butchered more than 5,000 men, women, and children” (Holmes, p.

86). Three hundred Credentes of Mont Segur were chained by the neck and hurled into flames of huge stake near Ers (Magre, p. 90). But the greatest holocaust of all occurred at Béziers: “one of the most ferocious massacres in all history under a Pope who was considered one of the most venerated in history” (Magre, p. 69). In a town of 60,000, including Catholics, 20,000 were killed (according to the Abbé de Citeaux in a letter to the Pope), 40,000 according to some other sources (Chambers, Encycl. I, 126). At

Toulouse, Bishop Foulane put to death 10,000 (Ibid., 73). After the Viscount of Béziers was treacherously captured, his people fled, but of those captured fifty were hung and four hundred burned. Those who managed to escape to the mountains were “hunted like wild animals with trained hounds.” A large number found temporary safety in a large cave, but since the Bishops could not rout them out they sealed up the entrance of the cave (Ibid. p. 91). A particularly morbid type of violence consisted in convicting dead people and exhuming their bodies, to be burnt or just left to decay unburied. When Raymond VI died in 1222, his remains were exposed to sight in a hospital for nearly 150 years because he was refused burial rites. Guilt (Evidence of Intent and Motivation and Goals): No attempt was made to conceal guilt, since the protagonists believed that they were not only in the right but were saving mankind, spiritually, by burning out this “abominable epidemic leprosy of the south.” But there was individual cruelty and wantonness as well as political greed on the part of the instigators that belies the missionary zeal of self-righteous religious fanaticism alone. Magre says “For the massacre to be possible it was necessary that an extraordinary genius for violence, for organization and for hypocrisy should take shape in three men” (Op. cit. p. 60). (These men were Innocent III, Simon de Montfort, and Dominic de Guzman, the Spanish fanatical monk,

76

Chapter One

who disguised himself so frequently as an Albigensian Perfectus.) The story is told that Amalric in the siege of Béziers, which town contained many Catholics, cried, “Kill them all; God will know his own” (Cham-

bers, I, p. 128 and other sources). Pierre de Veux de Cernay, Chronicler of the Crusade (d. 1248), wrote “We exterminated them with unbounded joy” (Magre, 73 and other sources). Holmes says “Had the counsels of the legates and the more fanatical prelates and monks been followed, the war would have been one of absolute extermination. When de Montfort began the siege in which he was killed, the legates exhorted him, in the event of his taking Toulouse, to put a// its inhabitants to death. . . : When Amaury de Montfort, sided by Prince Louis, captured Marmande, the Bishops of Béziers and Saintes urged the Prince to hand over the inhabitants to Amaury so that the latter might burn or hang them all. The Prince refused, but in spite of his refusal, soldiers of Amaury forced their way into the town, where, under orders from the Bishop of Saintes, they butchered more than 5,000 men, women, and children” (Holmes, op. cit. pp. 86-87). It was no secret that the Church was waging an extermination war against the Albigenses. In 1252 they issued a “Bull Ad Extirpanda.”

FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC

INTERVENTION

Of course in this case there is no division of “foreign” and “domestic.” The Albigenses were just a handful of people (we have no record of just how many although we know that they had five “bishoprics” in southern France) in a sea of Roman Catholics of all nationalities. There were no other Protestant sects to which to appeal, as in the case of the Waldenses later. They were too far removed in doctrine from the Saracens and other “infidels” to call on their help. From the religious point of view they had no one to whom to appeal. However, there were political angles and intrigues that caused divisions and alliances. According to Holmes, “The Pope, the Emperor and the Lombard cities regarded the heretics as counters in the game of intrigue and ambition . . . a stick wherewith to beat an enemy ... alternatively patronized and persecuted by political rivals for political ends” (op. cit. pp. 49-50). The immediate environment contained a dissolute bunch of noblemen and ecclesiastics, who constantly fought against each other in sly, undercutting ways. Superimposed on that was the jealousy and bad feeling

The Albigensians

We)

between the Pope’s legates and the local clergy. “The Papal legates first tried peaceful means, but even the local Bishops rejected the legates’ authority” (Enc. Brit. 1, 538). The people, down at the bottom of the heap, vecame sympathetic toward the Albigenses because of hatred of both the noblemen and the churchmen. They also welcomed “Bons homes” who actually practiced what they preached. Wherever the Catharists were given any lay power, the Church immediately stepped in (as in the case at Vitebo where several Catharists were elected Consuls in 1207) and Innocent himself went there and confiscated their property and demolished their houses (Re/. & Eths. I, 282). This treatment, together with the doctrine of humility of the Albigenses, kept them out of power and made them easier to sweep away quickly. (Note that in many Genocide cases, the power and success and skill of the victim groups seems to be one ofthe [word illegible] of the genocidists—for example, the genocide of the Armenians, Jews, Greeks—but this was a religious genocide case, although that same motivation may lie behind the fact that the Albigenses were so much purer and more ethical than the Catholics.) According to Chambers the “real object (behind the Crusade) was to deprive the Count of Toulouse of his lands” (op. cit. I, 128). It was not, of course, just greed for his property—but he was a hated object because he had protected heretics and “enemies” of the Church. Another factor in the lining up of sides was the “strong rising current of hatred of the French at this time (Emery, op. cit., p. 63). This, also, may arise from jealousy since the civilization in southern France at that time far outshone the rest of Europe. It took the King of France a long time and several appeals before he condescended to send troops. Even then his son, Louis, was halfhearted about it, as witness his giving up Toulouse after forty days and going home. Some individual French noblemen answered the Pope’s first appeal for Christian action. They were accompanied by brigand bands, and Ger-

man mercenaries were hired to serve under the Nobles. Philip of Spain was another latecomer to the Pope’s cause. The Viscounts Armey and Narbonne first sided with the Pope, out of fear, but later changed sides.

The Spanish King of Aragon fought alongside the Count of Toulouse and the Viscount of Béziers, but he was killed in battle early in the war. The Count of Toulouse lost time in getting organized by vainly appealing to the Kings of France and England and to the Emperor of Germany. When he decided to resist without them, it was too late (Magre, op. cit., p. 73). After the First Crusade was over, Count Raymond

and his son fled to

78

Chapter One

Marseilles where they received subsidies from England to format another uprising (Rel. & Eths, 1, 285). The only national boundary lines changed by the Crusades were the incorporation of the provinces belonging to the Count of Toulouse into the Kingdom of France in 1229 at the Treaty of Paris.

REACTIONS

OF VICTIM GROUPS

The doctrines of the Albigenses in a sense preordained them as martyrs. They did not believe in bloodshed for any cause. They looked on this life as a kind of purgatory, which the sooner gotten through the better. They believed that if they led pure lives in this existence that they could pass on to a state of absolute peace and oneness with God, so the shorter their lives, the more chance they had of keeping them pure. Hence, for the most part, they were completely submissive. There were incidents of retaliation, of course. Holmes writes, “From time to time the people of Languedoc were goaded into acts of extreme violence, and Catholic historians have made much of these . . . but for each act of reprisal, there must have been at least 50 wrongs to events” (op. cit, p. 87). In May 1242, Inquisitors with their agents were massacred at the Castle of Avignant (Holmes, op. cit., 93). But for the large part, they welcomed martyrdom, often committing suicide before their executions, or throwing themselves joyfully on the burning pyres. Dislocation resulted to some extent. Early in the Crusades, some Albigenses fled back to their native Bulgaria and Croatia. But when they saw that the Count of Toulouse was resisting, most of these returned to fight. “Some Albigenses fled to other countries, but most of them remained in Languedoc,” living in forests, caves, the mountains, etc. (Holmes, p. 88).

Catharist Bishops, credentes, barons, and peasants formed bands in the Ariége Mts., and became nomads, coming into the towns at night to give consolamentum to dying brethren (although they had ostensibly professed Catholicism to escape the Inquisition), dressed as beggars or pilgrims, mixing in the crowds around the burning pyre to lift their hands in the mysterious Albigensian sign of greeting to give comfort and support of the victims. Some of them most certainly emigrated to Bosnia, because that is the only place where a remnant of the same sect survived.

The Albigensians

79

Psychological changes were pronounced as a result of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Although Holmes claims not more than one percent of all Albigenses recanted (op. cit. p. 88), the movement died not just of ine persecution itself, but of its psychological results. “The systematic encouragement of spying and delation [denunciation] were demoralizing the people, and the network of suspicion and denunciation in which they were enclosed was as fatal to their economic as to their social lives” (Ibid., 97). “Fear and cowardice drove men to pass through Toulouse on their knees to seek pardon before the palace of the Inquisition for a heresy to which they had never adhered, they could no longer bear the terror of being suspect. Even the dead could be persecuted and charged,” their bodies were exhumed and the property of their children and grandchildren, even though they were good Catholics, confiscated. The terror cut short commercial transactions, relations, and friendships. At Albi and at Castle

Audary men were imprisoned because they were pale . . . (suspected of fasting) “so some rouged their faces and shammed drunkenness” (Magre, op. cit., pp. 82-3). Warner points out that once the Inquisition had the Albigenses “on the run,” they found it difficult, if not impossible, to keep up their unity, even of denominational doctrine—since they were so scattered (op. cit, p. 62). The one percent who did recant and those who got around it by shamming were, by that very token, the weaker members,

and so more predisposed to dissoluteness. Added to this the migration of northerners, with their cruder, more intolerant ways, the remaining sparks of Catharism were quickly doused and no sign of them was recorded after the middle of the thirteenth century.

AFTERMATH Magre describes the Albigensian war as the “greatest turning point in the religious history of humanity” (op. cit. p. 103). Although this suggests exaggeration, the statement is probably far truer than the average historian has realized. The Albigensian movement precipitated a Catholic reform of the magnitude of the counter-Reformation. “To the Albigenses and the Waldenses the Roman Catholic Church owes their reform and the Mendicant movement which gave the church new life. For this, if not for nothing else, the church owed and still owes the heretics a debt of gratitude, which

80

Chapter One

it has ill repaid by its incessant efforts to blacken their memory. But we

are apt to hate those whom we have injured; the church finds it hard to forgive the heretics for the atrocities which it inflicted on them” (Holmes, op. cit, p. 99). “The influence of Catharism on the Catholic Church was enormous. To counteract it celibacy was finally imposed on the clergy and the great mendicant orders evolved; while the constant polemic of the Cathari teachers against the cruelty, rapacity and irascibility of the Jewish tribal God [sic] led the Church to prohibit the circulation of the Old Testament among laymen. The sacrament of ‘extreme unction’ was also evolved by way of competing with the death-bed ‘consolamentum’” (Encycl. Br. 11th Ed.—Holmes, p. 98). Generally speaking, the “war destroyed the brilliant Provengal civilization” (Encycl. Br., 1, 528). For a time it coarsened the genocidists, and the clergy seem actually to be more greedy and indulgent and insensitive than before. However, the ascetic movement soon swal-

lowed up this remnant of a dissolute class. The remnant of Albigenses, as pointed out in the preceding section, decayed quickly. Magre says, “it is probable that after this great impulse toward the spirit, persecution and disaster altered them, caused them to deteriorate and reduced them to the

materialism of the Southerners of the present day” (op. cit. p. 96). The greatest loss was probably cultural, the history and documents of the Albigenses themselves and, more important, the advanced, tolerant civiliza-

tion that had nurtured a spark of enlightenment in Southern France during the “Dark Ages.”

[LEMKIN’S] BIBLIOGRAPHY Encyclopedia Americana, date? Encyclopedia Britannica, date?

Encyclopedia Chamber’s, date? Religion & Ethics, date?

Warner, Maurice Holmes, Richard

The Albigensian Heresy. Magre, The Return of the Magi.® The Albigensian or Catharist Heresy.’ Emery, Heresy and Inquisition in Narbonne.&

5. Henry James Warner, The Albigensian Heresy, 1928. 6. Maurice Magre, Return of the Magi, 1931. 7. Edmond Holmes, The Albigensian or Catharist Heresy: A Story and a Study, 1925. 8. Richard Wilder Emery, Heresy and Inquisiton in Narbonne, 1941.

The Albigensians

UPDATED

81

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burl, Aubrey. God’s Heretics: The Albigensian Crusade. Gloucestershire: Shire Publishing, 2002. Costen, Michael. The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997.

Markale, Jean. Montségur and the Mystery of the Cathars. Rochester: Inner Traditions, 2003.

Martin, Sean. The Cathars: The Most Successful Heresy of the Middle Ages. Edison: Chartwell Books, 2005.

Marvin, Lawrence W. The Occitan War: A Military and Political History of the Albigensian Crusade, 1209-1218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Oldenbourg, Zoe. Massacre at Montsegur: A History of the Albigensian Crusade. Marboro Books, 1988.

Pegg, Mark Gregory. A Most Holy War: The Albigensian Crusade and the Battle for Christendom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Sibly, W. A. The Chronicle of Wiliam of Puylaurens: The Albiensian Crusade and Its Aftermath. Liverpool: Boydell Press, 2003. Sibly, W. A. The History of the Albigensian Crusade: Peter of les Vaux de Cernay’s “Historia.” Liverpool: Boydell Press, 2002. Strayer, Joseph. The Albigensian Crusade. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002.

Sumption, Jonathan. The Albigensian Crusade. London: Faber & Faber, 2000.

Chapter Two

Assyrians

The center of the Assyrian Empire was situated between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, about 450 miles from the Persian Gulf. Records written on clay tablets, stele, bricks, and buildings have been deciphered with

great care, so we know the events which took place in the years of the country’s greatest activity between 1100 and 606 BC.! The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers brought waters from the mountains and made possible a settled life in Assyria. Irrigation canals extended the areas under cultivation and the soil, enriched by the rivers’ deposits,

produced plentiful crops. Surrounding this alluvial oasis was dry land inhabited by nomads who were dependent for their subsistence mainly on animals. Rainfall was scant and in periods of drought the nomads often became desperate for food and water. At such times, they were a menace to the settled communities who had to maintain vigilance against the marauding attacks of the nomads. Records “show that not a few of the listed campaigns [of the warlike Assyrians] were of a hundred or so men sent out by the provincial governor against the Medes or Arabs who were continuously harassing the settled agriculturists. Not a few were necessitated by the ravages of the Aramaean nomads in Babylonia.” In contrast to both the settled oasis and the surrounding desert was a great arc of highlands to the east, north, and west. These highlands, which

had hot summers,

mild winters, and abundant

rain, were the

1. Current academic convention is BCE (before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) rather than BC (before Christ) and AD (anno Domini, the year of our Lord). 2. [{Lemkin’s footnote |] Olmstead, Albert Ten Eyck, History of Assyria (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923), pg. 649.

83

84

Chapter Two

sources of woods and metals which Assyrian kings and merchants eyed longingly. We can understand why King Shalmaneser | [1274 BCE—-1245 BCE or 1265 BCE-1235 BCE] wrote that his enemies were to the “north and south.”? Another

king wrote

of himself, “Assur-nasir-pal,

the exalted

prince .. . who has fought with the enemies of Assur in the upper land

and in the lower countries.” The area of Assyria “was probably not less than 75,000 square miles. She would thus from her mere size, be calculated to play an important part in history; and the more so, as during the period of her greatness scarcely any nation with which she came into contact possessed nearly so

extensive a territory.”° The indefiniteness of the natural boundaries caused many feuds. About 1450 BC[E], the kings of Assyria and Babylon made a treaty determining the boundaries and guaranteeing their observance. This treaty was renewed about fifty years later. The relations between the two countries at this time were so good that “Burna-Buryash, the Babylonian king .. . married the Assyrian’s daughter, an event which was the indirect cause of Assyria’s first armed interference in the affairs of the South.”°

THE PEOPLE Originally the people of the Tigris-Euphrates valley were Akkadians and belong to the Semitic language groups. In pictures they are shown to have had aquiline noses and high-domed skulls. Assyrian literature always refers to the Assyrian people as the “black-headed (race of men), lord of

all creation.” Other physical types were also represented among the Assyrians. One type, known as the “Asiatic” is shown in monuments to have had boldly hooked noses, deep and slanting cranial vaults, and flat occiputs.® 3. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Luckenbill, Daniel David, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926-7), Volume I, pg. 39. 4. [Lemkin’s footnote 3] Ibid., pg. 170. 5. [Lemkin begins each page with | rather than sequentially; thus this is footnote 1 on page 2.] Rawlinson, G., Five Ancient Monarchies, 1862 edition, Volume I, pg. 227.

6. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Ibid., pg. 227. 7. [Lemkin’s footnote 3) Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume II, pg. 384. 8. [Lemkin’s footnote 4] Contenau, Georges, Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1954), pg. 196.

Assyrians

85

A third type was the Indo-Europeans of Western Asia. As the empire grew, many different types of people became assimilated, mainly through the intentional mixing of groups in order to increase the power of the kings. Thus a king could boast of being “the great king, the powerful king, the mighty king, king of the land of Assyria, king of the World .. . King of the Four Races, who on the land of his foes laid his yoke and swept them like a whirlwind.” The social structure of the Assyrian Empire was pyramidal, with the king at the apex. Often he was called “priest-prince” showing his position as the head of religious as well as governmental matters. Directly beneath him were the priests on one side, and the nobles on the other. The latter were often the king’s companions in the favorite sport of hunting ticns and other animals. The scribes had special prestige for they wrote the important messages and inscriptions. The sends of the documents which the scribes wrote were able, however, to give each document a personal touch. Around their necks they carried their signatures in the form of little cylinders “of stone engraved with scenes of religious or social life. When the document was ready, each party and witness would roll his cylinder over the wet clay, and the imprint which came out in relief served as his signature. Then the scribe would duly record the name of the man who had impressed his

seal; Among free men, monogamy was the usual rule, although as masters of the household, they often chose concubines from among the slaves. Their wives were considered to have become members of their husbands’ families at the time of betrothal. The chief occupations were farming, fruit-raising, cattle- and sheepraising, and various crafts. Merchants

were adventurous and, with the

encouragement of the kings, sought out the wood and metals which were not found in the Tigris-Euphrates area. Various enterprises were tied up with supplying and maintaining the large armies with clothes, food, and arms.

Among the other professions were those of architect, surgeon, teacher, and interpreter of law. The court of the king, in addition, supported 9. {Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 3] Samuel Birch, ed., Records of the Past (The Society of Biblical Archaeology, England), Volume I, pg. 3. ; 10. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Chiera, Edward. They Wrote on Clay (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), pg. 68.

86

Chapter Two

dancers, artists, and musicians, whose work played an important part in propagating and perpetuating the glory of the king. Their importance may be observed in a document which forbids the killing of musicians in a conquered territory.'! That the economy was able to meet more than the basic needs of the people is shown by the jewelry and ornamentation in pictures and records. There are bas-reliefs showing the torture of prisoners—a practice approved and even glorified—by which many of these coveted items were obtained. Apparently possession of these things increased one’s social status. The basis of the Assyrian economy was its tremendously large slave population, and to find more slaves for the growing empire was the main cause of war. While most of the slaves were captured in war, there were others ways in which this major portion of the Assyrian population was increased. Some, of course, were born slaves, but others, born free, were

sold into slavery. Usually this occurred when fathers, seeing the destitute conditions of the families and having no hope of improving their lot, sold their children. In order to increase the number of slaves, marriages between them were encouraged. “The children of these marriages became the property of the owner, who was at liberty to sell them separately if he so chose.”!? Slaves of exceptional ability sometime achieved responsible positions and enough wealth to become slave owners themselves. The ambitious pians of the Assyrian kings called for great quantities of labor, and so, immediately upon capture, the new slaves were put to work on canals, palaces, temples, city walls. Many were set aside as slaves for the temples. “These slaves, known as shirku, were under the orders of an of-

ficial appointed by the temple authorities to ensure their employment in the best interests of the shrine. Their employment was, however, not confined to the temple itself, and they not only supplied forced labor for work in the towns at public expense, but they could also be hired out to work for private employers. Their legal status was harsher than that of ordinary slaves, since they had no hope of adoption, while their children, even if their mother was a free woman, automatically became the property of the god.” The wealth of the nation was dependent on the availability of slave labor. “One of the principal objects of the incessant campaigns conducted 11. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 4] Waterman, Leroy. Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire, translated into English, with a translation of the text and a commentary (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, Humanistic Series, 1936), Volume XX, Part IV. (No page given.)

12. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Contenau, op. cit., pg. 22. 13. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 5] Contenau, pg. 22.

Assyrians

87

by the Assyrian kings was to ensure a labour force large enough to executive their various designs.”!4

RELIGION The Assyrian religion was perhaps a compromise between the monotheism of the Hebrews and the prevailing polytheism of the time. It was based on the idea of a chief god with many others subordinate to them. The chief god was an all-embracing concept, but particularly in war was he important, for the outcome of each battle depended on him. Religion in antiquity was a quest for, and a source of, power, and terror and devastation, wholesale slaughter and the imprisonment of entire populations were done in the name of, and on the order of, the gods whose instrument the

king considered himselfto be. The gods received their share of the spoils of war—slaves, oxen, trees, land, precious metals, even water. Huge representations of the gods in the form of statues were prized military trophies, and, if they could not be taken away, were destroyed. If taken, they were placed in the temples of the conqueror as symbols of the submission of the conquered to the power of the gods of the victor. The supreme god of Assyria was Ashur, “ruling over all whom the Assyrian arms have subdued; and as the kings believe themselves the masters of mankind, therefore Ashur is the god of the whole world.” The importance of the gods in the personal lives of the rulers and in the Assyrian glorification of war may be seen in the many hymns of praise. For example: “May the memory of Ashur be praised, his divinity exalted/ So that the exaltation of Ashur, the lord of lords, the warrior may shrine.”!®

Even the female deities possessed warlike attributes, as seen in the following Hymn of Belit: Am I not the daughter of Bel? Am I not supreme? I am the warrior, Am I not the goddess? The warlike daughter of Bel I am 14. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Ibid., pg. 19. 15. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 6] Rostovtzeff, Mikhail Ivanovich, A History of the Ancient World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926), Volume I, pg. 165. 16, [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Cumming, Charles Gordon, The Assyrian and Hebrew Hymns of Praise (New York: Columbia University Press, Oriental Studies, 1934), pg. 110.

88

Chapter Two

The high placed daughter of Bel I am The waters which | stir up do not become clear The fire which I kindle does not go out; The house of heaven, the house of earth into

my hand he has entrusted; The city which I plunder is not restored,

The utterance of my exalted commands destroys the land of the foe.

The goddess Ishtar had two main temples, in Nineveh and Arbela. “In the latter she was worshipped preeminently in her martial character as the goddess of war and battle, the inspirer of heroic deeds and the giver of victory; while in Nineveh, it was her feminine, voluptuous aspect which predominated, and she was essentially the goddess of love, of nature, and

of all delights.””"’ In one hymn, Ishtar speaks of herself as follows: In the midst of battle when I take my place The heart of battle, the arm of valiant courage,

the strength of her I am. Behind the battle when I approach A conquering power which fiercely attacks I am."

Bel, Shamash, Nusku, Minib, Mergal were some of the other gods whose warlike qualities were exalted and glorified. The kings took pride in comparing their deeds with those of the gods. Assur-nasir-pal, in his struggle against the city of Pitura, wrote, “For two days, from before sunrise, I thundered against them like Adad (the god) of the storm, and I rained down flame upon them. With courage and might my warriors flew against them like Zu (the storm bird).”!° Shalmaneser II [reigned 1031 BCE to 1019 BCE] proclaimed that “like Adad I rained destruction upon them.””° Marduk, the main god of Babylon, who was highly respected by the Assyrians, had several important qualities particularized by other gods.

17. [Lemkin’s footnote 4] Ragozin, Zenaide A., The Story of Assyria from the Rise of the Empire to the Fall of Nineveh (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891), pg. 18.

18. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 7] Cumming, op. cit., pg. 85. 19, [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume I, pg. 156. 20. [Lemkin’s footnote 3] Ibid., pg. 219.

Assyrians

89

Mergal is Marduk of the battles. Zababa is Marduk of the slaughter. Enlil is Marduk of the lordship and of council. Shamash is Marduk ofjustice.?!

Since personal action contrary to religious precepts could lead to death or banishment, “the fears of the gods was the very foundation of religion.” The chief priest was the king himself. Sargon is referred to as “the holy priest” in the account of his eighth campaign. As chief priest, the king kept in his own hands the power of interpreting the will of the gods. This accounted for the tremendous concentration of power in the hands of the

monarch. [Pages 8, 9, 10, and 11 are missing. ] the people. After capturing chariots, wagons, horses, mules, and weapons, Assurbanipal reported that “to everyone of my soldiers a gift was given.”4 Sennacherib [reigned 704-681 BCE] rewarded the diggers of canals with linen and wool garments, golden rings, and daggers of gold.”” The Assyrians thus were probably not too unhappy about participating in the king’s wars, since his life was enriched by his share of the tribute and booty. The great movements of defeated peoples had two purposes. First, it placed them among strangers who were not likely to support their possible rebellion. Secondly, it served the economic welfare of Assyria by providing it with new labor and by settling and making new territory productive. Tiglath-Pileser [reigned 745-727 BCE] built a new city and “People of the lands my hands had conquered | settled in it. I laid tribute and tax(es) upon them; with the people of Assyria I counted them.”?°

GENOCIDE The history of Assyria is replete with cases of genocide. It could hardly be otherwise since the country’s economic needs were many, and its reli-

21.22. (New: 23. 24. 25. 26.

[Lemkin’s footnote 4] Contenau, op. cit., pg. 261. [Lemkin’s footnote 5] Delaporte, L., Mesopotamia, the Babylonian and Assyrian Civilization York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1925), pg. 314. [Lemkin’s footnote 6] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume II, pg. 73. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 12] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume II, pg. 334. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume II, pg. 151. [Lemkin’s footnote 3] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume I, pg. 269.

90

Chapter Two

gion and religious practices not only demanded unceasing and increasing amounts of labor and materials, but encouraged conquest for conquest’s sake. The kings, the gods’ representatives on earth, gloried in their victories and proudly listed for posterity the horrible record of their personal deeds. Shamaneser II said, “the enemies of Assur to subjugate and subdue sternly did he command me.’ Ashur-natsir-pal II wrote, “I crossed the mountain of Kashiari and toward Kinabu, the fortress of Hulai I advanced.

With the multitude of my troops by a charge, tempestuous as the tempest, I fell upon the town. I took it. I put to the sword 600 of their warriors. I delivered 3,000 prisoners over to the flames and I left not a single one of them alive to serve as a hostage. Hulai, their governor, I took alive with my own hand. Their carcasses I piled in heaps, their young men and their maidens I delivered to the flames. Hulai, their governor, I flayed; I

stretched his skin along the wall of Dadaamusa. The city I destroyed, I

ravaged it, I gave it to the flames.” Both religious and economic needs were satisfied by the taking of booty, captives, and by tribute. But this apparently was not enough for the Assyrians. They cut down orchards, destroyed gardens, parks, and plantations, and burned whole cities. Shamshi Adad V [reigned 824 to 811 BCE] placed the number of cities that he burned at more than two thousand. Sometimes an area would be destroyed by intentional flooding. The religious symbols of a conquered people were counted as part of the spoils. Tiglath-Pileser I tells of acquiring twenty-five gods from captured lands, which he presented as gifts to his own gods in their temples at Assur.” When Sargon II [reigned 722-705 BCE] sacked Musasir, he had that city’s god, Haldia, accompany the king, his relatives, and animals as

they left the city, but Haldia’s temple was “set on fire like brush’*° and his shrine destroyed. Contenau, discussing the sack of Musasir, says, “The whole account leaves two main impressions upon the reader. The first is that the hyperbolic language in which Sargon describes his own achievements is matched only by the profound humility with which he renders thanks to the god Ashur, In performing his tasks he has been nothing but the appointed of god, concerned only to carry out his orders and owing everything to him. The second is, how clearly the endless and meticulous 27. [Lemkin’s footnote 4] Craig, James A., The Monolith Inscription of Salmaneses IT (New Haven: Tuttle, Morehouse, and Taylor Printers, 1887), pg. 15. 28. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 13] Delaporte, op. cit., pg. 341.

29. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume I, pg. 80. 30. [Lemkin’s footnote 3] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume I, pg. 91.

Assyrians

9]

lists of the booty show the extent to which war was a matter of business for the Assyrians. Plunder was regarded as a prospective source of revenue. It was one of the rare periods when war was a paying concern.””! From the Bellino cylinder, we have Sennacherib’s account of his con-

quest of Babylon.” At the beginning of my kingship, I brought about the overthrow of Merodach-baladan, king of Babylonia. . . . The chariots, wagons, horses, mules, asses, camels and (Bactrian) camels which had forsaken at the outset of battle, my hands seized. Into his palace in Babylon I entered joyfully and I opened his treasure-house; gold, silver, vessels of gold and silver, precious

stones of all kinds, goods and property, an enormous (heavy) treasure, his wife, his harem, his courtiers and attendants, all of his artisans, as many as there were, his palace servants, I brought them out, | counted as spoil, |

seized. ... In the might of Assur, my lord, 89 of the strong walled cities of Chaldea, and 820 small cities (hamlets) of their environs, | besieged, I con-

quered. | carried off their spoil. The Arabs, Arameans, and Chaldeans who were Uruk, Nippur, Kish, Harsagkalamma,

Kutha, together with citizens

(of these places), the rebels (sinners) | brought out, I counted as spoil... . On my return march, the tribes . . . (who were) not submissive, all of them, I conquered. 208,000 people, male and female, 7,200 horses and mules, 11,703 asses, 5,230 camels, 80,100 cattle, 800,509 sheep, an enormous spoil, I carried off to Assyria. . . . The inhabitants (subjects) of the city of Hirimme, wicked enemies, who from of old had not submitted to my yoke, I cut down with the sword.

Nor did Sennacherib overlook Babylon’s allies. Here is his description of his attach on Elamite forces which were assisting Babylon.* At the word of Assur, the great lord, my lord, on the flank and from I pressed

upon the enemy like the onset of a raging storm. With the weapons of Assur, my lord, and the terrible onset of my attack, I stopped their advances,

I succeeded in surrounding them (or, turning them back), I decimated the enemy host with arrow and spear. . . . | cut their throats like lambs. | cut off their precious lives (as one cuts) a string. Like the many waters of a storm, 1 made (the content of) their gullets and entrails run down like the wide earth. ... With the bodies of their warriors I filled the plain, like grass. Their

31. [Lemkin, footnote 1, page 14] Contenau, op. cit., pg. 154. 32. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Luckenbill, op. cit., volume II, pgs. 133-134. 33. [Lemkin’s footnote 3] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume II, pgs. 126-127.

Sp

Chapter Two

testicles I cut off, and tore out their privates like the seeds of cucumbers of Simanu (June). Their hands I cut off. The heavy (?) rings of brightest gold (and) silver which (they had) on their wrists I took away. With sharp swords I pierced their belts and seized the girdle daggers of gold and silver which (they carried) on their persons.

Even King Esarhaddon [reigned 681-669 BCE], who seems to have been less cruel than the other Assyrian kings, and who apparently tried to restore some of the damage done by his father, Sennacherib, speaks of butchering captives “like sheep” and of heaping up corpses “like grain.”* The kings’ personal exploits are commemorated in the cuneiform tablets and in pictures. A stone picture, for example, shows Sargon putting out the eyes of a captive. Sennacherib tells how Shuzubu, King of Babylon, was captured alive. “They threw him fettered into a cage and brought him before me. I tied him up in the middle of the city gate of Nineveh, like a pig.”*° Essarhadon cut off the fingers, noses, and ears and

took out the eyes of fugitives. Assurbanipal says, “As for those men (and) their vulgar mouths, who uttered vulgarity against Assur, my god, and plotted evil against me, the prince who fears him—I slit their mouths (v. tongues) and brought them low.”*°

Those who escaped death at the hands of their conquerors, often suffered the most cruel mutilation. Of a king whom he had captured, Assurbanipal wrote, “Raising my hands, which I had received for the conquest of my foes, at the command of Assur and Enlil, I pierced his chin with my keen hand dagger. Through his jaw (lit. jaw of his face) I passed a rope, and put a dog chain upon him and made him occupy (lit. guard) a kennel of the last gate of the inner (wall) of Nineveh, which is named Nirib masnakti adnate, to extol the glory of Assur, Ishtar and the great gods my lords. I took pity upon him, and spared his life.”>’ Living with the constant fear of such torture, and a quick death must have seemed merciful, must have left other physical scars on both the Assyrians and on their enemies. There are records of self-mutilation, of suicide, and of cannibalism. The latter was sometimes the result of famines

due to natural causes, but often was brought on because of the devastation wrought by conquerors. From our modern knowledge of the mind, we can 34. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 15] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume II, pg. 227. 35. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume II, pg. 155.

36. [Lemkin’s footnote 3] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume II, pg. 304. 37. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 16] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume IIL, pg. 319.

Assyrians

93

imagine what must have been the effects of these terrible events on even the most unimportant Assyrian. It is probably correct to assume that the fear under which all Assyrians lived made them even more aggressive and more cruel to their enemies. What the Assyrians could have accomplished with their artistic talents, their scientific curiosity, their organizational

ability had they not directed themselves mainly to destruction, staggers the imagination. The anguish caused by the forced removal of large groups of people into new areas, into slavery, was further increased by the breaking up of families and family life, and the consequent disruption of normal living. This applied not only to conquered peoples, but also to Assyrians, who were often sent to other parts of the growing empire to settle and to help prevent rebellion. Sargon, having built the city of Dar-Sharrukin said, “Peoples from the four quarters of the world, of foreign speech, of manifold tongues, who had dwelt in mountains and valleys ... whom I, in the name of Assur, my lord, by might of my arms had carried away into captivity, I commanded to speak one language, and settled them therein. Sons of Assur, of wise insight in all things, I placed over them, to watch over them: learned men and scribes to teach them the fear of God and the King.”** Ragozin states that, “On an average, a fourth of every subjugated population may be assumed to have been transported either into Assyria proper or into remove provinces and dependencies of the empire, while their place was filled with Assyrian families or, at least, with people from kindred and loyal districts. That the object was to effect a general fusion of races, and obtain, in time, uniformly submissive and contented

subjects, is shown by the fact that deportations of thousands of women were specially mentioned, who could not possibly be sent into the middle of Assyria except for the purpose of being there married and settled, and bringing up a generation which, from their mixed origin, should be free from very decided patriotic leanings—unless, indeed, to the country of their birth.” In spite of the hazards of rebellion, the conquered people did not aiways remain quiescent. Assyrian kings were, of course, most efficient in dealing with the rebels. “One of the rebellious princes was impaled before the gate of his own city, which was then razed to the ground.” 38. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 17] Ragozin, op. cit., pg. 239. 39. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Ibid., pg. 220. 40. [Lemkin’s footnote 3] Ibid., pg. 237.

94

Chapter Two

Assur-nasir-pal described how he treated rebels. “Azilu I set over them as my own governor. I built a pillar over against his city gate, and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted, and I covered the pillar with their skins; some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes, and others I bound to stakes round about the pillar; many within the border of my own land I flayed, and I spread their skins upon the walls; and I cut off the limbs of the officers, of the royal officers who had rebelled.”! Conquerors and conquered alike lived in a state of anxiety. “Assyria spread a fear of living. A sense of insecurity permeated society everywhere, whether among the loyal who feared her reprisals if they failed her, or amongst the courageous who feared her cruel vengeance if they defended themselves and were defeated.”

ASSYRIA AND ELAM The most flagrant act of genocide—and the act which marked the beginning of the downfall of the Assyrian Empire—was committed by Assurbanipal against Elam. As previously mentioned, Assyria and Babylonia, in 1450 BC[E], made a treaty defining the boundaries between the two countries, and a Babylonian king married a daughter of an Assyrian ruler. However, this good relationship was not to last, for an opposition faction at the Babylonian court murdered the king and placed another on the throne. The Assyrian king, Assur-yuballidah, marched into Babylon and replaced the pretender with a member of the royal line. At this time, Assyria was still nominally a vassal of Babylon, but by the time of the reign of Shalmaneser I (1300 BC[E]) had so grown in strength that its empire was one of the largest in Western Asia. With the capture of Babylon by the son of Shalmane-

ser I, Assyria became the “mistress of the oriental world.” After some seven years, Babylon revolted and once more became independent. This pattern of capture and revolt was repeated many times in the years that followed. But Assyria’s power was on the rise, and with Sargon’s capture 41. [Lemkin’s 42. [Lemkin’s chester: Bulletin 43. [Lemkin’s

footnote 4] Delaporte, op. cit., pg. 341. footnote 1, page 18] Fish, T., Letters from the War Front in Mesopotamia [Manof the John Rylands Library, May—June, 1942] 26(2); 306. footnote 2] Encyclopedia Britannica, 1953 ed., Volume 2, pg. 856.

Assyrians

95

of Babylon, the country of Elam, formerly an enemy of Babylonia, now felt it wiser to join her as an ally against Assyria. Until her destruction by Assyria, Elam often fought side by side with Babylon. Sennacherib undertook two campaigns against Babylon, during which he also fought Elam. He evidently believed that Elam, situated to the south of Assyria, had become “a formidable rival.”** His vengeance on Elam was “so sweeping and ruthless as to appear monstrous from even an Assyrian’s standpoint, especially as it was carried out in cold blood, after the excitement of the battle was passed, and an interval of weeks, perhaps months, had elapsed.”*’ “The city and houses, from their foundation to their upper chambers, I destroyed, dug up, in the fire I burnt.” He had canais dug through the city “in order that, in the course of time, no

one may find the place of this city and of its temples. I covered it with water.”*° (Sennacherib himself was murdered by two of his sons while he was praying in a temple.) But it was left for Assurbanipal to destroy Elam completely. Of this king, Contenau says, “A certain genuine taste for literature undeniably made this monarch, with all his faults of ostentation, capricious cruelty, ferocity and wanton destructiveness on his military campaigns, anxious to preserve all the learning of his age.”*’ This grandson of Sennacherib took great pride in his education and said, Marduk, master of the gods, granted me a gift a receptive mind (lit. wide ear) and ample (power of) thought. Nabu, the universal scribe, made me a present of his wisdom. .. . Urta and Nergal endowed my body (form) with strength, vigor and unrivalled power. The art (lit. work) of the Master Adapa I learned (lit. acquired)—the hidden treasure of all scribal knowledge, the (signs) of heaven and earth. I was brave, I was exceedingly strong (i.e., industrious), in the assembly of artisans I received orders (?) and I have studied (lit. struggled with) the heavens with the learned masters of oil divination. | have solved the laborious (problems of) division and multiplication, which were not clear, | have read the artistic script of Sumer (and) the dark (obscure) Akkadian, which is hard to master, (now) taking pleasure in the reading of stones (i.e., stele) (coming) from before

44. 45. 46. 47.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote footnote footnote footnote

1, page 19] Ragozin, op. cit., pg. 320. 2] Ibid., pg. 320. 3] Ibid., pg. 321. 4] Contenau, op. cit., pg. 189.

96

Chapter Two

the flood, (now) being angered (because I was) stupid (and) addled (?) by the beautiful script.

Assurbanipal’s ascension to the throne was lar, and when he placed a brother of his on troubles multiplied. His reign was marked by the gods were on his side. “Ninlil . . . gored

apparently not very poputhe throne of Babylon, his many revolts and, as usual, my enemies with his great

horns. Ishtar, who dwells in Arbela, who is clothed with fire and bears

aloft (a crown) of awful splendor, spread a conflagration (lit. rained fire) over Arabia. The warrior Irra (the pest god) engaging (them) in battle, struck down my foes. Urta, the lance, the great warrior, sone of Enlil,

pierced my enemies to the life with his sharp arrow. Nusku, the exalted messenger (of the gods), who makes my rule glorious, and who, at the command of Assur (and) Ninlil, the valorous lady, goes at my side, guarding my kingship, took (his place) before my armies and brought low my foes.’“8 Each victory gave Assurbanipal the opportunity to thank the gods for their help. He restored temples, built new ones, and made many presents of his enemies and their treasures to his gods. He had an extensive intelligence service. This included not only those specially used for this purpose, but all loyal Assyrians, for he counseled

them that “the man who loves his master’s house promptly informs his lord of what he sees and hears.’’? Thus, informed of internal troubles in

Elam, he felt the time was ripe to punish his southern neighbor for her past misdeeds. Of Elam itself, we know little, for “their inscriptions are comparatively few and their literature seems to have perished in some of the tumultuous periods which marked their history.”°° We do know that in a much more ancient time, Elam was considered

one of the four divisions of the world. Elam is referred to in that more ancient of epics, Gilgamesh. On the west, Elam’s neighbor was Babylonia, and on the north, As-

syria. Generally speaking, there seems to have been a great resemblance between Elam and Assyria, for the life of Elam, too, was based on reli-

gion, war, and profits. The Elamites had a long history of conquest and aggression against [their] neighbors. During one of [their] military cam48. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 20] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume II, pg. 318. 49. [Lemkin’s footnote 2] Fish, op. cit., pg. 294. 50. [Lemkin’s footnote 3] Boulton, W. H., Elam, Media, and Persia (London: Sampson, Low, Marston Co., Ltd., n.d.), Ancient Lands and Bible Series, No. 5: pg. 8.

Assyrians

97

paigns, Elam stole the goddess Nana from her temple, and 1,635 years later, Assurbanipal was to boast of recovering her. Assurbanipal’s attack on Elam was almost entirely motivated by desire for revenge and punishment. Gain was only a minor consideration. “For 1,635 years (they left unavenged) the destruction (wrought by) the Elamite. Me, Assurbanipal, the prince who fears them, they sent to lay waste (Elam) and a weapon which spares not (they put into my hand).”*! When Teumman became king of Elam against the wishes of the former king’s relatives and supporters, they became partisans of Assurbanipal. Assyrian gold probably played some part in their decision. The unrest generated in Elam by these malcontents gave Assurbanipal his opportunity. Before starting what was to be his seventh campaign against Elam, Assurbanipal prayed to Ishtar: O thou lady of iadies, goddess of war, lady of battle, who gives counsel to the (great) gods, who didst speak (words) of grace before Assur, thy father (so that) he chose me by the (lifting up of his eyes) (desiring) (that | should be king). To make glad the heart of Assur and to bring peace to the soul of Marduk . . . because of Teumman, king of Elam, who has rebelled (lit.

sinned) against Assur, king of the gods, thy father . . . and against Marduk, thy full brother, his divinity . .. whereas I, Assurbanipal, who for the peace of the heart of Assur and (Marduk). .. . He has mustered his armies, had set his hosts in array for battie, inviting to arms, as rip him open in the fight, as one rips open a bundle; let loose upon him a tempest, an evil wind.

From a seer, who had seen a vision in a dream, Assurbanipal received an answer from Ishtar. The seer’s dream is described thus: Ishtar, who dwells in Arbela, entered. On (her) right and left she had quivers, she held a bow in her hand, a sharp sword she unsheathed for battle.

Thou didst stand before her and she talked with thee like the mother who bore thee. Ishtar, exalted among the gods, addressed thee, laying upon thee this word: “Thou seest (a vision directing thee) to make war (?). Wherever

thy face is goest I will structions): drink wine,

turned, (thither) will I go.” Thou sayist to her: “‘Where thou go with thee, O lady of ladies.’” She repeated to thee (these in“‘Thou shalt remain here, where the abode of Nabu is. Eat food, provide music, honor my divinity, until I go and carry out this

51. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 21] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume II, pg. 357. 52. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 22] Ibid., pgs. 332-333.

98

Chapter Two

work and not be weary, thy strength shall not fail in the midst of battle. In her kindly embrace she clasped thee and protected thy whole body (lit. stature). Before her a flame burst forth (fiercely, so. v.) For the overthrow of thy (?) foes she . . . at (thy) side. Against Teumman, king of Elam, against whom she was enraged, she turned her face. 999

Reassured by this of the approval of the gods, Assurbanipal began his seventh campaign against Elam. The king was captured and killed. “The head of Teumman, king of Elam, I hung on the neck of Dunanu. With the Elamite captives, the booty of Gambulu, which at the command of Assur,

my hands had captured, with singers and music I entered Nineveh amidst rejoicing.”’> Then “the severed head of Teumman I displayed conspicuously in front of the gate inside Nineveh, that the severed head of Teumman, king

of Elam, might show the people the might of Assur and Ishtar, my lords.”* Not only the king, nobles, and warriors suffered from Assurbanipal’s revenge. “Of those who had gone up and entered into the mountains, to find a refuge (there), not one escaped, not a sinner slipped through my hands. In their place of refuge my hands captured them. The people, male and female, asses, camels, cattle and sheep, without number, I carried

away to Assyria. The whole of my land, which Assur gave me, they filled totally. Camels I apportioned like sheep, dividing them up among the people of Assyria.”°> He found a use even for the dead. “With the bodies of the warriors (and) the people of Elam I damned up the Ulai River. For three days I made that stream carry down to its limit (lit. power) their bodies instead of water.”*° In the process of reclaiming the goddness Nana, Assurbanipal says, “Sixty béru (a double hour’s journey) of ground in Elam, I laid waste; salt and thorn I scattered over them.”>” The people who somehow survived the battles, the burnings, and the subsequent famine, were not left unmolested. Some, both men and

women, were presented to the gods as gifts. Then “the men of the bow and shield, the captains (?) and (heavy-armed ?) bowmen, whom I had carried off from Elam, 1 added to my royal military establishment. The

53. 54. 55. 56. 57.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote footnote footnote footnote footnote

2] Ibid., pg. 334. 3] Ibid., pg. 335. 1, page 23] [bid., pg. 317. 2] Ibid., pg. 398. 3] Pfeiffer, op. cit., Volume II, pg. 40.

Assyrians

99

rest I divided like sheep among the metropolises, the abodes of the great, (among) my officials, my nobles—the whole of my camp.”°8 The religious symbols of Elam were treated with none of the respect accorded those of Babylon: I have destroyed the ziggurat of the temple of Susa, which was built of enameled bricks; | have burned its horned pinnacles of shining bronze. I have carried off to Assyria Shushinak, the god of the oracle of Elam, who

dwells apart by himself and whose actions no man has seen, besides the lesser gods and goddesses and their riches. I have carried off thirty-two statues of kings, statues of gold, of silver, of bronze, and of marble, together

with the colossi that guarded the temple, and the bulls which stood at the gate. I have utterly laid waste the sanctuaries of Elam, and have scattered their divinities to the four winds. My soldiers entered their sacred groves where no man might pass and which no stranger ever entered, and laid bare their mysteries and burned them. The tombs of their kings, from most ancient to the most recent, kings who had not venerated Assur and Ishtar my

lords, and who had mocked at my royal ancestors, them have | destroyed, made desolate and laid open to the sun. Their bones | have carried off to Assyria, leaving their ghosts forever without respose, without funeral offerings of food and water.

Elam was now reduced to a desert. Gone was the capital city of Susa, renowned for its beauty, and gone were the architects and craftsmen who

made the beautiful buildings and statues. With the dispersal of her people and the destruction of her land, the language of Elam was on its way to oblivion. Gone were the temples and ziggurats, some of which had been used for observing the heavens, and from which valuable astronomical information may have been lost. The loss in terms of human beings was indescribable and incalculable. The perpetrator of these horrors was not left untouched, however. Assurbanipal was burdened with distress, both physical and mental. “Since (lit. while) I have instituted offerings and the pouring of water for the ghosts of kings who lived (lit. went) before me, which had fallen into disuse (been neglected), (and) so have done good to god and man, to the dead and the living, why is it that disease, heartache, distress and destruction are clinging (lit. are bound) to me? Enmity in the land, strife in the

house, do not depart (lit. are not separated) from my side. Disturbances, 58. [Lemkin’s footnote 4] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume II, pages 310-311.

100

Chapter Two

evil words are continually arrayed against me. Distress of soul (heart), distress of body (flesh) have bowed my form. I spend my days in sighing and lamenting (lit. in oh’s and ah’s). On the day of the god of the city, I am distressed (disturbed). Death is making an end of me, is weighing (me) down. In anguish and grief| (sit), lamenting day and night. I sigh: ‘Oh God, to the one who fears not, give (these afflictions). Let me see thy light. How long, O God, wilt thou treat me thus (lit. do this to me)? As one not fearing God and Goddess I am treated.’”*° Assyria, the mighty empire, was herself to be destroyed in a short fifty years, without a strong country on her southern border, with only a desert there now, she became prey to hordes of marauders and attackers and the seven campaigns waged against Elam left her unable to fight them off. “When Assurbanipal died, his empire was fast breaking up.”°? With the end of the empire went the great libraries Assurbanipal had built, the art and architecture, the scientific advances, the culture of both the Assyrians and of those peoples who had been assimilated into Assyria by conquest. Thousands of years of the history of Assyria had passed. What was left, of the victor and vanquished, was nothing. “For a nation is come up upon my land, strong and without number; his teeth are the teeth of a lion, he had the jaw teeth of a great lion... . The land is as the garden of Eden before them and behind them a desolate wilderness.””°! * Ok OK OK Ok

EDITOR’S NOTE See also volume 3, chapter 2, “Assyrians in Iraq.”

59. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 24] Luckenbill, op. cit., Volume II, pg. 377. 60. [Lemkin’s footnote 1, page 25] Encyclopedia Britannica, 1953 ed., Volume 2, pg. 857. 61. Joel 1:6; 2:3.

Volume II

Middle Ages

Chapter Seven

Mongols

PART I—GENERAL ANALYSIS

Introduction: Pre-Mongol Nomadic Invasions Every European child and probably every educated Asiatic child learns of the now almost legend[ary] horror of the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The Mongols were not the first Asiatic nomads to trample large parts of Asia and Europe under the hoofs of their horses and to leave behind a memory of barbaric cruelty and invincibility that stunned existing civilizations. The Huns under the notorious Attila (406-453) terrified Roman Europe and the Near East about 400 [CE].

Other nomadic migrations of varying destructiveness and intensity followed which culminated in those of the Turkish tribes of East Central Asia in the tenth century. These [peoples] assimilated themselves in the disintegrating Mohammedan-Arabic empire and became its political rulers, [and] called themselves Seljuks. However, none of these invasions compares in destructiveness, fierce brutality, and far-reaching consequences with those of the Mongols. The Mongolian conquests are the most extensive in history. Their empire comprised, at their peak, half of the then-existing population of the world, and about two-thirds of what was considered the extent of the world by existing civilizations of Europe and Asia (Krause, 169).

Background: Ethnological and Geographic Origin The country of origin of the tribes which became known as the Mongols lies north of the Gobi Desert and south of Lake Baikal near the arctic 103

104

Chapter Seven

region of East Asia. Ethnologically, the Turks who invaded the West previously were akin to the Mongols and derive from the same general region. (Turk is here used as a racial term not with reference to the inhabitants of modern Turkey. See Encycl. Britan. Vol. 15, “Mongol Campaigns”; also Vambery, 119.) The various nomadic tribes which still roamed the great plains of Central Asia at the end of the twelfth century were poor and independent of each other; some were tributary to the Kin empire of China (1115—1234).' The more important of these tribes were the Oyurats, Kungrats, Keraits, Naimans

(Kungrats and Naimans

were

scattered Turkish tribes), and Uighurs. Although they were all nomads, they were far from homogeneous culturally. The Turkish tribes were more culturally advanced and less trained militarily, probably owing to their greater proximity to Moslem, Christian, [and] Buddhist influences (Vambery, 120). Of these, the Naimans were Nestorian Christians and knew the art of writing (Sykes, 148). The Keraits, perhaps the most powerful of the tribes, were also Nestorian Christians. The Uighurs were Moslems.

Formation of Mongol Confederacy In 1162 a son was born to Yissugay, chief of a heathen tribe which was tributary to the Kin dynasty. He was born with a blood clot clutched in his hand and the soothsayers predicted that he would become a great warrior. On his father’s early death this boy, called Temuchin, became head of the tribe which disintegrated refusing to obey so young a leader (Sykes, 147). He found himself deserted by all except his mother and his brothers and in the greatest destitution. However, by his personal qualities and ambition he managed to gain more and more followers until he found himself again at the head of a sizable tribe. Not content with this, he made war on the other nomadic tribes defeating and incorporating them one by one into his ever-growing confederacy. A new power was beginning to rear its threatening head in the vast silent plains of East Asia, but

as yet none but the Chinese were aware of its existence. Temuchin called a “Kuriltain” (Diet of Nobles) at which he assumed the title of Jenghiz Khan (“The Perfect Warrior,” Sykes, 148). At this memorable assemblage the word “Mongol” was supposedly first used to designate the whole of

Jenghiz’s following. There does not seem to be absolute agreement on 1. Also known as the Jin Dynasty.

Mongols

105

the meaning of the word “Mongol.” Some historians claim that it means “sharp and light,” while others consider it to signify “obstinate and fearless” (See footnote, Altunian, 18). It seems that something like “Bold” is an adequate interpretation of the word (Sykes, 145). The word “Tatar” is often used in place of “Mongol,” especially by Europeans [and by] their historians (Altunian, 18, footnote). “Tartar” is a European corruption of “Tatar,” the significance of which will be discussed elsewhere. The word “Tatar” existed in Europe before the advent of the Mongols (Camb. Med. Hist. 630). Howorth has it that was used by the Chinese to denote all tribes to their north (Ibid.). Thus the origin is doubtful; the Mongols themselves claiming that they subdued a nomadic tribe by that name ({name unclear] has adopted this view, see Sykes, 145, footnote). (Whenever the word Tatar is used here, it will be a mere substitute for the

union of East and Central Asiatic nomads called Mongols that has just been described.) The Mongol emperors of India were called “Moghuls” (Camb. Med. Hist., \bid.).

Conditions Leading to Genocide

Mongol Norms of Behavior The East Asiatic nomads lived by cattle raising and hunting. Thus they were seasonally obliged to migrate to areas more favorable to grazing and game. They domesticated the horse of the Asiatic steppe, a small ponylike animal of tremendous vitality and hardiness which could subsist by scraping for food remnants under the snow, and knew no barn. The nomads of necessity were warlike peoples who ofttimes conquered neighboring tribes to gain possession of their grounds and who raided the civilized settlements of China frequently for provisions and loot. Mobility, hardiness, bravery were the touchstones of their existence. Jenghiz Khan molded this human raw material into a highly disciplined categorical subjection and obedience from all the world. Wassaf, a Moslem historian (1299-1323) who has studied the Mongols intensively, had this to say of Mongol virtues (ed. trans. from German, Hammer I, 285): “It is unnecessary to reiterate anything with regard to the crudeness and brutality, the forcefulness and the fury of the Mongols, their talent to conquer obstacles and to drag those into the dust that are vanquished by them, their art to wage war and to blind allies to their victories. . . . The Mongolian warrior is expected to have the following virtues: the bravery of the cock, the gentleness of the chicken,

106

Chapter Seven

the heart of the lion, the [word missing] of the pig, the patience and endurance of the dog, the cunning of the fox, the inquisitiveness of the wolf, and

the calmness of the cat” (Hammer I, 286). He learned to sleep while on his horse, to bear the most severe natural conditions with indifference and to

serve with unquestioning loyalty. He learned to have respect only for the strong and brave and to have contempt for all signs of effeminate living or weakness. They are supposed to have frequently killed their aged out of convenience (Spuler, 417 footnote). Hence his complete indifference to age and sex as a genocidist. The Mongol women had a position [of] relative equality with them, despite the customary polygamy. Women could accompany the warriors on their raids and actually participate in the fighting. On the death of a chief his wife could, if offered, rule his tribe until a new one was installed. Thus the Christian and Moslem attitude toward women as weak creatures which demand protection—though they may be abused—was foreign to the Mongols.”

Social and Military Organization Jenghiz Khan fostered these values in his warriors by his own example and by his rules and teachings. He established the Yasa,’? a Code of Law,

which was faithfully obeyed and cherished by Mongol leaders until many generations after his death. The Yasa was a constitution for a military society: it declared equality before the law of all religions and ranks, the one driving force being obedience to the ruler and military conquest. This not only expressed and stamped predominant Mongol attitudes toward religious groups as one of tolerance or perhaps indifference; it also greatly facilitated unity within the Mongol forces and thus gave them an important strategic advantage over their enemies, as we shall see later (for data on religious tolerance of Mongols, see Hammer I, 51; Vambery 139; Spuler 198-245; Altunian 69-70). The Yasa also provided for a military nobility which had important privileges, for a detailed and highly effec2. [Lemkin’s footnote] Oriental historians are supposed to have described the Mongols as “a people who weep at their feasts, but laugh in their battles, who follow their leader blindly, are content with cold and hunger, do not know rest or pleasure. . . . They prepare and carry their own arms, are animated by one soul and one spirit, not dainty in food or clothes, unpitying, ready to tear the unborn child from its mother; crossing deep rivers with bladders, or else holding on to the manes of their horses as they swim.” (Vambery, 140)

3. [Lemkin’s footnote] See G. Vermadsky, “The Scope and Contents of Ghingis Khan’s Yasa,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 3(3/4) (Dec. 1938), 337-360.

Mongols

107

tive military hierarchy and organization which was based on the principles of smooth operation (Barthold, 385-386) of obedience and mobility and for continued unity between the various Mongol princes as the basis for power. All of the above plus their superior military tactics helped to make the Mongols invincible to the rest of the world and to lay civilizations and their peoples [word illegible] at the Mongols’ feet to become victims of genocide.

Jenghiz’s Personality and Influence A few words should be said about Jenghiz Khan whose brilliant leadership was perhaps the most important single factor in Mongol power and behavior. His dynamic personality gained him the admiration and even affection of his close associates. As Barthold puts it “he satisfied the ideal of a generous hero” (Barthold, 460). Even Persians said of him: “This prince Temuchin takes off the clothes he was wearing and gives them away; gets off the horse he was riding and makes a present of it” (Ibid.). Jenghiz had a considerable respect for courage both physical and moral . . . and for intellectual attainment. The Chinese scholar Ueliu-Ch’uts’ai (Yeh-liu Ch’u-ts’ai, 1189-1243), a follower of Lao-tsze and famed philosopher was forced by Jenghiz to make the long journey from China to Samarkind where he was joined by a distinguished international assemblage of sages who had been brought there to entertain the Khan (Barthold, 450). Jenghiz

proved himself interested in though indifferent to their beliefs. He bid everyone worship any god he pleased and to love as much as he pleased; but ali had to obey the Khan’s laws and kill or persecute only at his command (Prawdin, 182). As Barthold has it, Jenghiz remained a “stranger to all [other] cultures” all his life and spoke no other language but Mongolian.

According to the same historian, he worked for himself and his family only, being little interested in the welfare of nations as a whole (Barthold, 461). Be that as it may—and the fact that Jenghiz divided his conquest among his sons as fiefs seems to support this contention—he was the single focus of Mongol unity, the source of discipline, and the Mongol spirit. His influence over his loyal followers was magnetic: “They are his hounds—they feed on human flesh. They are held by him in a leash of iron. Their heads are as hard as bronze, their teeth gnaw into rocks, their

hearts are iron. Night dew is their drink, and the winds speed them when

they ride. When he unleashes them, they throw away their whips and carry

108

Chapter Seven

curved swords in their hands. Then the foam flies from their mouths, and

they are filled with joy” (Lamb, 50-51, supposed nomad saying). Jenghiz’ influence on Mongol success can be somewhat appreciated when comparing other Mongol leaders and their contemporary conditions to Jenghiz and his achievements. Mongol power expanded only as long as the leaders adhered to Jenghiz’ precepts of unity, discipline, and loyalty, as long as they remained faithful to his Yasa, or Code of Laws. Outstanding as such followers are Batu, Hulagu (the latter, however, established his empire on

the corpses of rival Mongol fiefs), and Tamerlane. Disobedience to the Yasa led to internal dissensions and fratricide. Internal Dissensions

Among the conditions leading to genocide must also be numbered these very internal dissensions. According to some historians, the ravages committed during the intermittent warfare in the Near East even exceeded those of the earlier invasion (Spuler, ?).

Geographical Factors The geography of Asia, of course, greatly influenced the course of invasions by the Mongols. First of all, the more or less constant contact between Chinese merchants and tax gatherers and some of the Mongol tribes had long before Jenghiz Khan instilled the nomads with a curiosity to investigate and loot this strange great empire east of their plains. More than once this curiosity had developed into actual attacks on Chinese territory. Toward the west, lay the open corridor of steppes which stretched into Turkistan and thence to the empires of the Moslem world. This corridor was the natural channel for migratory or military movements, and it had served as such since ancient times. The south was cut off by the great mountain ranges of Tibet and the north by the ice of the Arctic (Encycl. Brit., “Mongol Campaigns”). Conditions within Victim Countries

Finally, social and political conditions with the various victim countries of course were a factor in Mongol conquest. Dissensions, religious oppression, jealousies between leading houses all served to pave the way for Mongol advances. However, as Pjipin, a Russian historian [?], has aptly

Mongols

109

said, “This movement of humanity was terrifying as a thunderstorm, an earthquake or a deluge. One would misunderstand the great destinies of history if one should believe that the power of any Jurij (?) or the cunning or any Daniel could keep this storm from our country” (Altunian, footnote 34; ed. trans.)

Mongol Dynasties and Rulers: Jenghiz and Sons A brief survey of the chief Mongol rulers is necessary for an understanding of events connected with Mongol genocide. Jenghiz Khan who founded the Mongol confederation of tribes was its first and foremost ruler as well as the ancestor of most of the Mongol dynasties. His eldest son Juji [Knan] inherited the conquered countries from Kwaresm to Bulgaria [illegible word follows] as his fief. His third son, Ogotai or Ogdai [Khan], he nominated as his successor. Ogdai became Khan in 1229. Another son of Jenghiz, Jagatai [Khan], obtained the territory from Uighur to Bukhara, while his youngest son Tule [Khan], inherited the home country Mongolia. Khan Ogdai died in 1241 (at which time Batu’s armies were recalled from Europe) and Khyuk, his son, was elected his successor. Batu, Juji’s son, was chief commander of the European armies and founded a new dynasty on the banks of the Volga [River] from where he ruled Russia for two hundred years and had conquered Eastern Europe. This dynasty came to be called the Golden Horde, so-called because of the Golden tent which

Batu erected in his camp on the Volga. It was one of the most wealthy and brilliant Mongol courts.* Hulagu, son of Tule (1217-1265), devastated the

whole Near East as chief commander and founded the Persian dynasty called the IIkhans which ruled that country for one hundred years. [?] and Kugili (1215-1294) reconquered and subdued all of China; both were brothers of Hulagu, of the House of Tule. Kaidu (1230-1301) succeeded his father Kuyuk (1206-1248) as Khan and was shortly followed by

4. [Lemkin’s footnote 1]: The Golden Horde was ruled by Batu’s brother, Birkai or Berke, after

the former’s death in 1255. (See Enc. Brit. “Mongol campaigns”; also Lamb, p. 1197 for diagram of Mongol House of Jenghiz.) He became the first Moslem Mongol [rest of sentence illegible] [and] formally made the Golden Horde an Islam[ic] dynasty, and labored to spread the Islam[ic] faith among his subjects. This contributed to the rapidly increasing rivalries and animosities even wartare between the various Mongol houses, especially between Birkai and Hulagu who had committed brutal genocide against Moslems on his campaigns, while protecting Christians (Wolff, 403). Uzbek followed as Khan and his oppressive rule was notorious after his reign.

110

Chapter Seven

Chapar during a period of internecine feuds and dangerous undermining of the Khan’s authority.

Yuan Dynasty In 1251 Mangu became Khan to restore unity and the Khan’s authority, wresting the succession from the House of Ogdai in favor of the House of Tule. Kubilai, his brother, great ruler of China, succeeded Mangu as

Khan. Later, Timur, also of the Yuan Dynasty of China which Kubilai had founded, became Khan. Timur the Lame (1336-1405), the great conqueror of Asia of the fourteenth century, not only crushed the Golden Horde completely but also laid the groundwork for the establishment of the famous Moghul dynasty of India (1556-1707) by his conquest of that country. Timur, according to Wolff (also Curtin, 403), is a relative of Jenghiz Khan stock, being a descendant of Jenghiz’ great uncle (Wolff, 420). He seems to have been of

Turkish stock, according to other resources (Enc. Brit., ?). Timur’s greatgrandson, Dehizeddin, founded the Moghul empire in 1519 (Ibid.). Timur established a short-lived dynasty in Persia. One Khan followed the other in the Horde during a period of unrest and decay of Mongol power in Russia. In 1378, Tohtamish, who was given the throne of the Horde by Tamerlane, had restored Mongol authority in Russia, conquered Moscow, Vladimir, Perejaslawl, Rizzan, and other cities amidst brutal genocide and terror (Wolff, 416-7). When Tohtamish

turned against Tamerlane in his efforts to unite once more the great empire under the House of Jenghiz Khan, Tamerlane retaliated and defeated the ungrateful Tohtamish and crushed the Golden Horde. Though it did not disappear entirely until sometime later (Curtin, 405—6).

Methods of Genocide: Descriptive Quotations The genocide which the Mongols committed was a concomitant of conquest. It was perpetrated on whoever happened to be the vanquished

people of the moment, or on whoever had the misfortune to live in the warpath of the Mongol invaders. The following categories of genocide apply to the Mongols: Physical genocide: Massacre, forced labor, raping and maltreating women, deprivation of livelihood by destruction of

crops, deportation under trying conditions, and loot. Biological genocide:

Mongols

111

Separation of families through slavery. Cultural genocide: Deprivation of national, artistic, and intellectual leadership; destruction of cultural symbols (architecture, books, etc.).

Much has been written in the chronicles of Europe, the Near and Middle East, China, and India on the brutality of the Mongols. Perhaps the most famous and tersest description of all was given by a Persian survivor of Mongol genocide (Vambery, 130).

They Came, Destroyed, Burnt, Murdered, Robbed, and Went D’Ohsson (1740-1807), one of the most authoritative students of the Mongols, described Mongol genocide as follows (Sykes, 145): Les conquetes des Mongols changerent a face d’Asia. De grands empires s’ecroulent; d’anciennes dynasties perissent; des nations dispareissnet, d’autres son Presque aneanties; partout, sur les traces des Mongols, on

peoples les plus barbares, ils egorgent de sangfroid, dans les pays conquis, homes, femmes et entants; ils incendinet les villes et les villages, detruisent les moissons, transforment en deserts des contrees florissantes; et dependant

ils ne sont animes ni par haine ni per la vengeance; a peine connaissent-ils de nom les peoples quils exterminent.°

A Russian Chronicle is reputed to have said: “The Tartars tormented the populace in every possible way, by hunger, by the sword, by imprisonment, by intolerable martyrdoms, and most cruel treatment. They carried off masses of spoils and made numerous prisoners, in a way that none can venture to report, nor to describe the misery and gloom of our people. ... It is estimated that the number of those killed exceeded the number of those who were left alive under Tamerlane (talking of Armenia)” (Prawdin, 469). Arab historians wrote that on the path of the Mongol armies “the earth groaned, birds dropped dead, and wild beasts lost their senses” (Curtin ... Russia, 223). Thomas of Spalato [?] reported on Europe (ed. transl.): “There was no respect for the female sex, no pity for the tender age, no 5. Rough translation: The conquests of the Mongols changed their address from Asia. Great empires crumble; old dynasties perish; others it almost annihilated everywhere in the footsteps of the Mongols, the most barbarous peoples, they butchered in cold blood, in the conquered lands, men,

infants, women and they incinerated towns and villages, destroying the crops, turning into deserts flourishing places, and they are guided by neither hatred nor by vengeance barely knowing each name of the peoples they exterminated.

112

Chapter Seven

mercy for the old, murdering all, they seemed devils rather than human beings” (Wolff, 321).

A Cambridge historian summarized Mongol invasions thus: “A list of Mongol victories resolves itself into a catalogue of doomed towns and ravaged countrysides” (Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. IV, p. 647).

Analysis of Slavery as Mongol Genocide The significance of slavery as genocide should be discussed briefly in connection with the Mongol case. Slavery need not be genocide; however, by its nature it usually falls into one or more of the three genocide categories. In the Mongol case, slavery as physical genocide was not uncommon. Large numbers of male captives were used in the front lines during Mongol attacks, sometimes against their own countrymen. Thus they invariably perished, for the Mongols would advance only after the line of slaves had been destroyed and would kill all slave soldiers who attempted to escape or retreat. Furthermore, large numbers of captives were driven along with the Mongol armies only to be gradually starved and then killed at an opportune moment.

In the Mongol case as otherwise, slavery is most generally biological genocide. As victims of different sexes and ages are used for varying purposes and services, families are usually separated. In the Mongol case, attractive women were used as concubines and attendants to Mongol princesses, young men were used in the armies for hard labor, and skilled persons were used at the Mongol headquarters or elsewhere as they were needed. Slavery as cultural genocide was a unique phenomenon of the Mongol case. Persons skilled in the arts and letters as well as skilled workers and technicians of all kinds were forced into Mongol service to build their cities, advise their leaders, fashion their arms and implements, and adorn

their homes and concubines. Thus the victim nations were deprived of their cultural leadership. That such a policy would have far-reaching effects during an era which depended completely on this leadership for the maintenance and progress of culture, is obvious. —

Genocide in the Thirteenth Century It should be remembered throughout the discussion of the Mongol case that these crimes occurred in an age which was conspicuous by its geno-

Mongols

113

cidal and other brutalities among all peoples—the Christians with their Crusaders, the Russian lords, the Moslem

armies, and others. However,

even the chroniclers who must needs have taken considerable human suffering for granted, all testify to their horror at the Mongols and often shy [away] from describing the more bloodcurdling details.

Extent of Genocide The extent of genocide of the Mongols on the peoples of China to Germany will always be a matter of speculation. We know innumerable cities have been completely depopulated throughout the two continents, and that their survivors succumbed in larger numbers to the aftereffects of the Mongol ravages—starvation, exposure, epidemic. For the land with its crops was devastated and reverted to desert in many areas of Eurasia, especiaily in Northern Persia. A Persian chronicler wrote: “Not one-thousandth of the population escaped. . . . If from now to the Day of Judgment, nothing hinders the growth of population, it cannot reach onetenth of the figure at which it stood before the Mongol conquest” (Sykes, 160). [Illegible sentence follows.] Chinese historians report that between 1211 and 1222 along 18,470,000 Chinese perished at the hands of the Mongols (Althunian, 25). Once Jenghiz Khan asked a captive Afghan prince whether he thought that the slaughter would remain in people’s memories for ever. The prince answered: “If Jenghiz Khan continues this campaign of murder, no one will be left alive to harbour the memory of bloodshed” (Prawdin, 195).

Aftermath (Destruction)

From the point of view of history, the cultural losses as a result of Mongol genocide were perhaps even more staggering than the losses of human lives. Even if there existed an accurate register of all the palaces, churches, mosques, books, and articles of art and beauty which were destroyed or carried off by the Mongols, the irreparable damage done to world culture could only be estimated. Suffice it to say that historians agree that the Near East, that is to say Persia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Transoxania, etc., suffered a cultural setback from which it could not recover for centuries; Transoxania, once a flourishing cultural area, never recovered (Altunian,

13; also Vambery, 127). Russia, though perhaps it had not as much to

1l4

Chapter Seven

lose in the thirteenth century as the Near retarded in cultural development under the The aftereffects of this rule are evident all fact that from the Persian capital alone one

East in terms of culture, was impact of its long Tartar rule. through Russian history. The

hundred thousand artists and skilled artisans were deported to Mongol headquarters for their use, testifies to the violent deprivation of culture (Hammer I, 25). This policy of deportation of cultural leadership was customary with the Mongols. If we consider in those days no great architectural structures could be built, no books written, and perhaps more important no cultural traditions handed down to the young, no artistic implements and textiles wrought without this elite, we will gain some insight into the damage done.

Construction

The Mongols did not only destroy. Some of their leaders, more especially some of their Chinese emperors and Tamerlane used this international corps of artistic and intellectual lights to build new cities and work new artistic implements. However, successive wars between Mongol princes and the gradual disintegration of the Mongol legacy wrought renewed destruction as well as renewed slaughter. One great contribution that the Mongols made unwittingly to human progress is that the fact that they formed a link between Europe and the great civilizations of East India and China. The roads that they built for military purposes served as trade routes to China and an active exchange (mostly from China to Europe) of ideas and goods changed European civilization in some important aspects. We need only mention such inventions as printing, gunpowder, [and] silk.

Genocidists: Responsibility Responsibility for genocide is relatively easy to place. It was the Mongol armies which committed genocide in the conquered areas. With some few exceptions of disobedience, the criers for genocide came from the top and were carried out by the Mongol soldiers. In the Mongol military hierarchy the generals of the armies had the supreme acting authority during campaigns, although nominally princes of the various noble families (whose common ancestor was Jenghiz Khan) headed the armies. Often the prince at the head of an army was its chief general, but there were illustrious

Mongols

115

exceptions such as Chape [?] and Sabutai [?] of the Western campaigns during Jenghiz’s time and Mukhuli [?] of the Chinese campaigns (Encycl. Brit., “Mongol campaigns”). The supreme head of the whole hierarchy was, of course, the Great Khan, but because of the impossibility of guiding his armies over distances of thousands of miles from his headquarters in Mongolia, the actual control rested with the generals.

Intent

The intent of the Mongol genocidist was conquest pure and simple. Barthold believes that “Jenghiz considered the organization of the empire only from the point of view of the dominion of nomad conquerors over civilized peoples, whom God Himself had delivered into Mongol hands in order that they should derive revenues from the labours of the conquered and for this objective alone should protect them” (Barthold, 461). So far, Mongol intent is not genocide, strictly speaking, but merely subjugation and exploitation. But elsewhere we have stated that Mongol genocide is a concomitant of conquest: Genocide was often a means to the end of conquest,

a method of intimidation, punishment, and subjection;

genocide was, also, however, an end in itself, although logically it might seriously impair the possibility for future exploitation. Jenghiz himself has expressed genocide as an end in itself in his own poignant way: “The greatest joy is to conquer one’s enemies, to pursue them, to seize their property, to see their families in tears, to ride their horses, and to possess

their daughters and wives” (Sykes, 161).° Perhaps the simplicity of intent is almost hard to understand by those of us who are only too familiar with the intent of genocide based on a complex of motives that we find among the more civilized peoples. Suffice it to say that the Mongols butchered millions of helpless innocent people, defiled and desecrated their cultures, destroyed their cities, deprived them of their leadership, and ravaged their women to put an indelible stamp on their military supremacy, to, as it were, consolidate their victory. If genocide did not take place, conquest seemed incomplete to the Mongols. In fact, we might say that conquest

6. At this point in the text, Lemkin had inserted the following editorial note: Was it a strange coincidence that almost 700 years later another conqueror, [Otto von] Bismarck (1815-1898), exclaimed: “We will leave them with nothing but their eyes to cry with”? [Bismarck was the Prime Minister of Prussia from 1862 to 1890 and Chancellor of the German Empire from 1871 until his dismissal in

1890.]

116

Chapter Seven

implied two processes with the Mongols: military victory over enemy armies and genocide. The Mongols as a rule did not think beyond these stages. Jenghiz was unable to visualize the consequences of his victories. As capable as they were in military and genocidal exploits, as impotent as were they in matters of civil administration and in maintaining harmony among themselves in times of relative peace (Encycl. Brit., “Mongols,” 718). Jenghiz is supposed to have said: “Heaven has appointed me to rule all the nations” (Prawdin, 89). He would rule humanity by his laws and establish order and happiness everywhere. Or again: “With Heaven’s aid I have conquered for you (his sons) a huge empire. For the middle of it a man may ride for a year eastward or westward without reaching its limits. But my life was too short to achieve the conquest of the world. That task is left to you” (Ibid., 223). Mangu, a later Khan, seems to have been unique in contemplating any goals beyond world conquest. He wrote to the king of France: “But when, by the power of the Eternal God, the whole word from sunrise to sunset has been unified in happiness and peace, then it will become plain what we shall have to do” (Ibid, 302). Intent of genocide is implicit in the summons for submission which was usually issued to cities and kingdoms before attack: “If you do not submit, how can we tell what will happen? God alone knows!” (Sykes, 161). To shed light on Mongol intent to subjugate (and therefore commit genocide) in all of Europe, the remarkable letter of Kuyuk Khan (12061248) handed to the Papal ambassadors Giovanni [de] Piano Carpini (1180-1252) and Benedict of Poland (1200-1280) as an answer to the Pope’s message, should be quoted (Prawdin, 280-1): By the power of the Eternal Heaven, We are the all-embracing Khan of the United Great Nations. It is our command: This is the decree, sent to the great Pope that he may know and pay heed. After holding counsel with the monarchs under your suzerainty, you have sent us an offer of subordination, which we have accepted from the hands of your envoys. If you should act up to your word, then you, the great Pope, should come in person with the monarchs to pay us homage and we should thereupon instruct you concerning the commands of the Yasa. Furthermore, you have written me these words: “You have attacked all the territories of the Magyars and other Christians, at which I am astonished. Tell me, what was their crime?”

These, your words, we likewise

Mongols

117

cannot understand. Jenghiz Khan and Ogatai Khan revealed the commands of Heaven. Those of whom you speak showed themselves highly presumptuous and slew our envoys. Therefore, in accordance with the commands of

the Eternal Heaven the inhabitants of the aforesaid countries have been slain and annihilated. If not by the command of Heaven, how can anyone slay or conquer out of his own strength? And when you say: “I am a Christian. I pray to God. I arraign and despise others,” how do you know who is pleasing to God and to whom He allots His grace? How can you know it, that you speak such words? Thanks to the power of the Eternal Heaven, all lands have been given to us from sunrise to sunset. How could anyone act other than in accordance with the commands of Heaven? How your own upright heart must tell you: “We will become subject to you, and will place our powers at your disposal.” You in persons, at the head of the monarchs, all of you, without exception, must come to tender us service and pay us homage, then only wili we recognize your submission. But if you do not obey the commands of Heaven, and run counter to our orders, we shall know that

you are our foe. That is what we have to tell you. If you fail to act in accordance therewith how can we foresee what will happen to you? Heaven alone knows.” (This last remark being the usual Mongol threat of extermination.)

It might also be of some significance to note that the Mongols preferred winter campaigns to those in any other season. While this had strategic advantage to the Mongols who were better able to stand cold weather and could more easily cross frozen waterways, it also gave them an opportunity at complete genocide because fugitives were less like to survive (Wolff, 400, footnote).

Motivations: Gain, Sadism, Revenge, Expediency, Genocide,

Absence of Religious Fanaticism, Strategy Human life meant nothing to the Mongols except in its usefulness to the Mongol military society. Hence, of the civilian population, women and children were more often killed than able-bodied or highly trained men who were drafted into forced labor or the Mongol armies. Thus genocide in the form of forced labor and deprivation of trained leadership was motivated by the desire for gain, just as loot was similarly motivated. A

dominant motive of genocide was simple sadism, a vicarious satisfaction

118

Chapter Seven

derived from destruction and the influence of suffering, perhaps originating in the Mongol contempt for all weakness, and their desire for power. Another important motive was desire for revenge, but usually revenge was so staggeringly out of proportion with the injuries that caused it, that other motives must have played their part in all such cases. Any opposition aroused greater fury on the part of the Mongols and they inflicted particularly horrifying genocides on resisting peoples to strike terror into them and those yet to be conquered. Sometimes genocide was motivated by mere military expediency as in the astounding cases of the death of the Khans. Jenghiz Khan’s body was escorted to his Urdu (native horde in Mongolia; his place of death is doubtful, Wolff, 116-117) and every person who met it on the way was killed to prevent the news from being spread prematurely (Sykes, 160). Similarly, when Mangu Khan’s body was carried into Mongolia from China, twenty thousand persons are claimed by Marco Polo (1254—1324) to have lost their lives as witnesses of his death (Encycl. Brit., “Mongol Campaigns,” 718). Perhaps the most significant aspect of Mongol motivations for genocide is the conspicuous absence of any religious fanaticism. When the Mongol soldiers trampled Korans underfoot they did not do so out of a conscious knowing contempt for Islam; similarly, when the Mongols burned and desecrated Christian churches, they did not do so because Christianity was odious to them. Rather, they were indifferent to all cultures and religions and regarded them merely as another victim for conquest. Only as the Mongols because Moslemized in the course of generations did the motive of religious fanaticism being to appear. Whenever Mongol envoys were maltreated or murdered by the host nation, the Mongols retaliated by conquest and brutal genocide. As the monk Carpini who had served as Papal envoy to Mongolia stated (ed. trans.): “if (Mongol) should be murdered . . . it is the custom of the Tartars never to make peace or a truce with those who have killed or

maltreated their envoys and not to rest until they have avenged the crime” (Wolff, 256). Some writers emphasize deliberate strategy as a motivation for genocide; that is, the desire to impress and intimidate the victim nations with the

seemingly limitless numbers and power of the Mongol armies (Prawdin, 256); or, as a motive for cultural genocide, to destroy churches and monas-

teries simply to get rid of these centers of resistance (Lamb, 162).

Mongols

119

Propaganda As is to be expected, the Mongols did not operate by preparing the way for genocide through careful propaganda and psychological warfare. They generally operated by force alone and that was sufficient. However, Jenghiz as well as his followers made use of certain affective psychological tools to reach their goal of world conquest. Jenghiz Khan coined the phrase “One God in Heaven, one ruler on earth” (Spruler, 26), and it re-

mained the guiding principle of his most illustrious followers, especially Tamerlane. Doubtlessly, this seemed unquestionable and attractive logic to his nomad followers who rallied to the cause of conquest. Jenghiz also knew that Christians as well as Moslems regarded the Mongols as the “wrath of God,” and he was careful to strengthen them in this belief, and thus to, as it were, legalize his brutalities.

Misrepresentation and deceit of all kinds was the rule in Mongol warfare but the latter lies outside the sphere of genocide.

Responses of the Victim Groups The one dominant response from the coast of China to Germany to Mongol genocide and the threat of it can be expressed in one word: terror. It was a terror which struck such deep roots that it outlived its cause and lingers even today after centuries in the form of old prayers and stories. When analyzing the responses of victims one risks the error of confusing response to conditions of warfare and those of genocide, the two being so intimately interwoven here. However, just because of the fact that the two are concomitant in the Mongol case, we may assume that the responses of the noncombatants to the threat of Mongol invasion were also responses to the threat of genocide, for they usually well knew what their fate would

most likely be. This terror has the various manifestations in action that we find in other cases of genocide, ranging from abject helpless submission to desperate resistance. In Europe the Mongols were not, after the first flicker of rumors and

legends, regarded as human beings. They were devils incarnate coming from Tartarus to devour Christians and all humanity. The appearance of the Mongols which was repugnant to the tastes of the European, that is, their short frame, piglike eyes and prominent cheekbones, as well as their

120

Chapter Seven

coarse and filthy habits only contributed to the general reactions (Gruenhagen, 67).

General Aftermath to the Mongols The affects of the Mongol invasions have been far-reaching and profound. To assess them all one would have to study the development of Eastern and Western civilizations since the thirteenth century and up to this day, especially in Russia, the Near East, and China. After the last vestiges of their great empire had crumbled to leave nothing but great social and cultural changes and proud and terrible memories, the Mongols were

driven again toward their homeland in the plains of East Asia by Russian colonial expansion. Many thousands of them found asylum in China which rapidly absorbed them. Today, the Mongols of Mongolia still live as they did during the history-making days of Jenghiz Khan. They still guard what they believe to be the site of his grave. But, gradually, they are being drawn into the orbit of Russian and Chinese life and politics. As Lamb says: “The Mongols are waiting in their felt tents for the issue to be decided. They are grouping around their yurt fires” (Lamb, 356). An old much-repeated Mongol legend goes (Ibid.): When that which is harder than rock and stronger than the storm wind shall fail, the empires of the North court and the South shall cease to be. When the White Tsar is no more, and the Son of Heaven has vanished, then the

campfires of Jenghiz Khan will be seen again, and his empire will stretch over the earth.’

Responses of Outside Groups

Opposition Pope Innocent IV (1196-1254) preached a Crusade against the Mongols, the “ministers of Tartarus” (Camb. Med. Hist.; 639). He also sent to Mongolia whose object it was to attempt to dissuade the Mongols from

committing genocide in Christian lands and convert them to Christianity. While this mission did not have the desired effect, it has become famous

7. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ed.: Who can tell, in this atomic age!

Mongols

121

in historical annals; the ambassador, the Papal nuncio and Franciscan

friar John of Plano Carpini (1180-1252) and the Polish monk Benedict (1200-1280) made the long and perilous journey to Mongolia on foot and donkey, later being shuttled from horse to horse in strenuous all day gallops after the Mongol fashion (Prawdin, 274). They finally [reached] Karakorum just when Kuyuk was about to be crowned Khan. The Pope had advised them to make the most precise researches and to keep a watchful eye upon everything (Prawdin, 271) and this they did, their chronicles being one of the most interesting firsthand accounts of Mongol life extant. However, their message: that the Pope would like to be friends with the Tartars and to live at peace with them; that he wished to know why they attacked Christian countries and that he desired their conversion to Christianity, was either misconstrued or ridiculed (see Prawdin,

280-1). The legates were not admitted to Kuyuk’s presence who planned war against Rome (Lamb, 188). At the time when Carpini visited Mongolia, the Pope sent another embassy under Ezzelino (1194-1259) to Asia Minor, Baichu’s headquarters. Carpini had distinguished himself by his modesty and diplomacy and thus gained some respect of the Mongols (he had been politically entertained like the other foreign visiting dignitaries and, before he left, the Mongol dowager, Turakina, gave him fox-skin robes to wear over his coarse linen robe so that he would not die of the cold (Lamb, 187). Ezzelino, however, was a fanatic who stubbornly and foolishly aimed to impress the Mongols with the superiority and divine right and power of the Roman Pope. He brought no gifts and admitted that neither the Pope nor he had ever heard of the Khan; he refused to bow

his knee before Baichu (Prawdin, 283). The Mongols, startled by his lack

of submissiveness, suspected him of being a Roman spy and were almost ready to kill or flog him and his companions. However, instead, they decided for political reasons, merely to ignore their existence and keep them waiting for the Khan’s message for over two months and then sent them home—not before asking them whether they would rather be killed or sent back to Rome with a return embassy (Prawdin, 284—5). Later Western

chroniclers reported the appearance of Mongol envoys in Rome, where the Pope gave them private audience and costly presents; the proceedings at this audience were kept secret (Prawdin, Ibid.). Two letters which Henry Raspe (1204—1247), Landgrave of Thuringia, sent to his relative Henry II of Brabant (1207-1248) are significant examples of the rare insight into [the] Mongol threat. In his first letter, dated

122

Chapter Seven

March 10, 1241, the Landgrave said: “A multitude of a cruel and savage race have ravaged many lands, among them those dangerously near Thuringia (Poland). He anticipates their attack on Bohemia, and felt that unless that country was aided in time, there would be a disastrous defeat. He invites the receivers of this letter to mobilize immediately and await his further instructions. He has ordered a crusade in his domain as well as prayers and fasts” (Wolff, 169). At the time of the Mongol advance on Liegnitz, the Landgrave sent a second letter to Henry of Brabent. Here he writes: “‘The terrible disaster to Christians has broken from the north and from the sea. Inhuman peoples have trampled the ground of almost all countries from the Orient to its borders, have devastated cities and

fortresses, have indiscriminately murdered all people. As all animals flee before the lion, so do all Christians take flight before the Tartars.’ He, therefore, believed the Tartars to be the sword of God imposed on

Christians for their sins. He ordered preaching of the cross, prayers and fasts. He was determined to die in battle rather than to see the misery of his people. However, if his domain should be defeated, the other countries would have to anticipate the same” (Wolff, 172-3). Even Emperor Frederick (1194—1250)* allowed a brief concern at the Mongol threat in June 1241. He wrote (ed. transl.): “It is high time to awaken from our slumber and to open the eyes of the spirit and the body. Behold, already the axe has been applied to the tree; lo, the sword is already penetrating to the bone, while in all the world the cry is uttered by those who threaten all of Christendom with destruction. We have heard of it long since, but although we have feared what we have learned and did not find it pleasant to believe, we have not believed the danger to be imminent because of the great distance and the wedge of powerful and brave peoples between us and them” (Roepell, 466-7). The anticlimactical continuation of this letter, showing his greater interest in the Pope, has been related in the section of foreign indifference. After the battle of Liegnitz [1241], several princes, among them King Wenzel, the Landgrave of Thuringia, had gathered in Merseburg and

decided that the cross be preached everywhere and to all including the baby in the cribs; all able-bodied men were to join up and all prosperous citizens who were unable to bear arms were requested to equip another person for war. As will be seen elsewhere, these plans were never carried 8. In all likelihood Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, the Second Holy Roman Emperor.

Mongols

123

out effectively (Wolff, 245-6). It is true that the German princes reinforced their fortresses and cities and mobilized their armies to some extent. Wolffholds that this Pope, Gregory IX (1145? 11702-1241), ordered a crusade against the Mongols in Germany in June 1241 (Wolff, 247). The succeeding Popes continued to preach the cross against the Tartars. In 1260, [Pope] Alexander IV (1185? 11992-1261) advised the German Order of Knights, who had conquered Prussia with difficulty and were not moving a finger to help the Poles against successive Mongol attacks, to aid the Poles. He also had the cross preached in Germany, Bohemia, and elsewhere in 1258 (Wolff, 397). The next Pope, Urban IV (1195-1264),

repeated this request in 1262 (Wolff, 399). Pope Clemens IV (1195— 1268), who was elected in 1263, again ordered the cross preached in Hungary, Austria, Bohemia, Poland, Brandenburg, and elsewhere, always without success (Op. cit., 400).

Indifference Just as the victims of Mongol genocide were unable to rally together for effective resistance because they considered their private feuds as still more important than the Mongol threat, so the lay and clerical princes and monarchs of the rest of Europe continued to embroil themselves in their political scrabbles. The focus of politica! attention was the hostility between Pope Gregory IX and the German emperor. The emperor, who ruled over Naples and Sicily, and held suzerain power over all of Italy, found stubborn opposition against his encroachment on the part of Gregory IX. While Russia, Poland, and Hungary were being ravaged by the Mongols, Emperor Frederick II (between August, 1240 and April, 1241) laid siege to the Papal

city of Faenza and thence proceeded to Rome. The Pope had excommunicated the emperor in 1239 and preached a crusade against the emperor (Ibid.). The Pope even attempted to install a rival king in Germany, and excommunicated all allies of Frederick. By 1240, however, nothing much

remained of the anti-Frederick party among the German princes. Even King. Wenzel had drawn back at last (op. cit., 196-7). Frederick, however,

marched toward northern Austria in the fall of 1240 and King Wenzel was bound to fight him. Only when the Mongols came nearer, Otto II of Bavaria effected peace between the hostile parties in March 1241. Wenzel now held to the emperor, while Henry II of Silesia (1196? 12072-1241)

124

Chapter Seven

remained on the side of the Papacy. Thus Wenzel was little inclined to send help to Henry when the latter was threatened with a Mongol invasion, nor was he able to do so (Wolff, 198). Wolff, after careful consid-

eration of the various facts and interpretations at his disposal, comes to the conclusion that King Wenzel did not advance against the Mongols as some authorities, notably Palacky, believe (Wolff, 201). Rather, he chose to retreat to his palace in Prague, while the Mongol invasion ravaged even over his provinces including Moravia (Ibid.). Letters written by King Wenzel himself show such misleading statements and contradictions regarding his resistance to the Mongol armies by aiding the Poles in Silesia that Wolff invalidates all assertions of Wenzel’s heroic efforts (Wolff, 204-5). Several authorities seem to support Wolff's contention that King Wenzel merely hid from the Mongols in Prague (op. cit, 205). Wenzel, somewhat later, writes to German king Conrad that he intended

to advance toward Hungary to fight the Mongols. Wolff believes that he had no intention of dong so but merely used it as an excuse to evade his responsibility of joining a German army which was then planned for resistance. Actually, such an army was never formed (Wolff, 253). Various German princes continued in feuds over territories (Wolff, 255-56). Emperor Frederick himself wrote in June 1241: He realized now that the many powerful princes of Eastern Europe were unable to hold back the Tartars and that the latter are threatening to invade the German-Roman empire. He would like to hasten to their destruction but cannot leave Italy because of his feud with the Pope. He knows from experience what the Pope might do behind his back. When he learned of the approaching Mongol armies from Hungary, he hastened toward Rome with his army to show the Pope his respect as well as his power. Only on receiving his due from the Pope would he proceed to protect his empire and faith against the Mongols (op. cit., 257). He then ordered his various princes to mobilize themselves but to refrain from battles with the Mongols. The lack of a military commander (Frederick’s son, King Conrad, was only thirteen years old) prevented the formation of a German army, and the princes preached the crusade against the Mongols but stayed at home for lack of leadership (op. cit., 258). Carpini, whom Pope Innocent IV had sent to Mongolia as an envoy, reported that he decline Guguk’s offer to send a Mongolian mission to Rome because he feared that the Mongols would discover the feuds and tensions.

Mongols

125

Pope Gregory IX, on his part, was only engrossed in this feud with Frederick. He did nothing more constructive to fight the Mongol pagans than to send letters of sympathy to the Queen of Georgia and King Bela [IV] of Hungary (1206-1270) after the Mongol disaster had broken [out] in those countries (Camb. Med. Hist., 639). He preached the crusade against the Mongols, ironically in those countries which had already been overrun by them, such as Hungary. However, far from making peace with the emperor so that the latter could help Hungary, the Pope did not lift his ban from Frederick nor did he stop to preach the crusade against him. The Pope was more afraid of the possibility for increased German power which Frederick’s armed intervention in Hungary would imply than of preventing the deadly advance of the unchristian Tartars (Wolff, 315). A letter by the Pope to King Bela discloses explicitly that the Pope had no intention of letting Frederick help the unfortunate king unless he first humiliate himself in Rome (op. cit., 317). Papists seem to have spread a rumor that Frederick manufactured the Mongol war scare to help his cause (Camb. Med. Hist., 639). Matthius Paris writing from London bitterly condemned the Gregory-Frederick feud. He felt that the princes of Europe would have been able to act decisively against the Mongols had this feud not brought confusion and disquiet to all of Europe. This led the Mongols to be all the more confident of victory and made them feel that God must be hostile to the Christians for letting them fight each other and succumb to them (Wolff, 317—from Matt. Paris, Hist. major ed. Watts, 1686, p. 540).

The feud continued under Pope Innocent IV (Wolff, 386), although that Pope preached a crusade against the Mongols with greater vigor. Two rival kings had been appointed in Germany by him, Henry Raspe of Thuringia in 1246 and William [II] of Holland in 1247 (1228-1256) (Ibid.). Louis [X of France (1214-1270) exhausted himself in a futile crusade in Palestine and Egypt, 1248-1251. England was oppressed by the reckless Henry III (1207-1272) who exploited the country ruthlessly. Thus Carpini, whom Pope Innocent IV had sent to Mongolia as envoy, was more than justified when he said that he declined Kuyuk’s offer to send a Mongolian mission to Rome in 1245 for fear that the Mongols

would thus discover the feuds and weaknesses in Europe and find an invasion advisable (Wolff, 256). Perhaps the earliest warning of the Mongols which came to the ears of Europe was that uttered by the Assassins of Persia who had sent delega-

tions to the various European capitals including Paris and London to plead

126

Chapter Seven

for assistance against Mongol ravages in the Near East in 1238. But their warnings fell on deaf ears (Camb. Med. Hist., 638). Possibly, their tidings were even pleasant to the Europeans, especially the Christian Church. For the hope seems to have been rampant that Mongols and Moslems, both pagans and barbarians in Christian eyes, would destroy each other and thus facilitate the work of the crusaders (op. cit., 639).

Collaboration

We read of the strange motley assortment of people that-surrounded the Khan at his Mongolian headquarters. While most of them were either captives brought there from Asia or Europe, or visiting dignitaries and vassals, some seem to have been foreign adventurers who joined the Mongols in their homeland for private reasons. Thus envoy William of Ruysbroek (1220-1293) found at Mengu’s court an Armenian monk who posed as a bishop but was no more than “a wandering weaver” (Lamb, 214), a

crusader from the Jordan, a woman from Metz who was well married to a

Russian house builder (the latter likely a former captive), and a goldsmith from Paris, who had married an attractive Magyar girl (perhaps also a former slave) (Lamb, 214). There was also Basil, the son of an Englishman (Lamb, 216). Another Englishman had acted as interpreter for the Mongols in the European campaign, urging King Bela to surrender to the Mongols. He seems to have been an expelled criminal who had turned adventurer (see Wolff, 344, footnote). Louis, King of France, sent an envoy of his own to the Mongols during Mengu’s reign, the aforementioned monk, William of Ruysbroek. According to Lamb, the aim of this mission was to spy out information regarding the Mongols and to discover whether they might ally themselves with the French king in his crusade against Palestine (Lamb, 210). The friar ostentatiously came merely to preach Christianity among the Mongols (Lamb, 217). Two other friars from France had preceded him bringing a scarlet tent chapel as a gift. j The same Pope Innocent IV who preached a crusade against the Mongols for their genocide against Christians is supposed to have advised

the Mongol envoys in Rome in 1248 (perhaps the return mission which accompanied Ezzelino and was lavishly and secretly entertained in the Vatican?) that the Mongols should attack Vatatzes (1222-1254), Greek

Mongols

127

Orthodox king of [the] Niacean empire. The Mongols envoys are said to have answered the Pope that they could not advise such an action because they disliked to encourage the “mutual hatred of Christianity” (Camb.

Med. Hist., 493). Fear as Potential Victims

In 1238 Gothland and Friesland fishermen did not come to Yarmouth, England, for their customary herring fishing out of fear of Mongol attacks: That year, herrings were so abundant that they sold at one piece of silver per forty or fifty, even in places far removed from the coast (Cam. Med. Hist., 639).

After the blitz conquest of Eastern Europe by the Mongols, terror seized people ali over the continent. “A terrible dread of this barbarian people took possession of even the most remote countries, not only France, but also Burgundy and Spain, where the name of the Tartars had hitherto been unknown” (Prawdin, 265). The French Templar Ponce d’Aubon wrote to Louis IX: “Learn that all the barons of Germany, including the King, all the clergy, all the monks, and laybrothers have taken up the Cross against the Tartars and, as our brethren have informed me, it may well happen that the Tartars, should it be the will of God, will conquer the Germans,

whereupon there will be no one to resist them until they reach the frontiers of your country” (Ibid.). The Queen Mother of France, terrified at the news of Mongol advances, asked her son what could be done to stop them. King Louis answered: “We have the heavenly consolation that, should these Tartars come, we shall either Ourselves be able to send them back to

Tartarus whence they have emerged, or else shall Ourselves enter Heaven to enjoy the rapture that awaits the elect” (op. cit., 266). Thomas of Spalato reported that several aged scholars who had searched the Scriptures came to the conclusion that the Mongols were those peoples who are said to precede the coming of the anti-Christ. The writings of the martyr Methodius (d. 311) were especially referred to (Wolff, 173, footnote).

Spolato further reported that, after the fall gripped Europe that everyone believed his end Frederick was supposed to have thought only this) and everywhere people anticipated the fall gols (Wolff, 349).

of Hungary, such terror was near. Even Emperor of escape (Wolff doubts of Rome under the Mon-

Chapter Seven

128

|

Doerner ws

SUT

ebb be

oto Beet

.

The Pope and his advisors or allies seem to have exploited the Mongol threat for their own purposes. The legate Albert of Bohemia wrote in April 1241 to Italian bishops, princes, and cities that (ed. transl.): “In the

German principalities the princes have been informed (by Papal emissarjes) that messengers from Emperor Frederick have been seen in the Mongol army and have invited the pagans to invade” (Wolff, 197). Matthias Paris mentions this message calling it “libel by malicious persons” (Ibid.).

PART I: THE CASE OF THE KWARESMIAN EMPIRE UNDER THE MONGOLS

Background The huge area which comprised the Kwaresmian empire at the time of Jenghis Khan had been welded together by Ala ed din Mohammed [ruled 1200-1220] out of a number of small dynasties. It comprised Persia, Khorassan, and Transoxania, stretching from the Caspian [Sea] to the Kush near India and from Eastern Turkestan to Mesopotamia. Kwaresm did not outlive Shah Mohammed who died miserably on a Caspian island to which he was hunted by the Mongols. Kwaresmia comprised most civilized Mohamedan countries of Central Asia, regions and cities with a long and brilliant history. Let us glance briefly at this history.

The Arabs carried Islam to Near and Central Asia in the seventh and eighth centuries. With it came a cultural development which represented the ultimate achieved anywhere in the world at that time. Cities sprung up whose beautiful buildings and gardens became legend, whose fabulous wealth attracted travelers and merchants from all over the world, and

whose artistic and scientific contribution to world culture are undisputed. Baghdad, in every way the center and capital of the Arab empire, exerted its religious as well as political authority over the whole Islamic world. However, already in the ninth century, the empire began to decay, and in the eleventh century the Seljuks, Turkish nomads who pressed into the civilized world from the steppes of Central Asia, usurped power in the Moslem states, transformed the Caliphate in Baghdad into a mere puppet with only nominal authority. In 1037, Seljuk princes were recognized

Mongols

129

in Merv and Nishapur, great cities of Khorassan, and in the succeeding eighteen years that dynasty conquered all of Persia including Baghdad (Encycl. Brit. 17, 527). The Seljuks destroyed Arabian and Persian cultures by ruthlessly genocidal conquest. Then they assimilated themselves by becoming Moslems and entering the Arabian armies. In that matter they gradually succeeded in wresting political authority over their masters (Altunian, page illegible).

The Genocidists

Responsibility The chief responsibility in the destruction of the Kwaresmian Empire was borne by Jenghiz Khan himself as the chief commander of the armies as well as Khan. He ordered the destruction and massacres and his sons, Guji,

Ogdai, Jagatai, and Tule who commanded the various army divisions merely carried out the policy laid down by the chief. Even in cases where we might assume the prime responsibility of the commander in question, that person was acting in accordance with the spirit and the policy laid down by Jenghiz. Thus, for instance, Tule’s order to cut off the heads of all victims in order that none may escape alive among the corpses testifies to his typical though highly developed Mongolian brutality rather than an evasion of exaggeration of policy (Curtin, 125). Similarly, the thoroughness of the Turk Melik [?] who lurked among the ruins of Merv for fortyone days to hunt out survivors testifies to his enthusiastic obedience to the Khan’s orders, certainly to excessive zeal, but no evasion of superseding of duty (op. cit., 129). Thus, the Mongol genocidist of Kwaresm was the Mongol army with its corresponding hierarchy of responsibility and obedience. In one case, Tule neglected to commit genocide where the Khan had ordered it. In Herat he only massacred the garrison but spared the rest of the population. When Tule returned to headquarters, Herat rebelled. Jenghiz, surprised, queried: “Why did this rising take place? How has it come about that the sword failed of its effect so far as these people of Herat are concerned?” He swiftly dispatched a new army with the order: “Since dead men have come to life again, | command you to strike their heads from their bodies” (Prawdin, 192). Jenghiz was equally displeased when his order to spare certain provinces until the arrival of the main army was violated by commander Toquehar. Even a Chinese chronicle

130

Chapter Seven

mentions this incident and the punishment of the commander, indicating the seriousness of disobedience to the Khan (Barthold, 423). The Turks of Central Asia who deserted to the Mongol side became efficient partners in genocide as they were congenial to the Mongols (Vambery, 162).

Intent

More often than in Europe, the Mongols spared communities of Central Asia that surrendered without fighting. Thus intent to commit genocide was more often qualified by the willingness of the victims to surrender to Mongol rule. We may quote the proposition made to the people of Nishapur before that city was annihilated: “O commandants, officials and people: Know ye that Heaven has given me the Empire of the earth, both the east and the west of it. Those who submit will be spared; woe to those who resist, they will be slaughtered with their children, and wives and dependents. Give provisions to all troops that come, and think not to meet water with fire, or to trust in your walls, or the numbers of those who defend them. If ye try to escape utter ruin will seize you” (Curin, 115). This statement shows that in the event of resistance no mercy was intended for any member of the community, no matter how weak or desperate; that, however, in the event of submission no genocide was threatened.

The town of Nur was spared because it surrendered (Vambery, 127) but pillaged. The city of Sertak which was spared destruction for having surrendered was called “lucky town” by the Mongols. But even there, the armed population was forcibly drafted into the Mongol armies (Vambery, 127). At Bokhara the population which had surrendered was not molested until plots had been discovered (op. cit., 189-90). But pillage and defamation of religious objects occurred even before; Vambery believes that the description of “intentional outrages to the religious feelings of the people” may have been exaggerated in the case of Bokhara (Vambery, 128-9); that is, the Mongols may not always have been.aware of offending by their crude habits. But at least they did not hesitate to despoil the places of conquest as utterly and mercilessly as they pleased, whether they had surrendered or not. That the Mongols often intended genocide regardless of surrender is borne out by the facts. At Samarkand the only people who surrendered,

Turks, were

first tricked and then massacred

(Vambery,

132). At Otrar, the anti-Sultan party which independently surrendered to

Mongols

131

the Mongols and offered them information on the city were massacred. Jenghiz reproaching them: “How can we expect to find thee faithful when thou hast so shamefully betrayed thine own master and benefactor” Vambery, 123). Loyalty to one’s leader is one of the outstanding virtues of the Mongol at the time of and after Jenghiz Khan. Since the alternative to genocide for the victim of Mongol invasion is service to the Mongols, he must either surrender with his master or die fighting with his master; if he surrenders independently, he finds no sympathy from the Mongol. According to Juwayn, Jenghiz accepted the submission of Balkh but broke it, killing all (Barthold, 438). Once a citadel was taken by storm, there was but one fate for the inhabitants—genocide by massacre or slavery or the destitution of helpless survival. After the wave of revolt which gripped various Khorassan cities through which the Mongols had passed, the intent was explicit and obvious extermination. Prawdin calls it the “War of Annihilation” (191).

Resistance

The dominant response, perhaps, in the empire was popular resistance of varying intensity and length. Otrar resisted the siege for five months (Curtin, 106). Signac upon receiving the Mongol request to open its gates, slew the Mongol envoy, calling on God’s name as they did so (Ibid.). The people of Jend wanted to kill the Mongol envoy which was sent them, but he craftily warned them by relating the fate of Signac, upon which they let him go (Curtin, 107). At Bokhara the people connived with the local garrison, after the Mongols had peacefully entered the city. During the resulting carnage, the first Imam rushed to save some wretched victims of massacre and rape, and was killed by Mongol soldiers (Curtin, 110). In Tus the people had risen against the Mongol governor seeing him isolated (1220) (Sykes, 154). Samarkand and Temez in Transoxania both put up a fierce resistance to the besieger. Urgendj’ defended itself desperately. When the Mongols attempted to divert the waters of the Oxus [River] from the city, Moslem garrisons killed them. During the siege of seven months every available man fought on the ramparts. After the Mongols finally broke through, a tough street-to-street fight made conquest bitter to the 9. For this and other such places, see Donald Ostrowski (1998), “City Names of the Western

Steppe at the Time of the Mongol Invasion,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 61(3): 465-475.

132

Chapter Seven

Mongols. Even women and children helped in the struggle which lasted a week (Curtin, 120). In Bushang, a Mongol was killed after peaceful penetration (Barthold, 423). In Merv, Mohammed’s order for submission had convinced the governor and the mufti but the judge and descendants of the Prophet demanded resistance. However, after two sorties had been repulsed they surrendered (Curtin, 123). Herat put up a tough resistance for one week (Sykes, 156). Nishapur also defended itself vigorously (Ibid.) with many catapults, and ballistas (Curtin, 124). Once in the city, the Mongols met with more desperate encounters before they Balle’ the upper hand (op. cit., 125). From the Kalium

fortress near Herat, letters were sent to the Mon-

gol governors of Herat which read: “We are ready to surrender but fear Mongol rigor; we beg for a written safe-conduct” (Curin, 128). The governors accepted the request and invited the petitioners to come to the city. Seventy warriors, disguised as simple hunters, descended from the fortress with arms hidden in their packs. They entered the city singly and reunited later, slaying both Mongol governors. Thereupon Herat rose in rebellion and killed every partisan but not before putting up another desperate resistance—this time for over six months (Sykes, 158). Jelal-ad din (1207-1273) had organized an army at this time and even beaten a Mongol force at Waliyan (Barthold, 441-2). In several other towns the citizens took heart at this victory and rebelled, slaying their Mongol governors (op. cit., 442). Jelal-ad din was delighted with his opportunity for revenge, piercing the ears of his Mongol prisoners with stakes. In November 1221 Jelal-ad din was thoroughly defeated by the Mongols at the battle on the Indus [River] and barely managed to make his escape by his spectacular leap from the thirty-foot rock (Barthold, 445).

Terror

Terror at the sight or even the thought of the Mongols became universal from the Sea of Aral to the Persian desert (Prawdin, 194). The survivors of the gruesome slaughter only spoke in whispers of the “Accursed.” The feelings of terror hypnotized some wretched persons to the point where they felt incapable of resistance. A lone Mongol horseman could come riding into a Moslem village, cut down many people and drive off the cattle without anyone daring to raise a finger against him (op. cit., 194). [Editor’s Note: The following paragraph has been crossed out.]

Mongols

133

Ibn Athir (1160-1233) relates that he heard that a Mongol wishing to kill a prisoner and finding himself without any weapon, commanded the wretch to lie down. He went to get a sword and when he returned, the terror-stricken victim had not moved. He then killed him with ease (Lamb, 61). The same

chronicler relates the story of another eye-witness, which also testifies to the amazing psychological effect of extreme fear: “I was on the road with seventeen other men. We saw a Tatar horseman come up to us. He ordered us to tie up our companions, each man to bind the other’s arms behind his back. The others were beginning to obey him, when I said to them, ‘This man is alone. Let us kill him and escape.’ They replied, ‘We are too much afraid,’—‘But this man will kill you,’ I said, ‘Let’s do for him and perhaps Allah will preserve us.’ Yet, by my faith, not one of the seventeen dared to do it. So I killed him with a blow of my knife. We all ran away and saved ourselves.” (Lamb, 62)

The hunted Shah, after having come to Mazanderan penniless and almost unattended, exclaimed: “Where am | to find safety from Mongols? Is there no spot on earth where | can be free of them?” (Curtin, 116). On the seashore of the Caspian he prayed five times daily in the mosque, had the Koran read to him and promised God tearfully that he would bring justice to his empire as had never before been seen, if the power should ever come to him again (op. cit., 117). Attitude toward Genocidists

The people of Persia were so stunned by the cruelties of the Mongols that they came to believe that they were dog-headed and cannibals (Curtin, 145). Aftermath Cultural Losses in Transoxania

The ruin, misery, and desolation of Kwaresm as a result of Mongol genocide, especially its eastern domain, Transoxania, was staggering. In that country, a civilization of centuries had been destroyed by the Mongol onslaught of barely six years. “The people (were) plunged into a depth of barbarism in which the remembrance of their former greatness and their whole future were alike engulfed” (Vambery, 137). Within five years after the Mongol invasion, the great roads of Central Asia by which the

134

Chapter Seven

commodities of China and India had been conveyed to the West were deserted. Fertile oases lay barren and deserted; the famous trade in jewelry, arms and silks dried up forever (Ibid.). Science which had flourished in Transoxania and Khorassam became stagnant. An Arab proverb says: “Science is a tree whose roots are in Mecca, but whose fruits ripen in Khorasan” (op. cit., 128). Samarkand, Bokhara, Urgendj had rivaled Nishapur, Iranian intellectual center, and Merv, the city of famous colleges. Rhetoric, grammar, poetry, and medicine flourished there. Bokhara and

Samarkand never recovered their former intellectual vitality. Casuistry, mysticism, and paganism superseded the former arts and sciences (Ibid.), after the Mongols took over. According to Vambery, the chief cause of this cultural stagnation was the fact that the original Iranian population in those cities was destroyed and deported by the Mongols, while the Turkish element was allowed to gain the upper hand there (Ibid.). He considers this Turkish infiltration the greatest cultural injury that the Mongols inflicted on the countries of the Oxus River (Ibid.)

Population Changes Between 1218 and 1224 the Mongols claimed to have massacred eighteen and a half million people in Kwaresmia (Wolff, 321). In the light of this vast genocide, the significance of the dominant Turk population can be understood.

Moral [and] Material Deterioration

The double deflection of the Oxus [River], caused by the opening of the sluices at Urgandj, caused far-reaching geographical changes. Geogra-

phers still speculate on the course of the river after the Mongols allowed it to rush over Urgandj. The drying up of the old Oxus [River] channel probably converted the whole area between the Aral [Sea] and the Cas-

pian Sea into the now existing desert (Prawdin, 193). The misery of the few survivors can be gleaned from the fact that Samarkand was infested with robbers under Mongol rule “owing to the difficulty of finding subsistence” (Barthold, 451). This is particularly remarkable as the Mongols were known for their efficiency in eliminating piracy in their domains. In September 1222, a robber band of two thousand appeared at the town

and the sky was red with fires every night. During his last stay there,

Mongols

135

Ch’ang Ch’un (1148-1227), Chinese holy man who had been summoned

by Jenghiz Khan, fed the hungry peasants with the remainder of his provisions and also prepared gruel for them. “The numbers of those who took advantage of this free table were very large,” writes Barthold (452). Turkestan in its western region was not allowed any material recovery. It became the center of powerful surrounding Mongol Khanates, those of China, Persia, and Kiptchak (i.e., the Yuan dynasty, the Ilkhans, and

the Golden Horde). The nomads were contained by force in this area of steppes and thus tented their migratory energies on internecine struggles, and on the destruction of local settlements. The settled farmers were exploited by brutal taxation and their cultivated land served as pasture land for the nomads, while their food stores were carried off. A traveler

wrote: “All that we can find now in Turkestan consists of ruins in a better or worse state of preservation. From a distance, one imagines oneself to be approaching a well-organized settlement, surrounded by rich verdure, and one approaches in the hope of meeting people—to find nothing but abandoned houses. The only inhabitants of this country are nomads who do not practice agriculture” (Prawdin, 405-6). Moral deterioration, though a slow and irregular process, seems to have been the fate of the celebrated Transoxania cities. The early Arabian geographers used to praise the nobility of mind, the grandness, generosity, and hospitality of the inhabitants (Vambery, xxxv). Vambery states that of all those qualities he only discovered the last, and that not even in the cities (Ibid.). As he interprets the change: “Transoxania was exposed for centuries to the onward roll of the stream of the neighboring Turanian

races (of which the Mongolian was the most destructive), and the disruption of both her political and social condition was in consequence fearful. The tyranny of conquest here, as elsewhere, has not only devastated flourishing plains, but has also uprooted all the finer qualities of the human mind. Central Asia is, at the present day, the foul ditch in which flourish together all the rank vices which are to be found scattered singly throughout the Mohammedan countries of Western Asia” (Ibid.).

Mongol Rule (Transoxania) The conquered Kwaresm empire was divided among Jenghiz’s sons. Jagatai received Turkestan including the two “pearls of great price” Bokhara and Samarkand, which were thus forcefully torn from the region to which

136

Chapter Seven

they were ethnically and culturally akin and incorporated into the nomadic Khanate of Jagatai (Vambery, 141). Jagatai’s rule was strict but just, according to Jenghiz’ law. A Mohammedan governed Transoxania, a tax was established from which priests of all denominations were exempted (op. cit., 142). Gradually recovery, at least in economic matters, set in. In 1234 the colleges of Bokhara which was being rebuilt out of the ruins, contained already one thousand students (op. cit., 143). Jagatai’s reign was peaceful, but among his descendants internecine wars raged continuously in Transoxania-Turkestan, and doubtlessly much genocide was again committed during this period. During one of these wars in the early fourteenth century, the population of Bokhara, Samarkand, and Termez was driven into exile in the midst of a very severe winter, and thousands are said to have perished by the wayside (op. cit., 156). According the Vambery, military tyranny had always been congenial to the people of Transoxania and Turkestan. The Jenghizides (descendants of Jenghiz) were able to maintain themselves longer than anywhere else (op. cit., 157), in fact until Tamerlane drove them out in a new wave of genocidal conquest which made terrifying history. As everywhere under Mongol rule, religion flourished in conquered Transoxania.

While the arts and

sciences deteriorated, theology gained a new impetus. One reason for this was the typical Mongol toleration of religious life and their superstitious awe with regard to the priesthood which was always exempt from taxation and otherwise favored. Another reason was the fact (which also finds a parallel) in other countries under the Mongols, notably Russia, that the spiritual teachers became also secular protectors and advisors in those harsh days. Actual spiritual dynasties emerged which handed down spiritual authority to the succeeding generation. The influence of mullahs and religious of all kinds gained a respect and authority in Transoxania which was not equaled anywhere in the Moslem world (Vambery, 160). That the Transoxania of Jagatai’s day must have been radically different from the one which was lauded by Moslem poets before the Mongol onslaught can be gleaned from the following poem (op. cit., 161): To Bokhars thou goest; art thou mad? Nought but chains and bondage are there to be had.

However, Seljuk power was not as pronounced in Central Asia as it was in Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Syria. Hence it was possible for a

Mongols

137

new power to arise there. In the eleventh century, a Turkish slave from Ghazna became governor of Khwarizm. He was the founder of a new dynasty by that name whose descendant Ala al din Mohammed sensationaliy completed his predecessors’ conquests at the time of Jenghiz. Shah Mohammed ruled a territory which was almost equal to that of the Seljuks at their peak; however Syria, Armenia, and Mesopotamia remained unconquered (Encycl. Brit., Ibid.). The Shah threatened to invade Mesopotamia, however, and aroused the Caliph’s inveterate hatred. In a sense, the

tension between the Caliph and the Shah may be compared to the almost contemporary fight between the Pope and Emperor Frederick. Ironically, both these struggles played their part in Mongol genocide. However, the power of the Caliph had long been reduced to formality outside his small domain. The most he could do to stop the Shah was to incite other ambitious aspirants against him and to refuse to pronounce Mohammed sultan or to have his name mentioned in the public prayers (Curtin, 97). After

Caliph Nassir (1285-1340) had done both, the infuriated Mohammed advanced upon Baghdad with a large army but turned back when severe weather conditions and nomad attacks were decimating it dangerously. In the meantime reports of Mongol movements had reached the Shah and he hastened back to Bokhara where he soon received the first Mongol envoys (op. cit., 98-9).

Before Jenghiz Khan invaded the empire he had subjected all the central Asiatic tribes as well as defeated the Kin empire of China. After crushing the western Uigurs and putting to death Guchluk, their leader, Jenghiz found himself vis-a-vis the great Kwaresmian empire whose wealth and power was famous at the time (Vambery, 121—22) and around his curiosity and admiration.

Conditions Leading to Genocide External Political Friction (Caliphate) The hostility between the Caliph of Baghdad and Shah Mohammed may have helped to turn Jenghiz’ attention to the conquest of Kwaresm. Caliph Nassir had called a council to decide on means of defense against the Shah. One of his sages said that Jenghiz Khan would be the person who would subdue the Shah effectively (Curtin, 99). The Caliph thereupon sent an envoy to the Mongols; in order that he would not be detected while journeying

138

Chapter Seven

through the Shah’s territory, the envoy had the message branded upon his shaven head and then covered with a colored substance. The message was an invitation to invade the Kwaresmian empire and destroy its dynasty, and it reached the Khan (Curtin, 100) (this datum derives from the Persian chronicler Mirhond and is not unquestioned; Barthold denies its validity— see Barthold, “Turkestan,” 399—but Spuler finds it probable—see Spuler, 23). Altunian who also regards the Caliph’s envoy to the Mongols as a fact adds that the Mongols would have come anyway, since they were only considering their political and military advantage.

Internal Dissensions

A more important factor which contributed to the Mongol conquest of the empire was internal. The Shah knew nothing of the character and strength and aims of the Mongols (Curtin, 105). Only bit by painful bit did he learn of the fighting strength of the invader. He was insolent and reckless, making the grievous and fatal mistake to insult the Khan by a political outrage which will be discussed below. His empire was only recently and weakly consolidated; oppression and exploitative taxation had bowed down the masses of diversified peoples under his rule (Spuler, 27). His armies, though well equipped, did not have the enthusiasm and hardiness of the Mongol troops; they were fighting on their own territory amidst a population toward which they were indifferent and under generals who were hostile to the Sultan (Barthold, 406), while the Mongols were thirsting for the rich loot that victory would surely bring (Curtin, 106).'° The Turks who formed the main contingent of the Shah’s armies were dissatisfied with his rule and drawn to the Mongols by feelings of kinship and desire for loot, according to Vambery (Vambery, 140). In fact, Turks deserted the Shah’s armies in large numbers to fight on the Mongol side (Ibid.).

Diplomatic Insult and Crime, a Precipitating Event The Shah had been no little displeased by the envoys from Jenghiz who, in 1216-1217, brought him gifts and the following message: “The great Khan has charged us to give this message: ‘I salute thee! I know thy power 10. [Lemkin’s footnote] (Name illegible) relates that even after the Mongols had invaded Tran-

soxania the generals made an attempt on the Shah’s life.

Mongols

139

and the great extent of thy Empire. Thy reign is over a large part of the earth’s surface. I have the greatest wish to live in peace with thee; I look on thee as my most cherished son. Thou art aware that I subdued China, and brought all Turk nations north of it to obedience. Thou knowest that my country is swarming with warriors; that it is a mine of wealth, and that | have no need to covet lands of other sovereigns. I and thou have an equal interest in favoring commerce between our subjects’” (Curtin, 100). In the diplomatic language ofthe time, to call a sovereign one’s “Son” implied a relation of vassalship. Soon after the envoys had left the Shah’s court, a party of four hundred or more merchants from Mongol territory arrived at Otrar. The governor imprisoned them, tempted by their rich goods. He informed the Shah they were Mongolian spies and asked for instructions. The Shah ordered their immediate execution which was promptly carried out. When the tragic news reached Jenghiz, it is said that he wept and retreated to a mountaintop imploring Heaven for vengeance (Curtin, 101). He sent three more envoys to the Shah requesting the deliverance of the guilty governor as a sign that the crime had not been authorized by the Shah. In reply, the Shah slew one of the envoys and singed off the beards of the other two—a sign of humiliation (Ibid.). If it had not been before, the utter destruction of Kwaresm was now inevitable.

Lack of Effective Leadership While the Mongols were inactive and pessimistic morale there was in the he is supposed to have

ravaging northern Transoxania, the Shah was so that he destroyed whatever will for resistance or empire. During the fortification of Samarkand, remarked, depressing all who heard him: “The

Mongols are so many that they could fill this moat with their horsewhips” (Curtin, 113; Barthold, 405). Later when he planned a retreat from the Oxus [River] to Persian Irak, which his valiant son Jelal-ad din opposed, the Shah said: “Success

is fixed from eternity, defeat is averted by a

change in the stars, and not otherwise” (op. cit., 114). After the Shah’s flight the political unity of his loosely tied empire collapsed completely. His political opponents did not shrink from going over to the Mongol side in Otrar. Everywhere provincial political power fell into the hands of individual ambitious persons and upstarts. In Merv the former civil administrator even dreamed of gaining the crown. Such conditions greatly facilitated the conquest of Merv, Nishapur, and Herat

140

Chapter Seven

as well as many less important cities in a period of less than three months (Barthold, 447).

Methods of Genocide Physical Genocide Massacre In 1219 the Mongols began to pour their torrent of death of the rich country of Transoxania. A division under Jagatai and Ogotai turned against Otrar, the city in which the unfortunate Mongol merchants had been slain. After the city had been courageously held for several months, the vizier of the Sultan, probably of the priestly anti-Sultan party (Barthold, 407), went over to the Mongols to negotiate a surrender. Kair Khan (d. 1219), the governor of Otrar who had been responsible for the murder of the merchants, decided to defend the city and himself until death or victory (Vambery, 123). After obtaining some information from the vizier and his followers, Jagatai and Ogotai had them all murdered, saying that they could not trust those who had betrayed their own kind (Ibid.). When the Mongols stormed the citadel they drove out all the inhabitants to loot at peace. The governor was captured alive and had molten silver poured in his ears and eyes in retribution for his misdeed. Juji’s division first attacked Signac and, after storming it, had every soul there put to death (Vambery, 124). The city of Sertak was persuaded by a Mongol envoy to surrender, in return for which its inhabitants were not massacred. That this was most unusual in Mongol policy can been seen from the fact that the Mongols themselves called the city “Lucky Town” (Barthold, 408). But even in the “Lucky Town” genocide of other

kinds was committed (Vambery, 127). The third Mongol division attacked Benekit which surrendered. The Turks of the town were driven to one side and slaughtered, one by one (Curtin, 107). Other inhabitants which were not used as slaves were also slain (Ibid.). , : In Bokhara which was taken by Jenghiz himself, the population was not molested until the Mongols discovered secret plotting and sorties by

the local garrisons. Then they had thirty thousand men slaughtered. The historian Ibn al Athir (1160-1233) lamented: “It was a terrible day; nothing was to be heard but the sobs and lamentations of husbands, wives,

Mongols

141

and children who were be parted for ever. The barbarians dishonored the women and girls before the eyes oftheir relations, who had in their helplessness nothing but their tears to give them. Many preferred death to the revolting spectacle” (Vambery, 130). In Samarkand, most important city of Transoxania, the Kanglis and some other Turks were the only people who surrendered, having been promised protection by the Mongols. The same night thirty thousand of them with their princes were brutally put to death (Vambery, 132). All others were also slaughtered except fifty thousand who were under the protection of the Mufti were spared (Curtin, 111). At Temez, the people resisted and after the Mongols stormed it they had a census taken of all the inhabitants. Then the people were distributed among the soldiers who put them to death. A chronicler relates that one woman begged for mercy, promising her torturer a valuable pearl which she had swallowed. The Mongol decided not to wait but ripped open her body and found the pearl. After that all dead bodies were opened and examined for pearls (Vambery, 133). In the province of Khorassan there were four chief cities, Balkh, Herat,

Merv, and Nishapur (Curtin, 114). While sweeping through this province, the Mongols were on the heels of the fleeing Shah and hence ordered by Jenghiz not to dally in genocidal efforts. Zaveh was stormed because the inhabitants had jeered the Mongols; every man was killed (Ibid.). On the way to Nishapur the Mongols seized and tortured all those they encountered to get news of the whereabouts of the Shah (Ibid.). In Bushang, in the province of Herat, a Mongol leader was killed and therefore the population was exterminated (Barthold, 423). Between Merv and Hamadan, still on the track of the desperate Shah, the Mongols “put to the sword men, women, and children” (Barthold, 425).

The capital of the empire, Urgenj, was besieged for seven months. After the desperate popular resistance, the city surrendered. Ogotai ordered all inhabitants to assemble on the plains before the walls. All except those selected for slavery were mercilessly cut down. Those that had hidden in the city were drowned by the waters of the Oxus [River] whose sluices the Mongols had opened (Curtin, 120).

Nusrat i juh in the Talekan district defended itself for six months. When taken, the Mongols killed every human being there (Curtin, 121).

The city of Nessa was completely depopulated also. The Mongols drove

142

Chapter Seven

the inhabitants outside the town, had the victims bind the hands of oth-

ers behind their backs. When each person was thus bound, the Mongols slaughtered them all—seventy thousand people (Curtin, 122). The city of Merv met with a particularly grueling fate in February 1221. Tule, the Mongol commandant who took that great city, mounted a gilded throne on a plain near the suburbs and ordered all the inhabitants to march out of the city. He first ordered the war chiefs before his throne; then he commanded that their heads be cut off in the presence of the lamenting multitude of five to seven hundred thousand who watched the gruesome spectacle (Sykes, 157). “The whole place was filled with groans, shrieks and wild terror” (Curtin, 124). The people were divided among the soldiers whose job it was to slaughter them. Wealthy persons were tortured to reveal their treasures and then killed also. About five hundred persons (Sykes says five thousand—157) had managed to hide among the ruins until after Tule left with his army. The Mongol troops which followed asked these wretched people to come out of the ruined city and bring them wheat. When they emerged they were slaughtered (Ibid.). This hunting out of fugitives was done with devilish planning. The man entrusted with the task had the hidden people summoned to prayer by muezzins. Whenever a Moslem crept out from hiding to enter the mosque, he was cut down. For forty-one days that man waited for more prey. There were few survivors when he finally left (Curtin, 129). Balkh, although having offered no resistance, was annihilated, and all its inhabitants massacred (Sykes, 154). Sabzawar lost its seventy thousand inhabitants at the hands of the Mongols (Sykes, 155). From Merv Tule went on to Nishapur. That city defended itself after an offer of submission by the city had been rejected by Tule. After a day-andnight fight the Mongols stormed the citadel continuing the fight inside. At the end of the day the whole city was occupied and a wholesale slaughter of staggering brutality followed. Not even cats and dogs were left alive in the carnage. Tule had learned that at Merv people had escaped by hiding among the bodies. Now he ordered that all heads be cut from the bodies. He had three pyramids constructed of the skulls, one of men’s heads, one of women’s, and one of children’s. To prevent anyone from escaping among the ruins, troops were stationed at the ruins to hunt out anyone who might try to creep out in the dark of night (Curtin, 125). Bamian was wiped out completely by Jenghiz, who did not even permit it to be plundered (Sykes, 157). It was named the “city of woe” and contained

Mongols

143

no inhabitants one hundred years later (Curtin, 126). In the spring of 1222 (the previous year the city had been taken by Tule but spared except for the garrison, Sykes, 156), Jenghiz had the city of Herat annihilated. This was the last of the great cities of Khorassan to meet the fate of genocide. More than a million and a half are said to have perished there by massacre (Sykes, 158). A short time afterwards Mongol troops were sent back to the ruins to search for survivors who were killed numbering two thousand (Sykes, 158). Ghazna was destroyed at the time Herat met its fate. Its citizens were massacred with the exception of those who were enslaved (Barthold, 445). A historian is reputed to have said regarding Persia after the Mongol invasion: “In those lands which Jenghiz Khan ruled not one in a thousand is left of the people. Where a hundred thousand had lived before his invasion there were now scarce one hundred. Were nothing to stop the increase of population from this hour till the day of Judgment it would not reach one tenth [what] it was before Jenghiz Khan’s coming” (Curtin, 145). Deprivation of Livelihood Only the very old people of Bokhara were neither enslaved nor murdered. But their lives among the ruins of the once so splendid city can barely be visualized. As Vambery puts it: “And thus the inhabitants of Bokhara, lately so celebrated for their learning,

their love of art, and their general refinement, were brought down to a dead level of misery and degradation. . . . Few escaped the general ruin” (Vambery, 130).

The majority of the inhabitants (except for the defenders and the antisultanists who had surrendered and the governor) were spared in Otrar. However, the city was pillaged so thoroughly and reduced to ruins that their lives must have been at best destitute (Curtin, 106). At Jend the

people were spared because they had surrendered; however, they were driven beyond the gates into the open country and left there nine days and nights while the Mongols pillaged the town (Curtin, 107). At Bokhara the

people were driven into the country with only their clothes on their backs while the city was pillaged. However, this was done merely to facilitate looting; the people were victims of massacre afterwards (Curtin, 110). Around Nishapur the whole countryside was laid waste before the siege of that city (Curin, 124). Exposure to Death and Slavery At Benakit a large number of young men were drafted into the army to assist in the sieges (Curtin, 107). At Sertak, the “lucky city,” those who were found with arms were similarly enslaved (Vambery, 127). On the way to Bokhara the towns of Nur and

144

Chapter Seven

Charnuk were deprived of their strong men for siege work (Curtin, 108). In Bokhara itself, thousands of unfortunate men were enslaved for siege purposes. On the rapid march toward Samarkand, many of the captives were unable to keep pace and sunk on the road exhausted. They were immediately killed by Mongol soldiers (Vambery, 131). In Samarkand those capable of bearing arms were again forced into service (op. cit., 132). The captives were drawn not only from the captured towns but also from the rural areas (Barthold, 411). After the fall of Samarkand, the main body

of the army besieging Khojend consisted of fifty thousand prisoners and twenty thousand Mongols (Barthold, 417). Before the fall of that city the Mongol legions had paraded before it the miserable captives marching at the end of the columns (Curtin, 111). Thirty thousand men of Samarkand were drafted into siege labor. The Mongols used these captives for digging approaches, erecting siege trains, filling up ditches which they sometimes had to cover with their bodies (Sykes, 151-152). They were used in fighting also; at the siege of Nusrat [illegible] prisoners fought in the front lines and were killed when they retreated (Curtin, 121).

The large number of prisoners which Jenghiz was driving along with his army was ordered to clean a large quantity of rice before the Mongols turned toward the east again. After they had finished this work they were all massacred (Sykes, 258).

Biological Genocide Separation of Families—Slavery When the Mongols seized Rayy, they led away women and children as prisoners (according to Ibn al-Athir, Barthold, 425). When Herat was taken the second time, several thousand

young captives were given to Jenghiz (Curtin, 129). In Bokhara, all those who were not massacred were enslaved with the exception of the very aged (Vambery, 130). Cultural Genocide

Destruction of Cultural Symbols \n Bokhara, capital city of Central Asia renowned for its wealth and beauty, Jenghiz rode on horseback into the famous Friday mosque. His son Tule mounted the pulpit and when Jenghiz learned that it was a house of God, not a palace, he also ascended

Mongols

145

the steps to the pulpit. Holy relics were despoiled everywhere after Jenghiz had given the signal for looting from the mosque pulpit (Vambery, 128). Korans were torn to pieces and used as litter for the beasts; the

chests in which the sacred treasures had been kept were used as feeding troughs for the animals (Ibid.). Skins of wine were brought into the mosque in violation of the laws of the Koran and the Mongol soldiers began their wild orgies (Curtin, 109). Later the moats of the city were filled with Korans and furniture from the mosque (op. cit., 109). In Merv the tomb of the Sultan, Sindjar (1085-1157), was pillaged (Curtin, 124). Destruction By and Degradation of Cultural Leadership The destruction by deportation of cultural leadership was perhaps more significant and extensive in Kwaresm than elsewhere under the Mongols. The peculiar development of civilization in the Central Asia of the thirteenth century had produced a large class of skilled artisans who gave the cities their beauty by its architecture, its landscaping, the rich fabrics used as clothing and in the houses, and the finely wrought utensils and religious objects. The smaller through hardly less significant class of religious and scientific scholars and the poets were the pride of the Moslem world. The Mongols systematically deprived the countries of this leadership and

deported it to Mongolia or other conquered areas to use its talents for the Mongol leaders. In Bokhara, the highest dignitaries of Islam and doctors of law were made slaves; they had to hold the Mongol horses and feed them while the

Mongol soldiers reveled in the city (Curtin,109). They had to wait on the Mongols in their drinking bouts and play before them on their musical instruments (Vambery, 128). At Samarkand thirty thousand persons of various arts, crafts, and other occupations were distributed to Jenghiz, his sons, wives, and officers

(Curtin, 112). Of these skilled persons, the silk and cotton weavers and artistic gardeners were the most famous (Vambery, 132). At Urgenj the artisans, reputedly one hundred thousand of them (Barthold, 435), were spared massacres and sent to Mongolia (Curtin, 120). At Ghazna the artisans were enslaved and deported (Barthold, 445). In

Merv and Nishapur each, four hundred artisans were selected to escape the general massacre (op. cit., 447). As was the custom with the Mongols the national leadership was destroyed or at least pursued as best as possible. The once-much-feared Shah was pursued with typical Mongol vengeance but managed at last

146

Chapter Seven

to retreat to a lonely island in the Caspian Sea, where he died soon afterwards, deserted and broken in spirit and impoverished (Curtin, 117). Jelal ad din, his son who succeeded in leadership, was also pursued by the Mongols but escaped their grasp. However, his harem and children were all seized by the Mongols and pitilessly murdered or enslaved. The sons of Jelal ad din, of which the eldest was only eight years old, were tossed into the Indus [River] “and drowned like superfluous puppies” (Curtin, 128). The harem was disposed of by Jenghiz, probably enslaved (Ibid.). The pursuit of Jelal had to be abandoned. Destruction of Cultural Centers

Otrar was razed (Vambery,

124).

Signac was in ruins after the Mongol attack, though possibly from the siege itself (Curtin, 107; Vambery,

124). In Jend, the Mongols pillaged

every house (Curtin, 107). Nur and Charnuk were also pillaged (Curtin, 108). At Bokhara cultural destruction was tragic. When Jenghiz had ridden up to the Friday Mosque he cried: “The hay is out, give your horses fodder” (Vambery, 128). This was an invitation to loot. Everything useful and valuable was carried off; the whole wealth of that great city disappeared in a matter of a few hours. He ordered the wealthy men, 280 persons of which ninety had come from other cities, to reveal their hidden treasures; he remarked that his soldiers would be able to recover those treasures which were kept above ground (Curtin, 109-110). Then the city was set on fire; every building except for a few mosques and palaces of brick became a heap of rubbish (Vambery, 129). Thus the capital of Transoxania, a center of art, science, and commerce, perished. However, it recovered until a later (1273) Mongol destruction reduced it forever. The

city of Samarkand, described by Arabian geographers as the “most brilliant and most flourishing spot on the face of the earth,” met the same fate as Bokhara (according to Vambery, 132). The city was fired and pillaged of all valuables (Ibid). Minor towns in Transoxania met the same fate. In Khorassan, the first greater city, Zareh, was sacked and burned (Curtin, 114). The four greatest cities were all reduced to ruins; Balkh with its 1,200 mosques, was burned (Sykes, 154). Merv, then at its height

of prosperity and civilization, perished. Yakut (1179-1229), eminent geographer, who barely escaped from Merv to Mosul wrote in [the] proud

language of the rich libraries, the many scientists and authors: “Their children were men, their youths heroes, and their old men saints” (Sykes,

155). And he laments: “The people of infidelity and impiety roamed through these abodes; that erring and contumacious race (the Mongols)

Mongols

147

dominated over the inhabitants so that those palaces were effaced from off the earth as lines of writing are effaced from paper, and those abodes became a dwelling for the owl and the raven; in those places the screech

owls answer each other’s cries, and in those halls the winds moan responsive to the simoon” (Ibid.). The fate of the third great city of Nishapur was no better. All buildings were razed and site was sown with barley. Sykes relates that he has shot sandgrouse within the area which is still surrounded by the dilapidated walls of the former great city (Sykes, 156). Herat was not destroyed until a year later (Sykes, 158). Bamian, the “city of woe,” was completely annihilated, the Mongols having been forbidden to loot it. The region surrounding its ruins was turned into desert and it contained no inhabitants one hundred years later (Curtin, 126). Minor towns and villages everywhere in the path of the Mongols was “plundered . . . burnt, laid waste” (Barthold, 425). Urganj, the capital of the Kwaresmian empire, was first thoroughly plundered and then flooded by opening the sluices of the Oxus [River] (Curtin, 120). According to Juzjani, the only edifices remained intact [were] a palace and a tomb (Barthold, 436). Political Subordination

As mentioned elsewhere, a number of cities

surrendered to the Mongols in the hope of being granted at least the lives of the citizens. For instance, the Suitan of Urgandj was so terrified by the Mongol siege of the city that he went out of the gate and surrendered to the Mongols in defiance of the popular determination to resist (Barthold, 424). Later other men in the city counseled for surrender as Juji had made several peace overtures (op. cit., 435). Only after all but three quarters of the city were in the enemy’s hands, did the obstinate citizens send the muhtasib with a prayer for mercy. By that time it was too late (Ibid.). In Otrar, the anti-sultan party surrendered and in Samarkand the Turks of the city gave themselves up.

Responses of Victims Submission Juwayni (1226-1283) reports that in Bokhara an imam, deeply shocked by the violence the Mongols were doing to sacred objects, lamented of this to one of the greatest scholars of the town who was standing next to him. The scholar answered, “Be silent; the wind of God’s anger blows; the

148

Chapter Seven

straw (scattered by it) has nothing to say” (Barthold, 410). “If life is dear to thee hold their beasts now for the Mongols, and serve them” (Curtin, 109). The priesthood of Samarkand, contrary to that of Bokhara, seems not to

have opposed the Mongols, for fifty thousand people under the protection of the priests were spared there (Barthold, 413). A story quoted by Rashid ad-Din (1247-1318), whose validity Barthold doubts, claims that the shaykh Najm ad Din Kubra of Urgandj was warned by Jenghiz to leave the city; he is supposed to have answered that he intended to share the fate of his fellow citizens, perishing later (Barthold, 436).

Intimidation

In order to frighten the inhabitants of Samarkand, Jenghiz paraded his troops including the immense number of soldier slaves before the gates (Curtin, 111). In order to frighten the Shah’s son, Viceroy of Irak, into submission by the triumphs of the Mongol armies, Jenghiz made a list of the names of the Turkish princes and generals which were murdered at Samarkand in one night (Vambery, 132, footnote).

Escape In all cities except Urgandj which was flooded, some people managed to hide among the ruins. “Some hid themselves, some fled, some were

dragged out, but afterwards escaped (all the same)” (Barthold, 436). In Bokhara some people committed suicide in order to escape the horrible scene of rape and slaughter (Curtin, 110).

Disguise A horrifying manner ofdisguise was common as a result of Mongol genocide, strangely not only in Central Asia but also in Europe and elsewhere. This was the practice of some terrified witnesses of carnage to quickly lie down among the corpses, to sully themselves with the blood of their less fortunate comrades and thus await the retreat of the genocidists. “Some even lay down among the dead (and rose up again after the Mongols had

Mongols

149

gone)” (Barthold, 436). They were not always that fortunate. When Tule learned of this practice during the butchery in Merv, he ordered that all the heads of victims be cut off (Curtin, 125). 10 Urgandj some of the artisans who were ordered to assemble at a separate place preferred to stand with the rest of the population and conceal their profession because they feared deportation and hoped for mercy with the others (Barthold, 435).

Emigration A small group of Turkmans, who had lived near Merv, moved westwards in fear of the Mongols and eventually settled in Asia Minor near Angora. They numbered about 440 families. They formed the nucleus of the Ottoman empire (Curtin, 126).

Propaganda Appeal to Popular Beliefs In Bokhara Jenghiz mounted the steps of the pulpit in the place of public prayer outside the city, summoning all the inhabitants before him. He then asked for the richest of them to step forward and addressed them thus: “Know that ye have committed dreadful deeds, and the great people of this country are the worst of its criminals. Should ye ask why I speak thus, I answer: ‘I am Heaven’s scourge, sent to punish. Had ye not been desperate offenders I should not be standing here now against you” (Curtin, 109-110; also Vambery, 129; and Prawdin, 169). Barthold doubts this act,

which was recorded by Juwayni but not by Ibn al-Athir (Bathold, 410). Deceit

As Samarkand the Turks of the city were the only ones who surrendered. They were conducted to a place outside the city. Their horses, arms, and

other goods were taken from them and their hair was shaven in the front after Mongol fashion to assure them of their incorporation into the Mon-

gol armies. This was done only to assure them until the executioners were ready to do their job. The Turks were all massacred in one night (Curtin, 112; Vambery, 132).

150

Chapter Seven

From Merv a holy man was sent to the Mongol besiegers. He was received so kindly and given such warm assurances of the welfare of his city that the governor visited the Mongols also, bearing rich presents. He was told that his citizens would all be spared and was promised the office of governor under Mongol rule. Tule, who headed the army besieging Merv, then gave the governor a rich gown and told that he would like to attach the governor’s friends to his person and honor them with offices and fiefs. When all the governor’s friends assembled at the Mongol camp, Tule had them bound and [rest of this material is missing—SLJ].

Motivation

The outstanding motive of Mongol genocide in the empire was revenge. The brutal massacre of Mongol merchants in Otrar at the bidding of the Shah set the machine of genocide in motion. The subsequent crimes in Otrar were largely motivated by revenge partly because of this ghastly memory and partly because of the desperate resistance of that city which knew what its fate would be. The town of Signac was completely annihilated because a Mongol envoy had been murdered by its citizens (Vambery, 124). Bokhara was cruelly treated after plots with its local garrisons had been discovered. Urgandj was annihilated after having put up a desperate resistance. The city finally sent envoys to the Mongols asking for clemency: “We have felt thy wrath, thy time has come now to show favor.” The Mongol (Ogadai’s) response was: “They mention our wrath, they who have slain so many of our army? We have felt their wrath very heavily and now we will show them what ours is!” (Curtin, 120). When Belgush, a Mongol commander, was killed in an armed encounter outside the city of Nessa, the town was besieged out of vengeance for his death (at the time when the pursuit of the Shah was the main concern of the army). After sixteen days of siege Nessa was taken, and the subsequent genocide there was particularly odious (Curtin, 122). In Nishapur, the daughter of Jenghiz and the widow of Togachar, Mongol commander who had met death at the hand of the defenders of Nessa,

rushed into the city at the head of ten thousand warriors for the merciless slaughter (Curtin, 125). Curtin also mentions a similar incident in Bamian, where a daughter of Jenghiz, perhaps the same woman, reaped vengeance on the Bamians with her warriors for the slaying of Moatagan, her son (Curtin, Russia, 238). (In his earlier work and source for this

Mongols

15]

section “The Mongols,” Curtin merely mentions Jenghiz’ vengeance for the death of Moatagan, without referring to his mother.)'' The town of

Zawa was destroyed because it had offended the Mongols by jeering at its inhabitants (Barthold, 423). Genocide was also committed for reasons of expediency. Thus Ghazna was destroyed supposedly to prevent the rupture of communications between Mongol divisions at a place where Jelal ad din was said to be organizing an army (Sykes, 154). In the town of Benekit the Turks were massacred because the Mongols could not trust these warriors, according to Curtin (107). Desire for gain played a significant part in genocide, especially cultural genocide. The wholesale looting of valuables and the deportation of skilled cultural leadership was motivated by a more or less calculating greed.

Attitudes toward Victim Groups When witnessing the heroic and daring leap that Jelal ad din made on his horse from a height of thirty feet into the Indus [River], Jenghiz was filled with admiration for his adversary. He forbade his archers to aim at the Moslem prince while he was swimming across the river and exclaimed: “Such a father (the Shah) was worthy of such a son” (Vambery, 136). However, this was an exceptional attitude. The Mongols usually felt nothing but indifference or contempt for those who became their victims while actively hating those who had resisted them. It is doubtful if one may be justified in detecting feelings of guilt in Jenghiz when he asks a captive Afghan prince: “Do you think this bloodshed will remain forever in people’s memories?” When the prince replied that no one would be left to remember it, if the bloodshed continued, Jenghiz became furious,

breaking an arrow he was holding. Then he said contemptuously: “What do these people matter to me? There are other countries and many other races, and among them my fame will live on, even if in every corner of the land to which the hoofs of Mohammad’s charger have strayed, such loot of murder should continue by permission” (Prawdin, 195). *

KK

KK

11. [Lemkin’s footnote] According to Prawdin (194) Moatagan was the son of Jagatai (son of Jenghiz) hence not the son of Jenghiz’ daughter.

152

Chapter Seven

The Case of Austria under the Mongols Background The history of Austria dates from the Romans. Vienna was already an important town under Roman rule which reached to the Danube [River]. The area of Austria was later ravaged by the Huns and other Slavonic tribes and subsequently became a part of the Frankish empire just as Moravia had been. The Magyars overran Austria after they had defeated Moravia. Before them, the Germans fled, and German civilization retreated with

them temporarily. In 976 the German king established the Babenberg dynasty in Austria and it is this date which is usually mentioned as the birth of Austria as a national unit. The Babenberg margraves were vassals to Germany, but owing to its strategic position, the “Ostmark” was given important privileges by the German king. Frederick

[Il, Duke of Austria] the Quarrelsome

(1211-1246)

who

played his damaging part during the Mongol invasion had lost most of his Austrian territory as a result of disputes with his Estates, with neighbors, and with the emperor. He was placed under a ban and limited to the city of Vienna Neustadt and one nearby castle. It was to regain these territories that Frederick took advantage of the general political confusion during the Mongol invasions by warring against his neighbors. Frederick was killed in a battle against the Hungarians in 1246 and with him the Babenberg line was extinguished (Ency. Brit., I, 751). * KOK OK OK

The Case of Moravia under the Mongols Background After successive infiltration of the Germanic and Slavonic tribes, an extensive kingdom of “Greater Moravia” was founded in 874 which gradually extended from the Oder [River] to the Vistula [River] and included Bohemia. However, Charlemagne (742-814) conquered the empire and made it tributary. During a subsequent war by Moravia

against the Franks, the Magyars, as allies of Charlemagne, destroyed Moravia completely. In 1089 Moravia was incorporated into Bohemia which was then becoming more powerful as part of the German empire. In 1182 Moravia

Mongols

153

became a separate margravate but continued to be treated as a fief by the Bohemian kings (Ency. Brit., XV, 790). At the time of the Mongol invasions Bohemia was still in a suzerain relationship to Bohemia.

Methods of Genocide

Physical Massacre Moravia suffered grievously from the Mongol invasion in comparison to Bohemia. King Wenzel (I, 1205-1253) of Bohemia wrote in May 1241, probably to Emperor Frederick II (1194-1250), according to Wolff: The Mongol army, which had invaded Poland, turned to Moravia,

devastating that country cruelly, not sparing anyone regardless of age, sex and rank. All from the highest to the lowest including their women and children were “strangled” and most monks were murdered (Wolff, 204-205). The regions around Hotzenplotz and Leobschuetz were seriously depopulated by the Mongol onslaught; so was the city of Littau (Wolff, 242). Cultural Genocide

Destruction of Cultural Centers King Wenzel referred to the fact that famous monasteries were destroyed by the Mongols in Moravia (Wolff, 204). The province of Troppau suffered great destruction which had economic ramifications (Wolff, 242). The monastery St. Stephanus near Olmuetz was destroyed; the town of Unczove was badly damaged during the Mongol siege (Ibid.). The city of Littau was completely destroyed; so was the city of Gewitch near Olmuetz. Of the monasteries, besides the above mentioned,

Obrowitz,

Raigern and Tisanowitz and Daubrawnik

were destroyed by fire (Palacky, 119). Olmuetz, the capital of Moravia, as well as Bruenn and Uncow managed to repel the Mongol invaders (Ibid.).

The Genocidists

Responsibility The Mongol army which invaded and ravaged Moravia drove down from Liegnitz after the battle there. It was an offshoot of Kaidu’s armies (see Prawdin, 258 map).

154

Chapter Seven

Escape An immense number ofterrorized people were able to flee their threatened towns and villages and hide until the Mongols had passed. This was possible thanks to the rugged character of Moravia; people hid in the extensive wooded hill country which could not be penetrated by horsemen; many grottos, ravines, and caves served as shelter[s]. There are many caves in the local mountain ranges in which one can walk for hours. Several legends still tell of the more famous of these caves in which large numbers of people were supposed to have hidden from the Mongols (Wolff, 245).

Aftermath Vigorous measures were taken after the Mongols completed their onemonth ravages in Moravia (Wolff, 190). The country had been so thoroughly devastated that depopulation and impoverishment threatened general decay. Bishop Bruno and the Johanniter who made similar efforts in Silesia, repopulated the area of Hotzenplotz and Leobschuetz with German colonists (Wolff, 242). The province of Troppau with its city was so impoverished that the Margrave Ottokar (II, 1233-1278) permitted the city of Troppau to reopen a free annual fair as documents of May 1247 show (Ibid.). Freudenthal, a town nearby, was permitted by the Margrave to levy a duty on Polish travelers for twenty-five years (Ibid.). The same Margrave donated certain of his tax intakes to the monastery of St. Stephanus for reconstruction. In1251, the Margrave donated to the citizens of Unczove the revenue from the duties imposed on traveling merchants by the town of Aussen (Ibid., from Erben, I, 589, Urk. 1272). The city of Littau was repopulated by order of King Wenzel (according to a document of January

1243). As inducement he offered freedom from taxation for fifteen years and low taxation afterwards (op. cit., 243). For the reconstruction of the city the colonists were permitted to take wood from a nearby forest without charge. He promised the new citizens freedom from duties in various trading cities as well as the freedom and privileges of the citizens of Olmuetz (Ibid.). Ottokar II called the Templars from Vienna to build a church. The town of Prerau, near Olmuetz, which suffered general destruction (either under the Mongols or under the Kumans) was granted the privilege of Olmuetz by a document of January 28, 1256 (Ibid., from Boczek Cog, diplom. Moraviae III, 204, Urk., 228). The town of Gewitich was granted

Mongols

Iteyp:

Ottokar’s forest free and permanently by order of September 22, 1249 (Ibid.). From various other documents one may glean that monasteries

which had been destroyed by the Mongols were granted the possession of royal villages to aid in their reconstruction (Wolff, 244). Khorassan was regarded as the fief of all the four sons of Jenghiz (Hammer, I, 113). After some years of relative prosperity, Scherefeddin [?] became minister of finance and earned himself a notorious reputation by his exceedingly ruthless and cruel financial administration. He sucked the last penny out of the populace, imprisoned and hung hundreds, tortured many to obtain greater payments, and looted homes and mosques (Hammer, I, 116).

In 1244 he died after having brought the country as low as it ever was during the Mongol invasion. Then the financial management of Persia regulated anew; the country was divided into four districts and the taxes were adjusted according to class (op. cit., 117). * KKK

EDITOR’S NOTE For some reason, Lemkin does not supply a detailed bibliography with this chapter; quite possibly it is missing or misplaced from his papers, In addition to the Encyclopedia Britannica (which edition he does not indicate), the following are likely candidates: |. Frantisek Palacky (1798-1876), whose five-volume The History of the Czech Nation in Bohemia and Moravia was published between 1836 and 1867. 2. Michael Prawdin (1894-1970), Ukrainian-born British journalist and

historian whose book Genghis Khan and His Heirs was published in Germany in 1937 and presently reissued by Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, in 2005 with the title The Mongol Empire: Its

Rise and Legacy. 3. Percy Molesworth

Sykes (1867-1945),

British scholar, soldier, and

diplomat whose two-volume History of Persia appeared in 1915. 4. Joseph

von

Hammer-Purgstall

(1774-1856),

Austrian

Orientalist,

whose major work was his ten-volume History of the Ottoman Empires, published between 1827 and 1835.

156

Chapter Seven * KK OK OK

UPDATED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carpine Giovanni, Da Plan Del. The Story of the Mongols Whom We Call Tartars— Historia Mongalorum Quos Nos Tartaros Appellamus: Friar Giovanni Di Plano Carpini’s Account of His Embassy to the Court of the Mongol Khan. Branden Books, 1996.

Craughwell, Thomas J. The Rise and Fall of the Second Largest Empire in History: How Genghis Khan’s Mongols Almost Conquered the World. Minneapolis: Fair Winds Press,

2010.

Hopkirk, Peter. The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. Japan: Kodansha International, 1992. May, Timothy. The Mongol Art of War. Yardley: Westholme Publishing, 2007. Meyer, Karl E. and Brysac, Shareen Blair. Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia. Washington: Counterpoint, 1999, Morgan, David. The Mongols. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007. Nicholson, Robert. The Mongols. New York: Chelsea House Publications, 1994. [A children’s book for ages 9—12.] Prawdin, Michael. The Mongol Empire: Its Rise and Legacy. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2005.

Saunders, J. J. The History of the Mongol Conquests. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. Turnbull, Stephen. The Mongol Invasions of Japan 1272 and 1281. Essex, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2010. Turnbull, Stephen. Mongols. Essex, UK: Osprey Publishing, 1980. Vernadsky, George (1938). “The Scope and Contents of Chingis Khan’s Yasa.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 3(3/4): 337-360. Weatherford, Jack. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2005.

Weatherford, Jack. The Secret History of the Mongol Queens: How the Daughters of Genghis Khan Rescued His Empire. New York: Crown Publishers, 2010. [Editor’s Note: An interesting fictional read is Iggulden Conn’s three-volume series Genghis: Birth of an Empire (New York: Delacorte Press, 2007); Genghis: Lords of the Bow (New York: Delacorte Pess, 2008); Genghis: Bones of the Hills (New York: Delacorte Press, 2009).]

Chapter Eight

Moors and Moriscos

CONDITIONS

LEADING TO GENCCIDE

The gradual change in church and state and its attitude toward the Mudejares of the reconquered territories of Spain found its most decisive exponents in [King] Ferdinand (1452—1516) and [Queen] Isabella (1451— 1504), especially the latter. The capitulations promulgated by them with the Moors of Granada were willfully violated by the zeal of Isabella’s confessor, Ximenes (1436-1517). The Inquisition had been founded under the reign and at the bidding of Isabella and, henceforth, religious unity became the prime object of the crown. The first step toward religious unity was forced conversion. The next step was the deadly activity of the Inquisition in consolidating its sudden and doubtful gain in the number of Christian souls, and the final step was expulsion. During the Middle Ages Spain had been the most tolerant land in Europe, a fact which is hard to believe in the light of later events. During the fifteenth century it became the most fanatically intolerant. The first objects of this zeal became the Jews; after their forced conversion, the Marranos became the victims of renewed hated because of their social [and] material ascendancy and their persistence in Jewish ways. To religious hatred thus was added racial antagonism. The Inquisition was established to deal with the “Judaizing” of Christians by the Marranos. Thus anti-Jewish sentiment prepared the way for action against the Moors and Moriscos, although this would doubtlessly have been taken anyway, sooner or later. Already by the middle of the fifteenth century, oppression of the Jews and Moors by discriminatory measures existed. Both groups distinguished themselves as

the only industrious and able in Spain; Christian nobles became alarmed at IIs)7/

158

Chapter Eight

the encroachment of the Moors on the best lands and clamored for the expulsion of Jews and Moors in 1460 ([Diogo de] Golmenares [1586-1651], Historia de Segovia, xxxi, ix). The church, in fact, began to separate nonChristian from Christian in the early thirteenth century. We read that the Lateran Council of 1216 ordered that all Jews and Saracens were to attach a badge to their dress or wear distinctive clothes—a measure enforced among the Jews everywhere to a greater or lesser degree. While the Spanish monarchy was not so eager to enforce it, it was at times carried out and then led to innumerable murders on the high roads (Council Lateran, IV, ann 1216, cap. Ixviii). Succeeding church councils ordered repressive measures directed against the religious freedom of non-Christians in Spain. Gradually, internal church and secular opposition to such measures weakened and Spain was adapting itself to the pattern of religious intolerance of the rest of Europe. The courts of the late 1300s enacted repressive legislation against Jews and Moors, endeavoring to undermine their religious independence and at the same time to deepen the gulf between them and the Spanish Christians. That the measures taken by church and state had a gradual but profound influence on the attitudes of the Christian population can be readily understood. While during former times antagonism between Christian, Jew, and Saracen had been at a minimum, segregation and church propaganda slowly changed the Spaniard into a religious and racial fanatic. Any incident, innocent itself, could ignite the flame of religious hatred with genocide as a result. Thus, in Aragon, in 1585, [one] Pedro Peres was slain by Moriscos over a quarrel; his nephew resolved to avenge him as he believed that the killing of Moriscos was the most acceptable service to God. He proceeded to slay them as they came out to labor in the fields for several days. The Moriscos defended themselves and eventually responded by forming a militant organization “Moros de la venganza” which murdered Christians wherever possible. In 1588 after continued terror by this organization, the Christians of the neighborhood assembled in force and massacred about seven hundred Moriscos, regardless of age and sex. The government eventually intervened with armed force. The militant terrorist response of the Moriscos in the above case became general, transforming a peaceful and loyal population whose excellence in arts, sciences, industry, commerce, and agriculture was unquestioned, the real backbone of Spain of whom Archbishop Talevera (1428-1507) had said: “They ought to adopt our faith and we ought to adopt their

Moors and Moriscos

159

morals.” Under a continuous oppression and humiliation perpetrated by their fanatical Christian neighbors, the Moors became restive, resentful,

and dangerous. Stories were spread by clerical writers to incite Christians against the cruelty and terror of the Moriscos; cooks were made out as

poisoners, boatmen as silent killers. While such accounts were undoubtedly exaggerated, Morisco terror, organized counterfeiting, and murder seem to have existed. Popular hatred was nourished by Morisco prosperity. Despite the special loans and taxes imposed on them by their landlords before conversion, they prospered. They undersold Christians by providing cheaper labor and better work. Since they did not buy bread, wine, and pork, on

which a royal tax was levied, they escaped these financial burdens of the Christians. They never went to war, as they were prohibited entry into the armies, and thus could increase their numbers without this interference.

The great [Miguel de] Cervantes (1540-1616) [author of Don Quixote} himself said: “The Moriscos multiply, never put their children in the army or clerical occupations, pay nothing for teaching them and merely rob us” (from Colloquio de los perros; no quotation). The precarious financial, political, and military situation in which Spain found itself in the sixteenth century contributed greatly to the fear of the Moriscos

as traitors from within, a sort of fifth column

which

greatly endangered an already impotent state. The revolt of Granada (1568-1571) had revealed Spain’s weakness to resist an invasion supported by rebellion. Spain had enemies everywhere abroad—Turkey and other Moslem powers, the Huguenots in France, Elizabethan England, the Low Countries. Military resources were almost nonexistent at the time of the Granada rebellion, soldiers were untrained and unenthusiastic. Charles

the V (1500-1558) had left a legacy of thoroughly disordered finances which was to increase steadily. While the expulsion of the Moriscos could only hasten the ruin of the country, hysteria was fanned regarding the activities of the Moriscos to draw invaders into the prostrate nation.

INTENT The general basic intent of all groups committing genocide on Moors and Moriscos in Spain was to get rid of the heretic and the unbeliever; it is the same intent which underlies Spanish genocide against the Jews and

160

Chapter Eight

the Jewish converts or Marranos at about the same time. Whether expulsion, conversion, or extermination should be used to achieve that end was

usually a matter of dispute in court and clerical circles, depending on whether religious or political considerations predominated. However, it may safely be stated that all the genocidists had a “fanatical determination to free the land from heresy,” while only the exponents of forceful conversion showed at all times “pious eagerness to save the soul at any cost to bodies.” Frey Bleda (1550-1622), for example, took Ximenes’ side in attempting to convert the Moors by force; he held that the “elches” (apostate Moriscos) should be quite justifiably compelled to Christianity with torture and fire since their parents were baptized renegades and their children thus belonged to the church. In another place, this same Frey Bleda states that had [Tomas de] Torquemada (1420-1498) been alive at the time, expulsion of the Moriscos would have been carried out rather than forceful conversion without catechization attempted (Cronica, 639-41). That no genocidal method escaped the scrutiny of the genocide planners as at least a possible way to achieve the desired end can be gleaned from the deliberations held shortly before the final edict of expulsion. On the milder side there were such proposals as that Moriscos should be prohibited from marriage except with old Christians; or that the Moriscos should be allowed to live and worship as they please[d] but so crushed with taxes that they would voluntarily join the Church. Or again, it was suggested that all Morisco children be seized and brought up by Old Christians. Another suggestion was to herd all Moriscos into the sterile region of Sayago, so that they would lose the pride they conceived from their victories at Granada. Another version of this social isolation and economic oppression was to limit them to the occupation of husbandry (Cabrera, Relaciones, 371). However, the clerical and secular leaders had

“far more radical and heroic” ideas. A Sicilian Vespers (i.e., a massacre) had been advocated on several occasions, among others by Gomez Davila of Toledo [?] who suggested it in a long memorial address to Philip III (1578-1621), painting a fearful picture of impending dangers from the Moriscos (from Relazioni Venete, Serie I.T.V., 486). As mentioned above, such a plan was almost executed by Philip IT (1527-1598) and the Duke of Alba (Fernando Alvarez de Toledo y Pimentel, 3rd Duke of Alba, 1507— 1582), being prevented only by the necessity of sending the fleet which was to have scuttled with Moriscos on board to Flanders. The castration of all male infants had been suggested. Another proposition would have the

Moors and Moriscos

161

Inquisition proceed against all Moriscos of Castile, inflicting either natural or civil death (the latter being incarceration), or perpetual exile, or the galleys for life (Davila, 250-254). Archbishop Ribera (1532-1611) had the inspired idea to enslave all Morisco males of a certain age and to send them to the galleys or the mines of the Indies, depleting them gradually by taking every year four thousand youths for each service (from Ximenes, Vida de Ribera, 364). The Frey Bleda mentioned earlier had proposals to make which perhaps were the crowning achievement of brutality. He tediously proved that the Moriscos could all be massacred in a single day; that the King could condemn all the adults to death and the rest to perpetual slavery; that he could sell them as slaves to Italy or the Indies, or by filling his galleys with them [and] liberate the Christians serving there—especially the clerics. To his mind, massacre was preferable to expulsion “being” a work of great piety, edification of the faithful, and a wholesome warning to heretics. In the case of expulsion he hoped that, when piled on the coast of Africa, they would die and thus aggravate the pestilence which the year previously had carried off one hundred thousand Saracens. The work in which Bleda put down all these suggestions was called Bledae Defensio Fidei; according to Lea it presents Christianity as “a religion of ruthless cruelty, eager to inflict the most pitiless wrongs on the defenseless. Moloch usurped the place of Christ, and the bloody sacrifice of those of different faiths is the most acceptable offering to their Creator” (298, footnote). Nor was this a perverse or unorthodox work; utterances of Fathers, decrees of councils, decrees of popes, and theological decisions of import were all used to render such cruel genocide authoritative (Ibid.). Bleda’s book was approved by all the Spanish authorities; its printing expenses were defrayed by Philip III; Rome pronounced it solemnly free from error and Clement VII (1478-1534) read it with pleasure at the suggestion of his confessor Cardinal Baronius (Ibid.).

MOTIVATIONS We may have seen that the basic intent of the Morisco genocidists was to rid Spain of the unbelievers. The basic motive, therefore, was religious

fanaticism. To a greater or lesser degree, religious intolerance and zeal were typical of Spain at the time. The fact [is] that the Catholic Church

of Spain during the centuries of the Inquisition was the incarnation of

162

Chapter Eight

religious fanaticism. The canons, as was continuously shown, denied free-

dom of conscience; they made a Morisco irrevocably subject to the church by the sacrament of baptism. They made him worthy of the death penalty by apostasy no matter how willingly or unwillingly he had submitted to baptism. “Anything short of that was benignity or mercy, while their guilt was too notorious to demand proof or trial.” Not only the high ecclesiastic and secular authorities were primarily motivated by religious zeal. Christian civilians who committed depredations on Moriscos did so out of fanaticism. The church’s concern for the welfare of the soul produced a unique altruism. Old Christian guardians of Morisco children (who were separated from their parents at expulsion) spent their last pennies to hire wet-nurses for them, some of the women nursing three or four of the

wards. Well-meaning Christians did their utmost to kidnap Morisco children before expulsion; they were moved most by the prospect that “hell had to swallow so many innocent lambs. The wife of the viceroy snatched off several children and hid Morisco women about to be delivered so that their children could be baptized.”

MOTIVATIONS

II

The soldiers and adventurers who joined in the fight against the Moriscos committed genocide on them largely for gain. They had fought in the hope of gaining a rich harvest of loot and slaves. They roamed the countryside and opposed all pacification of the Moriscos in order to continue to satisfy their greed on the victims of Christianity. The frequent confiscations for heresy and the payment of fines required on various occasions to escape conversion were, no doubt, motivated by royal and ecclesiastic greed; similarly, the confiscation of the lands of exiles and of other properties in case of disobedience to the edit of expulsion. Political expediency was an important motivation for genocide as well as for reluctance to commit it. Charles V (1500-1558) had had frequent and intense troubles in his dominions because of the heresy. In 1521 he took action against [Martin] Luther (1483-1546); at that time he was suppressing heresy in the Low Countries. To him heresy was not only religious disobedience but civil disloyalty as well. He would find his demands for religious unity in Germany greatly weakened if he could not enforce such unity in the dominions where his authority was almost

Moors and Moriscos

163

absolute—Spain. The result was his pressure on [Queen] Isabella and [King] Ferdinand to implement conversion. Jealousy of the prosperity of the Moriscos played its part, not only with the Christian lower class genocidists but with the authorities. Only ten years after the Moriscos of Granada had been settled in Castile, they were again prosperous, owing partly to their industriousness and partly to their exclusion from the military and religious vocations. An official report remarking on this trend warns that soon the natives would be the servants of the immigrants (from Janer [?], 272). Thus Spain could not be satisfied with deportation or op-

pression but only with expulsion or extermination.

MOTIVATION

III

Political expedience also worked in the opposite direction. It was ten years after the question of expulsion had first been seriously considered when it was finally put into effect. Expulsion was contrary to Spain’s political interests; the clerics and the king knew this as well as the nobles who continued to oppose the measure. Archbishop Ribera, a staunch advocate of expulsion and violent action, had his moments of doubt as to the political and economic wisdom of the measure: “Padres, he said, we may well in [the] future have to eat bread and herbs and mend our shoes.” Besides, the authorities, both spiritual and temporal, were afraid of retali-

ation by the Moriscos and of a Moorish and Turkish invasion. Thus they decided to postpone the measure until such time when invasions would be unlikely—that is, in the fall. And they resolved to shroud the matter in

utmost secrecy. Long letters and deliberations by clerics and nobles alike urged the king to reconsider the measure for reasons of expediency. The method of massacre had previously been discarded as being too compromising. The precarious political situation of Spain was used by Archbishop Ribera to prove the necessity for expulsion. The Moriscos were a potential danger as spies and traitors because of their hatred for the Spaniards and their strategic position on the coast. England threatened to attack through Portugal, and France through Navarre and Aragon. The war of Morisco rebellion had cost fifty thousand Spanish lives and shown the strength of fanatical Morisco fighters. An expedition to Algiers had been defeated, and the Armada had been crushed. Spain had lost her once proud position in

164

Chapter Eight

the world and was lying defenseless, surrounded by enemies. This was the situation at the end of the sixteenth century. But even in 1512 Peter Martyr (1499-1562) said that if some reckless pirate would march in, the aroused

Moorish population would join him in rebellion. Another factor which aroused the consistent alarm of the genocidists was the steady population increase among Moriscos in the fact of the decrease among Christians.

ATTITUDE TOWARD

VICTIM GROUPS

The Spanish had evolved during the sixteenth century a concept which corresponds somewhat to the Nazi concept of “Aryan,” had as much suggestive power and as far-reaching implications. This concept is “Limpieza.” It means purity of blood and was a prerequisite for admission to the Military Orders and other important advantages and positions. Gradually, “inability to prove limpieza was one of the sorest misfortunes that could befall any man.” Limpieza originated as a fictional concept of derivation from a pure race of knights in northern Spain. The white, or non-Spanish groups such as the Moors, Moriscos, and their descendants, and the Jews, Marranos,

and their descendants

were,

of course,

outside “limpieza.”

However, the concept is also religious. A noble loses limpieza by doing public penance and his descendants likewise. The Inquisition thereby stamps him and his offspring as outlaws. It also makes all Spaniards potential “non-limpiezas.” Lea says that “limpieza” gradually “filled the land of Spain with envy, hatred and all uncharitableness.” This may well be believed. However, the Moor and Morisco as well as the Jew and Marrano were especially hated by the Spaniards as infidels and apostates, as a vile race. Contempt was added to hatred. Ximenes insisted that religious instruction of the newly converted Moriscos was just a waste of time, like casting pearls to swine, as it was the nature of the masses to despise what they understood and revere only what remained a mystery.

OPPOSITION FROM WITHIN The nobility and gentry were most persistent opponents of Morisco ex-

pulsion and even of forceful or peaceful conversion. The aristocracy and the ecclesiastical foundations of Aragon, especially, were dependent on

Moors and Moriscos

165

the Moriscos economically. The bulk of Moriscos were concentrated there, including many of the deportees from Granada. The opposition of these interested parties who derived their chief revenue from the Morisco vassals explains why the question of voluntary emigration was never considered. Already in 1248 this conflict of interest between the nobility and the higher ecclesiastical authorities made itself felt. Jayme I of Aragon (1208-1276) ignored Pope Innocent IV’s (1196-1254) order not to allow Moors to reside in the Balearic Islands. In 1266 the Pope urged upon Jayme the expulsion of all Moors from Aragon. He warned the prince that his reputation would suffer greatly if he would continue to permit such an opprobrium to God to infect their Christian neighbors. In 1275 Jayme invited additional Moorish settlers with the promise of one year’s exemption from taxation. The economic value of the Moors, as later that of the Moriscos, was great; they were able traders like the Jews, and accomplished artisans and agriculturalists. Later, when the Moriscos took the sides of their landlords in the Germania uprisings (1519-1523), when they proved as loyal and industrious and peaceful vassals as the Moors had ever been, the nobles continued

to protect them against the onslaught of religious fanaticism. After the genera! clerical investigation had declared all newly converted Moriscos as valid Christians, the nobles in the Sierra de Bernia shielded them from

the arms of the Inquisition. When the edict of expulsion of the Moors became known, causing great agitation among the Moorish vassals who ceased to work, the nobles sent a representative to court to present their case. They felt that the presence of the Moors as non-Christian vassals was of tremendous importance to the prosperity of Spain. They felt that their expulsion would greatly impoverish the country (first of all the nobility, of course), and that, simi-

larly, their conversion to Christianity would endanger Spain because it would render them uncontrollable and legally able to emigrate and thus benefit foreign countries at the expense of Spain. After all, the Moors had been converted, the “cortes” of nobles and the other ruling estates repeatedly complained with vehemence against the inquisitory actions against the Moriscos who had no churches and were not being instructed in Christian principle and dogma. However, it ought to be remembered that the nobles acted, not out of

human considerations (since they were known to exploit their Morisco

166

Chapter Eight

vassals mercilessly), but merely in accordance with their immediate personal interest. To the surprise of all, the nobles did not persist in their opposition to Morisco genocide after the edict of expulsion of the Moriscos had been published. They even sent aid to facilitate the plan.

OPPOSITION FROM WITHIN II We should not maintain that every priest, every non-aristocratic layman, and every high cleric was at least sympathetic with the genocidal policies. Many of the lesser opponents of violent measures, out of humane considerations of Christian charity, will probably never be known as they were outshouted and rendered impotent. However, among the Spanish leadership, the Bishop of Granada, Talavera (1428-1507), shines as a single light on Christian love amidst the fierce and uncompromising fanaticism. He later became a victim of the Inquisition himself, because of his Christian ideals. Being a man of real piety and gentle authority, who believed in the application of the principle of love and patience as the most effective methods of conversion, Talavera wrought a miracle with the Moorish population of his see. Under his personal influence, thousands of Moors became willing converts. When an incident set off the dry wood of hatred of the Moors which led to a siege of Granada lasting ten days, Talavera appeared before the incensed Moorish mob unarmed; the people submitted, kissed the hem of his gown, and armistice was established, Talavera

having promised them peace and justice. Demoralization

When the Moriscos began to charter their own ships during the expulsion, the king who had previously promised to transfer them at his cost charged passage money on his ships. When the Moriscos were selling their effects before embarkation, “strangers went around bargaining and purchasing for almost nothing.” By taking advantage of the genocide emergency situation, they could fleece the Moriscos of their last property. The officials who were escorting the deportees from the kingdom (except Valencia) took an even more odious advantage of their position. They had been entitled to pay from the victims by a new royal order and they proceeded to extract the last penny

Moors and Moriscos

167

from the wretched refugees, vastly more than [that to which] they were entitled. They even made them pay for the shade of trees and the water of brooks, an oppression as cruel as it was demoralizing considering the haidships of the journey. Forced conversion had since long given rise to a general scramble for gain among all Spanish classes. The nobles who saw themselves deprived of the tribute which the Moors had paid for their vessels, as it were, sold

their consent for the conversion of the Moors at the highest price possible. It was arranged that the Moriscos would pay not only the tithes they used to pay to their mosques, but also the tithes that Christians paid to their churches. The church appropriated the mosque funds and the landlords received all the surplus. New churches were founded from the new income which became known as rectories. Thus both the church and nobility enriched themselves on the cultural genocide against the Moors.

PROPAGANDA

Incriminating Opponents The enlightened Bishop of Granada, Talavera, was accused by the more zealous Lucero who was appointed Inquisitor of Cordova of endeavoring to spread Judaism by witchcraft.’ This was obviously absurd, possibly even to the superstitious people of fifteenth-century Spain; however, it served to incriminate Talavera and to prepare his eventual downfall.

Rationalization

The church took pains to explain, on a theological level, that coerced conversion is still volitional conversion, a seeming contradiction. The theological scholars wrestled with the problem of definitions, until absolute coercion was nothing more than a farce; if a man was tied hand and foot and was baptized while uttering protests, then and only then, would his baptism be considered invalid. When the final edict of expulsion was published, reasons of state were used as justification rather than religious interests, for its being kept secret 1. See Charles Henry Lea (1897), “Lucero the Inquisitor,” The American Historical Review, 2(4):

611-626.

168

Chapter Eight

until the last moment was inconsistent with spiritual policy. The rationalizing done by theologians and high clerics pro and against the various methods of genocide against the Moriscos is as intricate as excuses were usually similar to those of Archbishop Ribera who reasoned that a common sentence against all Moriscos would be a service to God. Ribera preached a famous sermon which was greatly lauded as influencing the populace in favor of the measure. He referred to Biblical texts which forbade friendship with the infidel. He “proved” that the Moriscos had offered aid to the Turks with 150,000 men and drew a horrid picture of a Moslem invasion of Spain. He called the king’s edict as inspired by divine council as prudent and humane.

Deceit

In order to claim the Moors into submission and prevent a revolt, [King] Ferdinand and [Queen] Isabella frequently made liberal concessions to them in the form of capitulations whenever a new strip of land had been conquered from them. Such capitulations included religious and community rights and freedom.

Appeal to Popular Prejudices There is no doubt that the church, the most important molder of public opinion in that era, did an effective job in indoctrinating the Spanish people against the Moriscos. They were alien, unbelievers, and they desecrated the holy sacrament of baptism by their flagrant apostasy; they were not “limpieza.” Navarrete believes that had it not been for that “indelible mark of infamy,” limpieza, the Moriscos might well have been Christianized and incorporated into Spanish society.? As it was, everything that was done to arouse the popular resentment against them, just as nothing had been left undone to separate Moor from Christian and Morisco from Christian by the edicts imposing segregation, thus creating a societal and psychological gulf between them. During the rebellion in Valencia, Moors carried off some consecrated hosts. Immediately this incident was used to incite the Christian populace. All the altars in the province were draped with mourning; only the wickets in the church doors were opened; 2. A possible reference to Martin Fernandez de Navarrete y Ximénez de Tejada (1765-1844).

Moors and Moriscos

169

all services were performed without display and pomp, and the procession of [the Feast of] Corpus Christi [Latin, “Body of Christ”] was postponed. “Enthusiasm was thus aroused” for a new campaign.

RESPONSES OF VICTIMS Submission

While the Moriscos of Valencia were first preparing to resist the edict of expulsion, they became awed at the sight of the well-armed troops. A meeting of their a/faquies and leaders decided that resistance was not only hopeless but also undesirable because their children would be taken from them as punishment. Besides the holy men quoted prophecies which promised an unexpected blessing upon departure. It was therefore resolved that all should go, including the 6 percent who were allowed to remain; they would have been regarded as apostates by the Moriscos if they had stayed in Spain. Despite the fact that the desperate Christian landlords had offered the 6 percent anything they wanted to make them stay, that is, anything except the one condition made by these Moriscos—that they be allowed to practice Islam—despite the temptation, they all decided to be deported. Once having made this decision, they sold everything they could and at the end gave property away. The land had become a universal fair. Horses, cattle, sheep, fowls, grain, sugar, honey, cloths, household

effects were sold at a fraction of their value, and finally were given away. Farm animals were turned loose, and strangers went around bargaining and purchasing for almost nothing. “The nobles soon complained of this as they claimed their vassals’ property for themselves.” After a while, the Moriscos even showed an eagerness to be off, to leave the country of their

ancestors for a land where they might live in peace. Being distrustful of the royal promises, many took their own ships at great cost, rather than risk the galleys provided at royal expense. At Alicante they embarked with music and song and thanked Allah for the happiness of returning to the land of their fathers. In Catalonia there was no resistance to the edict either. However, here

they did not demonstrate any eagerness to go; in fact, their anguish was acute and heartrending. “There went up a cry of despair which moved their tormentors to compassion. They protested that they were Christians and would die as such, even though torn to pieces.” That this was to be

170

Chapter Eight

their fate in many cases will be seen later (see section on Aftermath). “Protestations were useless, and they were submissively led in bands of from one to four thousand, without troops to keep them in order.” According to [Charles Henry] Lea, this submissiveness was fortunate for Spain which was short of troops for financial reasons. The different response from that in Valencia may be attributed partly to the tragic fact that there were many Moorish converts (who had voluntarily accepted baptism prior to the edicts) in Castile, Granada, Andalusia, and Catalonia. These often

lived like Spanish Christians in dress and habits. To them, expulsion to Moslem countries must have felt like being thrown into a den of lions, for they were too well assimilated to Christianity to change their way again. In Castile, the problem of determining those eligible to remain became so complex that it was decided to expel them all, including the antigos or old converts. The situation was rendered cruel by another difference from the situation in Valencia. In Catalonia it was decided to detain the children under seven; further the costliness of the Valencia deportation led to the decision that henceforth the deportees were to pay their own expenses as well as those of the royal officials who were to conduct them. The conversion of the Moors is of course an example of submission to cultural genocide on a [handwritten word illegible] scale.

Escape When the expulsion edict was being carried out, a number of Moriscos in Castile, Granada, and Andalusia hid themselves and were found only

with difficulty. Men fled to the mountains, leaving their families behind; but they returned when they saw their families maltreated by the soldiers.

Emigration During the terror by the Germania [?], the Moriscos emigrated to Africa to escape the jurisdiction of the Inquisition as a result of their forceful conversion. It is estimated that about five thousand homes were thus left vacant which, according to Lea, would imply the emigration of twentyfive thousand people. After [King] Ferdinand had conquered Navarre (~1512), the Mudejares they began to emigrate to escape baptism and the terror of the Inquisition.

Moors and Moriscos

171

In the middle of the sixteenth century, [King] Ferdinand and [Queen] Isabella repeatedly forbade emigration of the Moriscos under strict penalties. A royal pragmata [?] of 1553 says that emigration is increasing from all the coast districts and reiterates the prohibition. The Inquisition was much more concerned with this problem; in the great Seville auto-de-fe of 1559 two Morisco apostates were burnt, one having carried Moriscos to [the] Barbary [coast] and the other his wife and children. During the rebellion of Granada (1499-1501), many Moors emigrated to Africa. During the final expulsion preparations, some hints of crisis managed to seep through despite the general secrecy; many Moriscos were migrating to France from Saragossa. From these examples of emigration alone, it can be seen that voluntary removal from Spain was a widely accepted solution to the genocidal oppression among the Moriscos. However, for the Moriscos who were more Christian in their ways than Moorish, neither emigration nor expulsion were bearable (see section on Assimilation).

Resistance

Perhaps more than any other single response, resistance was typical of the oppressed Moor and Morisco. With the beginning of forceful methods of conversion introduced by Ximenes, with the illegal activities of the Inquisition which was taken against Moors (over whom it had no jurisdiction as they were not baptized), Moorish resentment and hatred of Christians rose. The capitulations of Granada had promised protection for renegades (apostates). As Ximenes began to take action against them anyway, the already restive Moors needed “but a spark to cause an explosion.” This was forthcoming. Ximenes’ servant, Sacedo, and a royal official arrested the daughter of an elche (apostate), and as she was dragged through the plaza of Bib-el-Bonut, the chief square in the Albaycin, she cried out that she was dragged off to be forcibly baptized in violation of the capitulations. Immediately a crowd formed, insulted the hated official, and eventually killed him with a paving stone. Sacedo would

have shared his fate had not a Moorish woman hidden him under her bed until midnight. The trouble spread quickly. Moors took to arms, attacked Christians, and besieged Ximenes in his house. After parlays of ten days

172

Chapter Eight

with two archbishops and Tendilla, captain-general of Granada, who had raised the Moorish siege with his troops, little could be achieved.

The Spaniards warned the Moors to submit before troops would be summoned to crush them; the Moors answered that they had not risen against the sovereign but against local officials who were violating the sacred capitulations. Only Talavera who appeared among them unguarded was able to bring about peace as has been described elsewhere (this incident is also discussed in Pet. Mart. Angler, Epist. 212, 215, 221; Lea, 37).

Ximenes’ further activities to force conversion built up a reservoir of hatred within the Moriscos who remained as Moslem at heart as ever despite their outward conformity to Christianity. They asked the Sultan of Egypt to threaten reprisals for this genocide. The most classic and dramatic instance of resistance is, of course,

the rebellion at Granada. It was the immediate result of the cruel edict of 1566, but was well planned rather than a spontaneous revolt. Uprisings started at the same time in various parts of the kingdom including the Sierra. Defenseless

Christians were

killed, Christian women

were

sent to [the] Barbary [coast] as slaves with their children, for which the Moriscos received armaments. A savage war with royal Spanish forces resulted, which took a large toll of lives on both sides until the rebels finally capitulated. It must be remembered throughout that the Moriscos were poorly armed as they had always been subject to arms licenses and prohibitions. The fight between the well-armed soldiery and the “poor wretches who were struggling for their rights” was therefore a most unequal fight, the most effective weapons of the Moriscos being their desperation and savage heroism. Even the Morisco women joined in the fight, “endeavoring to stab the horses of the cavaliers with knives, while those who had no other weapons tethered handfuls of dust to cast in the faces of the Christians and blind them” (according to Spanish military historian Luis del Marmol Caravajal [1520-1600]; 236, 239). The rebels had provided themselves with a Moorish king, Don Hernando de Cordova

(1520-1569), a descendant of the Abderahamanes who were the old kings of Cordova. He now assumed the name of Aben Humeya; because of his endeavors to restrain the slaughter of Christians he was strangled by his Turkish and Algerian auxiliaries nine months later. (Before dying he declared that he died a Christian; that he had revolted to obtain revenge for

the persecution of his father who had been imprisoned for a time, and then was content to die.) Aben Humeya’s successor was Abdallah Abenabo.

Moors and Moriscos

173

While the Spanish soldiers ran amok in the captured Morisco villages, the Morisco men came down from their hideouts to protect their women and children which were being enslaved by the unprincipled soldiery. When the Moriscos learned that General Mondajar had not authorized such action, they fell upon the soldiers, routing all and killing their leader while capturing arms and recovering their families. The outrages of Spanish soldiers everywhere led to more retaliation on the part of the Moriscos who had already submitted to Mondajar. They began to realize that they could gain nothing by submission, and Aben Humeya began to gather an army of four thousand men in the mountains. When Mondajar was replaced by the less conciliatory John of Austria (1547-1578), the increased anarchy among the soldiers was accompanied with increasing violence on the part of the Moriscos. When the Moriscos of Valencia suspected their imminent expulsion from Spain, their fears having been aroused by their dispatch of highranking officers on ostensibly negligible duties in Aragon, they began to fortify their houses, to cease working and bringing provisions into the city which suffered from food shortages. The nobles anticipated a new rebellion and brought their families into the city. After the Morisco envoys to the king, who had offered large sums of money to avert expulsion, had returned without achieving anything, the Moriscos procured arms and converted their farming utensils into weapons. However, as we have seen,

they soon abandoned their plans of resistance. Even the hard-boiled [Archbishop] Ribera realized that the Moriscos would be dangerous when separated from their children on expulsion. He warned that they would rather let themselves be torn to pieces than part with their offspring and that they would infest the coast of Spain to recover them later. That this was not far from wrong can be gleaned from a relatively harmless incident of biological genocide. When, during the expulsion from Aragon, twelve thousand Moriscos were quartered on a meadow to await embarkation, an Old Christian couple was seen stealing a Morisco

child; such a tumult arose that it was necessary for the commander to come and quiet the multitude, sentencing the ringleaders to the galleys. During the deportations, Morisco men in outlying mountain villages fled to the mountains leaving their families behind. However, as during the war of rebellion, the soldiers who came to look for them started mal-

treating their women and looting their property. Then the Moriscos descended and killed many of the soldiers who were encumbered with loot.

174

Chapter Eight

Assimilation

The bulk of the Moriscos had refused to assimilate to Christian-Spanish ways of life and religion, though they had submitted to baptism and outward conformity. However, there were considerable numbered “good Christians” though their exact number is impossible to ascertain. The number claiming exemption from expulsion on the basis of being “good Christians” was so large that officials found themselves overwhelmed by the complexity of the problem. It was then decided to banish them all including the Morisco antiguos, descendants of the old Castilian Mudejares, who had frequently become voluntary converts. They did everything to evade expulsion. Many Christian Spaniards harbored them; women married Old Christians to obtain the exemption; married couples entered the religious orders to stay. For this they were cheerfully granted license as it meant great enrichment to the monasteries. In Murcia, when their turn came for expulsion, the Moriscos organized religious processions with disciplines to prove their Christianity. The maidens walked barefoot with their hair unbound and heads covered with ashes. No preparation for departure was made; however, it proved of no avail and they had to submit

to deportation like the rest. It is interesting as evidence of the degree of assimilation to Spanish Christianity of many Morisco victims that considerable numbers of deportees returned to Spain, although the punishment for that was the galleys or slavery. The work of officials to gather in these returnees prolonged the genocide efforts. As we shall see, their Christianity exposed them to renewed genocide in Moslem countries (see the section on Aftermath).

Demoralization

When the Moriscos sensed that plans for their expulsion were under way, they began to take a number of precautions. They took advantage of the shameful state of the currency in Spain'(a debased coinage was then officially in circulation almost to the exclusion of the precious metals). Following the example of the government and many individuals, the Moriscos counterfeited money busily. As their danger became more acute, they even issued nail heads and circular iron stamps which were eagerly bought up by the Christians for silver and gold. This stuff was

Moors and Moriscos

175

deposited in the bank of Valencia and was paid out as good money for fear of riots. Naturally this money piracy was bound to have disastrous effects on Spain’s financial conditions. During the expulsion proceedings, maxy Moriscos were left without provisions awaiting their embarkation. Thus pressed, they sometimes became so desperate that they sold their own children to escape starvation for all (Cabrera, Relaciones, 393). Dur-

ing the earlier expulsion from Granada the same situation arose; children were sold for a handful of figs and bread. The poem below was written by Mohammad ibn Daud [?], the chief agitator of the Rebellion of Granada; it was written in 1568. This is a highly interesting document not so much for its artistic value (which is probably largely lost in the translation anyway) but for the insight it gives the modern cnlooker of this genocide spectacle into the human situation of Morisco genocide. It portrays the methods of genocide and the types of response of the victims; it also conveys something of the physical and mental anguish of these Moslems, of their perhaps typical Moslem response to religious persecution—a strong contempt for the “infidel” who is doing this to them and their sacred beliefs, and an enduring faith in these beliefs, despite their sufferings. Let the God of love and mercy’s name begin and end our theme; Sovereign He o’er all the nations, of all things the Judge Supreme. He who gave the book of wisdom, He who made His image, man,

He chastiseth, He forgiveth, He who framed creation’s plan. He the One sole God of Heaven, He the One sole God of earth,

He who guards us and supports us, He from whom all things had birth; He who never had beginning, Lord of heaven’s loftiest throne,

He whose provisions guides all things, subject to His will alone. .. . Listen, while I tell the story of sad Andalusia’s fate— Peerless once and world-renowned in all that makes a nation great; Prostrate now and compassed round by heretics with cruel force— We, her sons, like driven sheep, or horseman on unbridled horse.

Torture is our daily portion, subtle craft our sole resource, Till we welcome death to free us from a fate that’s ever worse. They have set the Jews to watch us, Jews that know not truth nor faith, Every day some new device they frame to work us further scaith. We are forced to worship with them in their Christian rites unclean, To adore their painted idols, mockery of the Great Unseen. No one dares to make remonstrance, no one dares to speak a word;

176

Chapter Eight

Who can tell the anguish wrought on us, the faith of the Lord? When the bell tolls, we must gather to adore the image foul;

In church the preacher rises, harsh-voiced as a screaming owl. He the wine and pork invoketh, and the Mass is wrought with wine; Falsely humble, he proclaimeth that this is the Law divine. Yet the holiest of their shavelings nothing knows of right or wrong, And they bow before their idols, shameless in the shameless throng, Then the priest ascends the altar, holding up a cake of bread, And the people strike their bosoms as their worthless Mass is said. All our names are set in writing, young and old are summoned all; Every four months the official makes on all suspect his call. Each of us must show his permit, or must pay his silver o’er, As with inkhorn, pen and paper, on he goes from door to door. Dead or living, each must pay it; young or old, or rich or poor; God help him who cannot do it, pains untold he must endure! They have framed a false religion; idols sitting they adore; Seven weeks fast they, like the oxen who at moon-tide eat the more. In the priest and the confession they their baseless law fulfill, And we, too, must feign conversion, lest they work us cruel ill. Albotado and Horozco shear us like a flock of sheep, Cruel judges and unsparing in their tireless vigils keep, And whoever praises God into destruction’s net they sweep. Vain were hiding, vain were flight, when once the spies are on his track, Should he gain a thousand leagues, they follow him and bring him back. In their hideous goals they throw him, every hour fresh terror weave, From his ancient faith to tear him, as they cry to him “Believe!” And the poor wretch, weeping, wanders on from hopeless thought to thought, Like a swimmer in mid-ocean, by the blinding tempest caught. Long they keep him wasting, rotting, in the dungeon foul and black, Then they torture him until his limbs are broken on the rack, Then within the Plaza Hatabin the crowds assemble fast,

Like unto the Day of Judgment they erect a scaffold vast. If one is to be released, they clothe him in a yellow vest, While with hideous painted devils to the flames they give the rest. Thus are we encompassed round as with a fiercely burning fire, Wrongs past bearing are heaped on us, higher yet and even higher. Vainly bend we to their mandates; Sundays, feast days though we keep, Fasting Saturdays and Fridays, never safely can we weep. Each one of their petty despots thinks that he can make the law, Each invents some new oppression. Now a sharper sword they draw; New Year’s day in Bib el Bonut they proclaimed some edicts new,

Moors and Moriscos

7)

Startling sleepers from their slumbers, as each door they open threw. Baths and garments, all our own ancestral customs are forbidden, To the Jews we are delivered, who can spoil us still unchidden.

Little wreck the priest and friar so they trample on us yet; Like a dove in vulture talons, we are more and more beset.

Hopeless then of man’s assistance, we have searched the prophets o’er, Seeking promise in the judgments which our fathers writ of yore; And our wise men counsel us to look to God with prayer and fast, For though woes that make youth aged, He will pity us at that! | have done; but life were short our sorrows fully to recall. Kind Senores, do not blame me, if |am too weak for all,

Whose chants these rugged verses, let his prayers to God arise, That His mercy may vouchsafe me the repose of Paradise.

RESPONSES OF OUTSIDE GROUPS Indifference

During the days of forced conversion under Ximenes, the Grenadian Moors appealed to the Sultan of Egypt to threaten reprisals against the Christians in his dominions. The Sultan dispatched envoys to [King] Ferdinand and [Queen] Isabella who sent a return mission under Peter Martyr of Anghiera (1457—1526) who cleverly pacified the Sultan as to the treat-

ment of the Moors. “Nothing further was heard from Muley Gidan [?], after having given the Moriscos his support, responded to a final Morisco mission by them that he did not seek adventures outside his own

Egypt.” cause to believe in laughing and telling dominions. Though

coming near Tangier by his conquest, he did no damage there in order to avoid displeasing Spain, and he assured the merchants of safety. When the French Queen Regent was asked to harbor the Morisco deportees, she maintained that she could not do so at the expense of her subjects in the poor regions through which the exiles would have to pass.

Opposition Opposition to Morisco genocide was predominant in all countries which stood in some important relationship to Spain. The country was obviously more vulnerable than ever, and European statesmen and diplomats

178

Chapter Eight

were well aware of this. Some were merely considering possible political advantages; others were motivated, at least partly, by genuine sympathy for the oppressed Moriscos or by hatred of the Spanish Catholic Church. Thus the principal dangers to Spain during this period came from Moslem countries and Protestant or pro-Protestant elements—England, Henry IV of France (1553-1610), the French Huguenots. However, even such zealous Catholics as Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642) was ignorant of the fact that during the same century a far more brutal genocide against the enemies of the Church in France in the form of the St. Bartholomew Massacre was yet to be perpetrated, had a devastating verdict to make of the Morisco case: the boldest and most barbarous act recorded in human annals (Memoires de Richelieu, 1, 86; [Charles Henry] Lea, 365). Corsairs were ravaging the coast of Spain to such an extent that it became proverbial to call it the “Indies” of these pirates. The Moriscos, according to Lea, are likely to have taken advantage of these raids to escape to [the] Barbary [coast] and sending information to the Moors of Africa. Some examples of this are recorded. In 1529 some Moriscos of Valencia made arrangements with the corsair [Hayreddin] Barbarossa (1478-1546) for transfer to [the] Barbary [coast]. A squadron was sent under the leadership of his lieutenant; he landed at the river Altea with six hundred men and thence set off in groups of one hundred. These pushed through to the towns of Parchent and Murla, gathered seven hundred Moriscos, and safely returned to their vessels. At the former places they besieged the lord in his house. With the aid of the Morisco vassals he was captured. Another noble who had lost two hundred Moriscos by this raid pursued the robbers in vain, but set Spanish galleys after them. The corsair then hoisted a flag of truce for a ransom of the captured noble; when he heard of the pursuit of the galleys he took off. Because of bad weather the Spaniards caught up with him. He landed the Moriscos on an island and engaged the Spanish fleet, sinking almost all their galleys and capturing the commander’s son. Then he embarked the Moriscos and sailed for Algiers. In 1559 Dragut (1485-1565) carried off 2,500 Moriscos; in 1570 all those of Palmera were taken away. In 1584 the Algerian fleet carried away 2,400 Moriscos from Valencia, and the following year a fleet took

the whole populace of Callosa. French Huguenots were found to have been plotting with the Moriscos toward the overthrow of the Spanish regime. In January 1575, according to testimony gathered in a voluminous report of the tribunal of Aragon, a

Moors and Moriscos

179

French Huguenot confessed under torture that two years previously he had conducted negotiations between the Moriscos of Aragon and the Baron de Ros of Bearn. The agreement was that the Moriscos would rise in rebellion if Ros would invade Aragon with his Huguenots and they were ready to supply him with all possible funds. The Moriscos of Valencia sent a detailed report and plan to King Henry IV of France who favored the Huguenots and hated the Spanish monarchy. In the report the Moriscos encouraged him to invade Valencia, offered sixty thousand men for the purpose and the active cooperation of the numerous Morisco towns and villages; in addition they gave vital military information. Henry IV seems to have been amenable because he sent Aland, the Morisco envoy, to the Marshal Duke of La Force, Governor of Navarre and Bearn, with instructions to send a man to Spain who could survey the situation. An envoy was sent to Valencia. He acquainted himself with conditions there and with the Morisco plot for 1605 which involved the cooperation of the many Frenchmen residing in the kingdom. Henry IV was much pleased with the subsequent report but the plans had to be postponed indefinitely because of treachery. However, new plans were soon made. Even after the expulsion of the Moriscos of Valencia and Aragon, La Force was to attack Spain with the aid of the remaining Moriscos. According to [Charles Henry] Lea, this plan may well have meant disaster for Spain had not the assassination of Henry interfered. Hollanders promised, upon negotiations with the Moriscos, to furnish

enough ships to build a bridge from Africa to Spain. Queen Elizabeth (I, 1553-1603) seems to have been at least sympathetic to aid for the Moriscos, or rather, destruction of her hated rival, Spain. Her secretary encouraged a French emissary who came to discuss the plans of invasion. But after her death, a treaty was concluded with Spain by England, rendering any thought of invasion impolitic. Lord Burghley (1521—1598),? however, gave money to the cause and advised the French emissary to apply to Holland. The Moslem powers of Africa and the Near East expressed their goodwill toward the Moriscos in their plight and allowed seven hundred volunteers to join the rebels; arms and munitions were also sent from Africa in return for Christian slaves captured by the rebelling Moriscos. In 1573, the rulers of Tlemecen and Algiers were supposedly planning an attack on Mazalquivir, aided by a rising of the Moriscos. The King of Algiers 3. William Cecil, Ist Baron Burghley ( 1521-1598).

180

Chapter Eight

and the Grand Turk favored the plan of a two-way invasion via Africa and France. In 1576 a Morisco envoy was sent to Constantinople and returned with a letter from the Turkish Sultan which promised the advent of three fleets. Correspondence with the King of Algiers was to the same effect. However, while hopes were held out from Moslem quarters, nothing concrete ever came of these plans. But in 1608 there was for a while new hope for Moriscos and new alarm for Spaniards. A civil war was raging in Morocco between King Muley Xequen and his brother Muley Cidan. The Valencian Moriscos sent fifty envoys to the latter inviting him to reconquer Spain and promising to furnish help. A year later Cidan overcame Xequen, and the latter sought asylum in Spain offering a port for aid. However, while Cidan was a declared enemy of the Spanish monarchy, he did not lift a finger in favor of the Moriscos.

AFTERMATH Fate of the Exiles Abroad

The sufferings of the deportees had been terrible on their journey across land and sea. After their arrival in foreign countries no charity or sympathy but renewed martyrdom and oppression was their fate. In France they were exposed to pillage and maltreatment by the French populace. Especially after the assassination of Henry IV (1610) popular feelings in France ran high against Spain, for Philip If (1578-1621) was suspected of having instigated the crime. Robbings and killings of the wretched deportees from Spain were the result. The French mobs, impervious of hitting the archenemy of Spain was thus venting its resentment in a scapegoat fashion. Those Moriscos that reached Constantinople from France spread reports of their bad treatment. As a result, Ambassador Selignac [?] wrote to the Queen-Regent in 1610 that the outrages against the exiles were so cruel and horrible that there could be no excuse for leaving them unpunished. One witnéss relates the change that the news of the death of Henry IV wrought on the French populace in Marseilles. A thousand Moriscos had reached that port and were welcomed with promises of good treatment; when the tragic news arrived, the Moriscos were accused of

being Spanish spies and stripped of most of their property by a judicial sentence. The judge sent by the Queen to remedy the situation was too

Moors and Moriscos

181

corruptible and greedy to benefit the Moriscos. In hope of better treatment, the Moriscos then passed over to Leghorn. However, in Italy they could [word appears missing — SLJ] nothing except work in the fields and the group, which consisted largely of merchants and officials, went on to Algeria. In the Moslem countries of Africa, the Moriscos did not fare any bet-

ter. The Moslems of Tetuan maltreated and killed those Moriscos who refused to enter mosques out of loyalty to their Christian faith (Cabrera, Relaciones, 404), as this is as interesting as it is tragic, for it indicates that, contrary to the opinion of the Spanish Church, many Moriscos were far from being apostates. These converts became thus martyrs for the church which had denied them and cast them out to such a fate. Of course the church took no steps to canonize these martyrs of Saracen fanaticism, as

even the publication of this event would prove most embarrassing to the church. In Barbary the suffering of the exiles was especially cruel. They were robbed and murdered and their women were kidnapped. Through fear of the Arabs many refugees remained in Oran where they had landed and were starving. Twenty of the principal Moriscos came to the Captain General of Oran and declared that they were Christians; that they had not known what to believe until they saw the abominations of the Moors, and that they were not ready to live and die as Christians. Not knowing what to do, the Captain General threw them in prison. Two-thirds to three-quarters are said to have perished in Africa as a result of disease and Arab atroci-

ties. A story contained in a report of the Inquisition of Valencia has it that a crew of transport, wrecked on the African coast, counted nine thousand

corpses on the way to Oran (Lea doubts the validity of this statement). From all these atrocities, it can be readily understood why many exiles returned to Spain despite the heavy penalty. The returnees were never quite weeded out despite the official vigilance. Lea reports that in 1618 there were still communities in Valencia, la Mancha, and Granada which

resemble the Moriscos in dress and customs and have no notions of Christianity (Bleda, Cronica, 1021-1023).

Effects of the Genocide on Spain Lea writes: “Had these agreements (the liberal capitulations [King] Ferdinand and [Queen] Isabella made with the Moors of Granada after the con-

182

Chapter Eight

quest of that kingdom) been preserved inviolate, the future of Spain would have been wholly different; kindly intercourse would have amalgamated the races; in time Mohammedanism would have died out, and, supreme in

the arts of war and peace, the prosperity and power of the Spanish kingdom would have been enduring. This, however, was too foreign to the spirit while Castilian pride inflicted humiliation even more glaring. The estrangement of the races grew ever greater, the gulf between them more impassable, until the position became intolerable, leading to a remedy which crippled the prosperity of Spain.” This is the whole process in a nutshell. The effects on the Spanish economy of the Morisco expulsion were fatal. The revenues of the churches were geatly reduced. In the dioceses of Valencia, Saragossa, and Tarazona most beneficies had their incomes cut in half, and never reached their former prosperity (from a modern historian, Vicente de la Fuente [1817-1889], Historia eclesiastica de Espana,

III, 230). In ten villages of the neighborhood of Gandia alone, 417 houses were vacant, five hamlets were demolished, and four uninhabited (Manuel Danvila y Collado [1830-1906], 302). Thus, of course, the nobles were at

least as much if not much more impoverished by the expulsion than the churches. They were required to repopulate their villages but found it difficult owing to the scarcity of population in Spain generally (Ibid.). The nobles had to be content with about one-half the tribute the Morisco vassals used to pay. Those nobles who suffered exceptionally were assisted by the King with annual payments called “para elimentos,” relief doles as it were. One count received two thousand ducats per year, a Duke eight thousand, other gentry six hundred and four hundred. The large banks were bankrupt. The royal relief to nobles was generous in view of the fact that the royal treasury which had for years been in a state of penury also suffered greatly from the expulsion. In 1611 Philip, appealing to the cortes for financial relief, included the expulsion of the Moriscos among the causes for this state of affairs, a measure in which he had placed service to God and state before benefit to the treasury. Lea holds that this was not entirely truthful as the king, for in Castile he cheated the Moriscos [of their] lands or took one-half of their wealth. The king also did not aid matters by squandering large sums on his favorites. Under population and, with it, depression was further aggravated by the fact that the absence of Morisco manufacturers cut down on production and therefore the means of employment. As a result the ranks of the clergy were swelled alarmingly and potential progenitors were lost

Moors and Moriscos

183

to Spain. The Christian population, contrary to the propagandistic statements of Frey Bleda who claimed that the superior industriousness of the Christians would soon bring Spanish industry and agriculture to a higher leve! than under the Moriscos who had an aversion to labor which was regarded as dishonorable (Bleda, Cronica, 1030-1031). The Spanish seem in this respect to have distinguished themselves among European nations. For instance, the fine Spanish wools were woven in only four places in Castile, while sixty thousand bales were annually sent to France, Flanders, and Italy for weaving and tapestry work (Relazioni Venete, Serie I, T. II, 256). The Spanish trend toward indolence had long since worked toward decadence and poverty. The monasteries had always been overcrowded with the daughters of nobles (usually only one daughter would be given a dowry) while the military service and the church claimed most of the males, unless they entered the state service. The fields were deserted while the sons of peasants crowded into the four thousand Latin schools; when the pupils were unable to enter the church, they became beggars, tramps, or robbers (Navarrete, Conservaci de Monarquias, 67,299). The growth of the church in another way undermined the economy in Spain as its lands were tax-free. The situation had since long before the Morisco expulsion begun to assume such alarming proportions that the corte was always concerned with it. Considering this antiproductive trend of the Christian Spanish population, the expulsion of the only class which maintained Spanish prosperity and developed its resources must needs prove fatal. The large banks were bankrupt. The large amounts of counterfeit currency which the Moriscos had issued and sold, now confused the country’s finances hopelessly. A proclamation forbade its circulation and the lack of other currency led to frequent quarrels and murders over daily marketing transactions. A popular revolt threatened when a new modified order was issued. Coiners worked clandestinely all over Spain so that the king was forced to make counterfeiting a capital offense. Soon there were weekly executions. While modern Spanish writers vary as much in their judgments of the effects of the Morisco expulsion as they vary in liberal attitude, there have been some candid and damning indictments. [Florencio] Janer (183 1—1877) who highly estimates the skill and value of the Moriscos, agrees with [Pedro Rodriguez de]) Compomanes (1723-1803) in relating the deterioration of Spanish production to the expulsion. According to him, Arabia Felix into Arabia Desert; famine spread everywhere. Active people were replaced by

184

Chapter Eight

silence of the “despoplados,” travel on the roads by robbers and highwaymen. Janer, however, proves his relative conservatism by claiming that the resultant religious unity is the most precious jewel of the Spanish people. According to [Felipe] Picatoste (1834-1892), the expulsion has been the greatest calamity of Spain. The misery of Spain reached a point incomparably beyond that of the most downtrodden races on the earth, while the court was making merry in luxurious festivities. The Procurador [Spanish, “attorney”], Lobon [?] stated that one-half of the people were feeding on the herbs in the fields which they competed for with the herbs of cattle (Picatoste, La Grandeza y Decadencia de Espana, (1, 101-102). However, the absence of proper recuperative powers must be attributed to Spanish decadence rather than the Morisco expulsion or outside factors. A narrow theocratic spirit which stifled intellectual progress, the contempt for work, the religious fanaticism which placed religious unity and the life of the convent above that of industry and prosperity—all these factors made recovery impossible, according to Lea. KR

RKO

EDITOR’S NOTE Throughout this chapter are page references to the work of American historian Charles Henry Lea (1825-1909). However, as Lea wrote several volumes dealing with Spanish history—Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal

Celibacy (Philadelphia, 1867); History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (New York, 1888); Chapters from the Religious History of Spain Connected with the Inquisition (Philadelphia, 1890); History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church (3 vols., London, 1896);

The Moriscos of Spain (Philadelphia, 1901); and History of the Inquisition of Spain (4 vols., New York and London, 1906-1907)—and no Bibliography has been found, it is difficult to determine from which volumes Lemkin cited his material without in-depth examination of each of these volumes.

UPDATED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ehlers, Benjamin. Between Christians and Moriscos: Juan de Ribera and Religious Reform in Valencia, 1568-1614. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Moors and Moriscos

185

Halavais, Mary. Like Wheat to the Miller: Community, Convivencia, and the Construction of Morisco Identity in Sixteenth-Century Aragon. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Ingram, Kevin. Conversos and Moriscos in Late Medieval Spain and Beyond— Volume I: Departures and Change. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Lea, Charles Henry (1897). “Lucero the Inquisitor.” The American Historical Review, 2(4): 611-626. Perry, Mary Elizabeth. The Handless Maiden: Moriscos and the Politics of Religion in Early Modern Spain. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. Tueller, James B. Good and Faithful Christians: Moriscos and Catholicism in Early Modern Spain. New Orleans: University Press of the South, 2002.

4

aor

een

7 are 3m 25

%

a

. \

a

ress

ae

Mri

A

Ay —7

tel hie

ean foe

Plead (Nant yr,

Sok

(eee Sn

aie

kde

a

cs

a

ernnnain

comets

a) oe leptyoash Poy,

£

aie ed ay

*

‘6

a i

is ots Ealeswv

aT

Sow

eg IN).

ie ro

a

1a

i

aye © ve

he

® ar)

‘

Bhs¢

=s'5

Se Ser

Te

are

ih

~~,

ee

1 OND Spin al, ial ee

i 8

7

= atited

«Aes

eg

ay

Oates ine aan aa

2

ie Se

mee SY

u.

ite

ala

cam

@

Volume III

Modern Times

Chapter One

The Germans in Africa

BACKGROUND Germany occupied South West Africa as a territorial colony—in theory a Protectorate—in 1884 and mishandled the native races committed to her care; they were so mishandled that numerous uprisings occurred, resulting in the massacre of whole tribes of natives. Professing Schillings, the naturalist [?], and at one time an official of the German Colonial Department, stated that “by this barbarous method of warfare 200,000 people were shot down in a few years.” These rebellions were due to a variety of causes, such as seizure of tribal lands and sacrificial cattle, maladministration of justice, brutal flog-

gings and general mistreatment, violation of native rights and customs, forced labor and recruiting of natives by forced levies. In the Herero Rebellion (1904-1907), the greater part of the tribe, men, women, and children, were exterminated, only about fifteen thou-

sand of the original ninety thousand surviving. In the Majimaji Rebellion (1905-1907) in German East Africa seventy-five thousand persons were

the victims of German brutality. 1. [Lemkin’s footnote] Quoted from a speech by Deputy Noske, Reichstag, May 1, 1912. (Gustav Noske [1868-1946] was a German politician of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) who served as the first Minister of Defence of Germany between 1919 and 1920, and was noted for quelling the communist uprisings in parts of Germany after World War | and for giving the order to assassinate Rosa Luxemburg [1871-1919] and Karl Liebknecht [1871—1919].) 2. [Lemkin’s footnote] Statement by Deputy Ledebour, on the authority of Dernburg, March 17, 1908. (Georg Ledebour [1850-1947] was a German socialist politician and journalist. Bernhard Dernburg [1865-1937] was a German liberal politician and banker. He served as Secretary for Colonial Affairs and head of the Imperial Colonial Office from 1907 to 1910, and as Federal Minister of Finance and Vice Chancellor of Germany from April 17 to June 20, 1919.)

189

190

Chapter One

The Bushiri Rebellion (1888-1889), the first serious [up]rising in East Africa, spread bloodshed up and down the coast. This [up]rising among the Arabs was the result of the actions of German officers and officials who treated the Arab houses as their own and walked at will into the harems of the leading Arabs.

The Majimaji Rebellion of 1905 which started in the coastal district and sprang inland as far as Uhehe was suppressed with the cruelest barbarity. Large districts were laid waste, food supplies destroyed, crops burned, and the natives who had escaped were driven back to their destroyed homes, where many thousand died of starvation. In certain colonies the rebellions were incessant. Constant warfare and bloodshed existed in Cameroon from 1891 to 1903, and after 1904 in that

same colony there were seventeen military expeditions. In East Africa many punitive expeditions took place between 1891 and 1903, culminating in the suppression of the Majimaji Rebellion.’ In 1893 and 1894 [Theodor] von Leutwein (1849-1921) led expeditions against the Witboois [in South West Africa], and between 1894 and 1901 there were four other campaigns. In November 1903 the Bondelawarts, and this was followed by the Herero uprising. The administration of the German colonies was placed in the hands of unsuitable officials, noncommissioned

officers were given excessive

powers, and the native soldiery was given unbridled license in their dealings with the natives. In 1906 Dr. Schaedler [?] stated that “the story of our colonies contains a whole series of events of a not too pleasant kind: embezzlements, falsifying of evidence, sensual cruelties, assaults on women, horrible ill-treatment.’

A British officer, who traveled along the Nigeria-Cameroon frontier in 1912-1913, said that the German native soldier “is periodically told on parade that he is a member of the ‘greatest army in the world.’ He is told that he is invincible and can do no wrong; this he firmly believes. His word is always taken before the word of any number of natives. I have often heard him making a report to his officer which I have known to be an absolute fabrication.” 3. [Lemkin’s footnote] La Dépeche coloniale, July 31, 1914. 4. [Lemkin’s footnote] Reichstag, November 28, 1906. [See also John S. Lowry (2006), “African Resistance and Center Party Recalcitrance in the Reichstag Colonial Debates of 1905/06,” Central

European History, 39(2): 244-269. ]

The Germans in Africa

191

Noncommissioned officers, and sometimes native sergeants, were given absolute power in their administration. Sergeant Liebert, at the station of Lolodorf, practically left the command of his station to his black wife when he was ill. This woman ordered the arrest of three Negroes and accused [them] of highway robbery, and when Captain Kamptz visited the station, they were tied up before a 3.7 centimeter gun and blown to pieces, Every effort was made by German officials to keep details of the scandalous conditions in the colonies from the ears of the world. Deputy Bebel stated: “I am absolutely convinced that we should hear much worse things from our colonies than we have heard yet if strict measures were not taken in the colonies to prevent any European, and especially any German who had settled there from telling anything in public of anything about the abuses that came to light there. A man who was long in Cameroon told me that every commercial! employee who made public the smallest details about the loathsome conditions was simply ruined, that every means was used to induce his employer to dismiss anyone who had been indiscreet, and that very explicable motives of camaraderie made it particularly difficult to induce the officials to bring abuses to light.”° Missionaries who did expose atrocities and immoralities were directly threatened, that administrative measures would be taken against the mis-

sions if the unfounded charges continued. Officials who attempted to take colonial scandals public were dismissed for dereliction of duty, while the real offenders usually retained their positions. The administration of justice in the German colonies was a farce. The Governors and superior officials exercised no supervision or control over the colonial officials. If at times public opinion obliged the Colonial Department to prosecute some too-flagrant crime or maladministration of justice, the punishments meted out were highly inadequate and were generally given not because of the crime itself but because the perpetrators had allowed news of it to leak into the outside world. The missionary Scholze [?], one of the few who dared to speak out, delivered a lecture at Carlsruhe in 1904 asserting: “I will not say that the Government directly favoured the pernicious excesses in the colonies. ... There are men who are indignant at the treatment of the natives, but there is hardly anyone who had the courage to disobey the official order 5. {Lemkin’s footnote] Reichstag, March 20, 1906.

192

Chapter One

against telling friends or anything that occurs in the colonies or making it public.”° Father Schmitz [?] and his fellow workers in Togoland, who reported the atrocities of G. A. Schmidt [?], were threatened in the Reichstag by Dernburg, and Schmidt issued an order forbidding the natives to complain to the missionaries of the Catholic Mission, and at about the same time Governor von Puttkamer [?] forbade officials in Cameroon to visit the

Evangelical Protestant missions there.’ The cruelty of the German policy, however, was too flagrant to be kept forever hidden, and the results, in uprisings and massacres, could not be hidden from the world. Protests were made, both in Germany itself where

the Social Democrats were violently opposed to the measures of oppression enforced in Africa, and in the rest of Europe. However, the cruelties

and oppressive measures continued until the First World War, when Germany was obliged to relinquish her colonies.

Forced Labor

The system of forced labor employed by the Germans in Africa was so used and abused that it amounted to slavery of the most brutal kind. Forced labor had to be supplied by the native chiefs upon demand and upon the terms dictated by the local administration. The wages were fixed by the official concerned with labor administration, and there was no such thing as an open labor market where wages were adjusted according to the laws of supply and demand. The natives were often chained in gangs, and their villages were raided in order to capture them if enough were not supplied by the chiefs. In many cases these laborers starved to death because they had no time to collect their crops or cultivate their fields. The Deutsche Koloniale Zeitung reported: “Unprincipled recruiters of labor have dragged people by force from the more distant villages to the coast, after setting the villages on fire, like modern slave hunts. Consequently there is an exodus of many thousands to English territory.”

6. [Lemkin’s footnote] Scholze, J., Die Wahrheit tiber die Heidenmission und ihre Gegner, Berlin, 1905. 7. [Lemkin’s footnote] Roren, Reichstag, December 3, 1906.

8. [Lemkin’s footnote] Deutsche Koloniale Zeitung, 1907, p. 485.

The Germans in Africa

193

The raids to capture laborers were conducted by native soldiers, recruited from the most cruel and warlike tribes. These soldiers were allowed to loot, rape, and torture on their punitive or recruiting expeditions, and the results of a visit of these soldiers to a native village were sometimes too horrible to recount. The hut tax was levied primarily to force the natives to work. It apparently was the German theory that the natives owed their labor to the Government in return for the benefits of civilization which they enjoyed. This attitude was expressed by Lieutenant-Colonel [Kurt] von Morgen (1858-1928), the leader of an exploring expedition in Cameroon: The only real tax, which is also of cultural value, is compulsory labor. We can do nothing in the tropics without native workmen, and especially cannot make progress in Cameroon, whose future depends on plantations. As we in Germany have compulsory schooling, so there must be compulsory work in the colonies. . . . As to how this labor is to be supplied, and for how long, the District Judge must decide.’

Karl Peters (1856-1918), Imperial Commissary in German East Africa,

and the perpetrator of some of the worst crimes committed in Africa, wrote: A very good recipe is the demand of a hut tax from every nigger [sic] over the age of sixteen—and one of not less than five pounds; so that they are forced to work. Otherwise we shail soon be responsible for a lot of lazy canaille’’ from Algoa Bay to the Great Syrtis, who will force Europe to give up the opening up of Africa unless the colonists follow the example of the Tasmanian pioneers and simply exterminate the useless rabble. . . . To me the most advantageous system seems to be the one in which the negro [sic] is forced, following the example laid down by Prussian military law, to

devote some twelve years of his life to working for the Government. During this time he should receive food and shelter and a small wage, say about two shillings a month, like the Prussian soldier." Labor was divided into day, or casual labor, and contract or recruited labor. The day laborers, who were not bound to a particular master and

9. [Lemkin’s footnote] Deutsche Koloniale Zeitung, pp. 318-319. 10. French or Italian: rabble or pack of dogs. 11. {Lemkin’s footnote] Peters, The Eldorado of the Ancients, 1902, pp. 252 and 278. (The book has since been reprinted/republished by Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish, MT, in 2009, General Books LLC in 2009, and Nabu Press in 2010.)

194

Chapter One

worked on plantations near their homes, were usually given piece work and were paid the same day. Contract laborers were generally recruited up country and were transported hundreds of miles from their homes. They were usually “raw natives” who had no idea where they were going, what they were going to do, or how they were going to live. They were signed up for 180 or 240 working days and at the expiration of that period, if they were still alive, they had to find their way back to their homes as best they could. In October 1913 a new labor ordinance was passed requiring that their expenses be paid back to their homes. The death rate on the plantations was extremely high. Some plantations were well managed but the majority paid little attention to the living conditions of the laborers and forced them to excessive labors with small respite and scant food. Herr Scholze stated that within a year, a quarter of the laborers died,'* while Vietor [?] estimated the death rate at at least 20 percent: Already in 1902 I was obliged, in consequence of communications received, to demand publicly in a lecture the better treatment of the people, as 20 percent of the laborers died yearly. In 1904 I visited Cameroon for the first time, and heard, chiefly from officials themselves, how bad things looked on the plantations . . whilst I was in Cameroon last year I was told that in six months on the Tiko plantation 50 to 75 per cent of the workmen had died, as was acknowledged by the manager."°

Deputy Erzberger (1875-1921) gave the following figures in the Reichstag: The workmen’s death rate on the Victoria plantation of Cameroon was, in 1909, 7.89 per cent; in 1910, 3.31 per cent; in 1912, 10.24 per cent; in 1913,

9.11 per cent... . In Prince Albert plantation I find it to be 26.8 per cent on the average in 1913.'4

Whole districts in Cameroon became depopulated as many of the labor-

ers never returned either because they died or were left stranded on the plantations, with no means of getting home or so in debt to the storekeeper

12. [Lemkin’s footnote] Die Wahrheit tiber die Heidenmission, 1905.

13. [Lemkin’s footnote] Report presented to the Union of West African Merchants, 1914. 14. [Lemkin’s footnote] Treatment of Natives, p. 24.

The Germans in Africa

195

that they were not allowed to leave. Hasslacher [?] stated in a report that: “It is a generally known fact that in the Morogoro district the native who once had taken a worker’s ticket with a planter could hardly ever get free fron: this labor relationship to that particular employer. The employer did not give the native their discharge certificates and wages until the men had

taken on another work-ticket.”' This system was actually slavery, slavery to death. Father Burgt [?] was quoted as follows by Deputy Erzberger on March 7, 1914: “Some who ran away from the plantations are supposed to be ‘sundowners’ who will return. . . . They will not come back; not a third returns. Many die of smallpox and dysentery while still on the road; of others their families never hear again. | know many mothers and wives here who wait seven, eight, ten years, and all in vain, for son or husband.” Those who did return were generally infected with syphilis and other diseases which they transmitted to their families. The Rev. E. W. Doulton [?] of the Church Missionary Society and other missionaries testified that district native officials, in their demand for labor, took the thatch off the native houses if laborers were not forthcoming,

and even took the women as hostages. “The result was that sometimes the

people sought refuge in forest fastnesses, leaving only the sick in the villages, and some of these sick fell victims to lions in the night.”!° Secretary of State, Herr Dernburg, in his statement to the Budget Committee of February, 1908, confessed that “laborers were obtained under

circumstances which could be distinguished from slave hunts. The State is always asked to carry a whip in its hand.” By the system of wholesale slavery, the German plantations were given an appearance of prosperity but, as Herr Erzberger exclaimed in the Reichstag, they were “manured with the blood of the natives.” Flogging was not the only means by which the Germans forced their will on the natives; several other means were used. Dr. [Frank] Westen (1871-1924), the [Anglican] Bishop of Zanzibar, described the torture of the “iron-hat”: “A band of iron was passed round his head and tightened by means of a vice-like screw, so as to press more especially on his temples. The agony is unspeakable.”"” 15. 16. dard], 17.

[Lemkin’s footnote] Treatment of Natives, p. 24. {Lemkin’s footnote] [“Africanus”], The Prussian Lash in Africa (London: Houghton and Stodp. 84. [Lemkin’s footnote] Op. cit., p. 27.

196

Chapter One

Flogging One of the chief methods of punishment in the German colonies was flogging. This system was so notorious that the German African colonies were freely spoken of as the “Colonies of the Twenty-five” (i.e., where twenty-five lashes were the usual punishment) or the “Flogging Colonies.”"® At least twice the instruments used for floggings were displayed in the Reichstag: the first time a rhinoceros whip, and the second a cudgel, described officially as a “little stick.” Deputy Roren, a Prussian judge, in speaking of the cudgel said: “meanwhile a ‘little stick’ of this kind with which the thrashing took place has been sent to me from Togo, and I take the liberty of laying this ‘little stick’ here on the table of the House. Gentlemen, if such an instrument is designated as a ‘little stick,’ then one can have some idea of what sort of bludgeon they would not care to call a ‘little stick.’”!° The officially recognized punishments were flogging and _birching, fines, imprisonment with hard labor, imprisonment in chains, and death. Roren stated in regard to flogging that “this punishment is not ordered merely for grave misdemeanors or for crimes by judicial sentence, but it is applied on the mere order of administrative officials, even by Station Directors, who officially have only the rank of a subaltern, or by their assistants, or by some overseers of smaller stations, who are taken largely from former non-commissioned officers.” There is abundant testimony of the atrocious wounds inflicted in floggings. Four instruments have been used at different times: a rhinoceros or hippopotamus whip, a rope’s end, a “little stick” or birch rod, and a slatted strap. In Cameroon,

Governor von

Puttkamer decreed that the rhinoceros

whip was too cruel and only allowed the rope’s end, but in 1907 the Colonial Office again ordered that the sjambok be used. The sjambok is made of strips of rhinoceros hide, eighty to one hundred centimeters long by one centimeter in circumference, and smooth at the whip end. Certain witnesses claimed to have only seen beating with a rope’s end bound with wire at the end. Herr Bebel described this not so much as a rope as a “weapon.” He said: 18. [Lemkin’s footnote] Roren, Reichstag, December 3, 1906. 19, [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid.

The Germans in Africa

197,

It is steeped in hot tar, and when well covered with tar it is dipped in sand to produce a very rough surface; and after the whip thus prepared had become stiff and hard enough, with this instrument, which may possibly cause death, men, women, and children, without respect of persons, are punished up to twenty-five strokes. That is simply barbarous. That is an act of violence committed in the name ofcivilization against which we protest with the utmost energy.”

Deputy [Georg Friedrich] Dasbach (1846-1907) repeated the description given to him by a missionary: “The flogging was administered in the most cruel way. The solider who is ordered to give the flogging receives the order to hit with such force that the whip hisses as it comes whirling down, and if the soldier does not flog so hard that the whip hisses he is punished himself." Roren described this form of torture: “The native, after having been

completely stripped, is strapped across a block on a barrel that has been fixed firmly, his hands are bound in front, his feet behind, so that he can-

not move, and then he does not get a few blows with an ordinary stick held in one hand, but the strongest among the black soldiers has to wield a plaited rope or a correspondingly thick stick with both hands and with all his strength, and that with such violence that each blow must whistle in the air. Sometimes, if the blow does not whistle, it has to be repeated,

and if this is not done the Hausa gets it himself.”” The Akwa chiefs complained that often they received many more than the legal limits of fifty lashes, to be delivered on two separate occasions, stating that “without regarding their repeated representations, the natives, without respect of persons, were flogged for every small offense in civil or criminal matters, receiving twenty-five stokes with the rhinoceros whip or with a thick rope’s end soaked in coal tar, rubbed in sand, and dried

stiff. For greater offenses they were often punished with seventy-five strokes, divided between three occasions; three or four weeks at most

intervened between two inflictions of punishment.” Forty Elders of [the] Awete [people] were flogged by order of G. A.

Schmidt, Station Director at Atakpame, so that “pieces of flesh hung from their bodies,” and the scars were visible three years later. These natives 20. {Lemkin’s footnote] Bebel, Reichstag, March 20, 1906.

21. [Lemkin’s footnote] Dasbach, Reichstag, March 26, 1906. 22. [Lemkin’s footnote] Roren, Reichstag, December 3, 1906. 23. [Lemkin’s footnote] “Treatment of the natives in the German Colonies,” footnote, page 11.

198

Chapter One

were beaten with four different sticks, which broke one after another.

According to one of the victims: “I received three wounds, which caused me to be ill for three months.” Others who were beaten at the same time showed scars the size of the palm of a hand three years later. Many protests against this punishment were made. On March 26, 1906, Deputy [Georg] Ledebour (1850-1947) said: “Every flogging becomes barbarous, whether given with a rope’s end, the sjambok, or a salted strap. First, it is physically detrimental, causing injury and shaking the nerves; it injures the soul, it brutalizes and blunts it; and it brutalizes the officials who order the flogging.” Roren declared at the Reichstag: “It is self-evident that on the portion of the body thus struck the blood congeals and then swells, and so it is not uncommon for a man thus flogged to be ill or sickly for the rest ofhis life. In some cases, weak natives have collapsed after flogging and soon died. But all, as a general rule, for months, or even for years, find themselves in

such a state of nervous tension that if anyone approaches them unexpectedly they cower and scream aloud, from fear and apprehension lest the

spot that was beaten may be touched.””4 District Judge Von Rothberg [?] traveled from Anecho to Atakpame in March 1903, and on the trip one of his porters fell under his load and then tried to run away. He was caught and Von Rothberg knelt on him, beat him in the face with his fists, and then had him flogged with twenty-five strokes from a bamboo cane. The man collapsed again and was beaten a second time, with the result that he died. It was later testified that the cane with

which the native was beaten was a cudgel which would have felled an ox. Another instance is that of a man named Mesa who was given twentyfive strokes because he was late in serving an official’s dinner. After the beating the official kicked him in his private parts so that he fell down and remained unconscious for five minutes. Other brutalities followed, and the native was given twenty-five more strokes, and died as a result. One of the revolts in Cameroon was due to the fact that Deputy Governor Kleist [?] had ordered that twenty women, the wives of native soldiers, be flogged because they had been lazy. As late as May 1914, Deputy Dr. [Hermann] Miiller (1876-1931) asked

whether it was true that Christian negro [sic] girls had been flogged at

24. [Lemkin’s footnote] “Treatment of Natives,” page 12; Roren, Reichstag, December 3, 1906. 25. [Lemkin’s footnote] “Treatment of Natives,” page 13.

The Germans in Africa

199

mission stations in German East Africa to keep them from marrying nonChristians, and received the following answer: So far, nothing is known officially. However, according to German East African papers of March this year, at a mission station in the Mahen district, girls of marriageable age have been flogged for the purposes mentioned in the question.”°

Not only women but children as well were flogged, as is stated in the report of Mining Assessor Hasslacher: At a Magistracy of Morogoro the flogging punishment of children is carried out with a 44 1/2 inch long kiboko (i.e., sjambok), instead of, as usual

elsewhere, with a cane or light stick.’

Excessive flogging was carried out so openly in the German colonies that even [Friedrich] Dernburg (1865-1937) himself mentioned it to the Budget Committee of the Reichstag on the Colonial Estimates on February 18, 1908: “On the coast it makes a very unfavorable impression on one to see so many white men go about with negro [sic] whips. . . . The State is always asked to carry a whip in its hand.” Mining Assessor Hasslacher stated in a report: “Plantation of Derendorf: Measureless and senseless flogging was done, according to the statement of my guaranteeing informer, the plantation assistant Winter. Does Herr Mahnke (the district magistrate) really believe that the laborers who were apportioned to this plantation had voluntarily come to these orgies of flogging?””* Records were made of official floggings. In 1903, 2,293 natives were sentenced to floggings and birchings in East Africa, and 2,994 received floggings as additional punishments. Deputy [Gustva] Noske (1868-1946), on April 30, 1912, gave the figures for 1910: The number of natives who are condemned sometimes to very trying imprisonment is most striking. . . . Realize that in East Africa alone in one year, 10,144 longer or shorter sentences of imprisonment were given. That,

26. {Lemkin’s footnote] “Treatment of Natives,” page 13. 27. [Lemkin’s footnote] “Treatment of Natives,” page 13. 28. [Lemkin’s footnote] “Report on Labor Compulsion in the Morogoro District,” 1914.

200

Chapter One

considering the comparatively small district subject to German administration, is a colossal high number of convictions. . . The number of floggings in South-West Africa rose correspondingly. It rose from 928 in 1908 to 1,262 in 1910. In South-West Africa we have from 70,000 to 80,000 natives

subject to the German administration. Among this small number of persons no fewer than 2,371 cases of more or less severe punishment were imposed. That is such an enormous percentage that one really does not understand on what principles justice is administered. . . . In Cameroon, besides 54 negroes [sic] who were sent out of life into death, 3,516 colored people were punished with imprisonment; in 861 cases fines were imposed, and in 1,909 floggings. . . . A similar increase in the convictions, and of course, also in the flogging cases, is to be recorded from Togo. That little land had no fewer than 5,206 convictions.”°

We have no way of estimating the number of unofficial floggings administered in the German colonies. Hasslacher writes in this respect: Nowhere on the estates were punishment registers kept of the punishments by flogging which were executed on the natives by individual planters, at times actually on women and little children, in a shameless—I would say blood-lustful—manner. . . . Although, as far as I have ascertained, the punishment by flogging is freely used in the magisterial district of Morogoro and its subordinate centers, still, these official punishments are as nothing compared

with the innumerable administrations of the punishment by flogging on the European estates, and would scarcely come into the balance in a complete statistical statement of the flogging administered in the Morogoro districts.*°

Abasement of Chiefs

In the German colonies no attempt was made to respect native tribal customs or to invest the chiefs with their former dignity and authority. The chiefs were deprived of their privileges and the only authority permitted them was that delegated to them by the German officials, such authority being solely used for the purpose of recruiting forced labor. If the chiefs failed to cooperate in everything demanded of them, they were systematically ill-treated, flogged, and imprisoned, even for the most trivial offenses.

29. [Lemkin’s footnote] “Treatment of Natives,” page 15. 30. [Lemkin’s footnote] Hasslacher, op. cit.

The Germans in Africa

201

There is incontestable evidence that one of the main policies [of the] German administration was to destroy tribal organization and seize tribal lands, and to force the natives to work on plantations and public works.

The greatest barbarity against the native chiefs was practiced in the Cameroons, a fertile land richly producing coconuts, palm oil, cocoa beans, and rubber. The natives of the Cameroons were among the most peaceable and docile in Africa, but the treatment afforded them by the Germans was so cruel and unjust that they were roused to a state of chronic discontent. When the Germans took over the Cameroons, the lands of the Duala

and Akwa peoples, living on the banks of the Duala River, were protected by Clause II of the Treaty made with the two tribes, which was as follows: “That the land cultivated by us and the places the towns are built on shall be the property of the present owners and their successors.””?! The towns of the Akwas were composed of well-built, substantial houses, as the natives in the Cameroons had been in contact with civiliza-

tion for a long time and had taken many of the ways of the white people. The Germans decided to build their own towns on the sites of the native villages, and therefore appropriated them, without right and without compensation. Herr Bebel presented the case of the natives in the Reichstag as follows: What his little house is to the German peasant, so is his hut to the African native. Yet these natives were called on to tear down their huts, destroy their gardens and fell their trees, and in some cases their household goods were destroyed by fire..No indemnities were paid; it was a general order; they were compelled to build in another place, and these new-built huts were pulled down also.*

The Akwa Chiefs protested and King Akwa, Manga Bel, and Erwala, chief of the Diede, managed to reach Berlin, where they were promised justice. On their return to the Cameroons, however, they found that their

complaints had brought upon them the bitter hatred of the German officials. In 1905 the Chiefs again petitioned to Germany, and their petition was sent back to the Governor, von Puttkamer, a nephew of Prince Bis-

marck, who had been sent to the Cameroons to be got out of the way, for he was a noted gambler and ne’er do well. 31. [Lemkin’s footnote] The Prussian Lash in Africa [1918], page 62. This treaty was quoted in the Reichstag on March 20, 1906, by Deputy Ledebour. 32. [Lemkin’s footnote] The Prussian Lash in Africa, page 63.

202

Chapter One

Von Puttkamer was so enraged by the petition that he had thirty Chiefs and headmen thrown into prison and tried by the Court for daring to complain to the Governor. The prisoners were sentenced to imprisonment, one chief being sentenced for nine years.

The “Complaints of the Akwa Chiefs” is too long to quote in full, but it contained statements about innumerable cases of flogging and illtreatment. The imprisonment of sixty chiefs and heads of families, the appropriation of tribal lands, forced labor, disregard of treaties, and the rape of native girls by high officials. The complaint concluded: “We beg most humbly for immediate help on the part of the illustrious German Reichstag; for such a continuance of abominable treatment of our King is a great and unendurable disgrace to us.” The complaints of the Akwa Chiefs were so damning in their circumstantial detail that the popular party in the Reichstag, led by Herr Bebel, took up the matter. It was stated that von Puttkamer had been bribed by the Companies which appropriated native lands. His officers were accused of unspeakable barbarities. On one expedition all the adult natives were slaughtered and the fifty-two children were put in baskets and thrown into the Nachtigal Rapids to drown. This matter had been reported to von Puttkamer but had had taken no action against the leader of the expedition, Captain Dominik. It was shown that among the high officials who raped the native girls was included the Chief Justice, Meyer von Brauchitsch

[?], and was proven that natives who were suspected of intimacy with the concubines of the officials were mutilated. Bebel also pointed out that through the expropriation of their land, the Duala people were cut off from the river and thus deprived of their independence and livelihood, and their only means of communication. He also stated that the sixty chiefs who had been imprisoned, many more had been flogged until they died. Bebel’s contentions concerning the treatment of the natives and the complaint of the Akwa chiefs are supported by this description, made by a British officer, of how native soldiers were sent out to “visit” certain

villages: Visiting consists of burning, looting, and bringing in the headmen chained together, or trussed up with their arms behind their backs. . . . The whole

33. [Lemkin’s footnote] “Treatment of Natives,” page 30.

The Germans in Africa

203

party returns to the “post” bringing in the chiefs. The corporal is patted on the back according to the amount of rubber brought in, and no questions asked.*4

The tales of Captain Dominik’s cruelties were finally reported in London and the British Government complained to the German Ambassador in London of the horrible practice indulged in by Captain Dominik’s soldiers of cutting off the private parts of the enemy, as Deputy Bebel described later in the Reichstag: Formerly the order had been given to cut off their ears, but the soldiers cut off the women’s ears also to increase artificially the number of fallen foes. In order to overcome this, Dominik gave orders for their heads to be cut off,

but this proved inconvenient.*°

The Imperial Chancellor was shamed into sending the following letter to von Puttkamer: Sir: I send you enclosed a copy of the report of the Imperial German Embassy in London, dated August 10, 1902, together with the enclosure, requesting

you to admonish and order Senior Lieutenant Dominik at once to abstain in all instances from illegal acts and cruelties towards the natives and during any necessary punitive expeditions to abstain from all habits incompatible with the civilized state, such as the mutilation of corpses.*°

The missionaries’ accusations against the Germans confirmed the state of affairs. One missionary stated that “a Chief seldom gets through a month without being flogged; if he has not been polite enough to some German official, or if he fails to provide all the men who are demanded, or if his hut tax money is not quite right, he gets twenty-five lashes; he is absolutely under the native soldiers, who will flog a Chief without reference to their German master.”?’ The Rev. E. W. Doulton’s words are much the same: “Previous to the

European occupation the Chief was a most important personage and naturally respected by his people. Chiefs had been well treated by the British 34. 35. 36. 37.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

“Treatment of Natives,” page 30. Op. cit., page 37. The Prussian Lash in Africa, page 69. Op. cit., page 69.

204

Chapter One

Government, and form a most important link in the administrative system. The Germans treat the Chiefs no better that ordinary natives, and it is quite a common thing for a Chiefto be flogged and put in the chain gang.”** Von Puttkamer’s case was too flagrantly brutal to be overlooked, and he was tried by a disciplinary Court on April 25, 1907, on the following charges: (1) Issue of incorrect passport to a “lady friend”; (2) Illicit participation in colonial companies; (3) Undue interference with the administration of justice. Von Puttkamer was fined fifty pounds and reprimanded, but much of the evidence was suppressed, and pertinent witnesses were not called. His abominable crimes against the natives were not even brought up in trial. In German East Africa, chiefs were also frequently mistreated. In one instance two village chiefs were flogged on the orders of a Captain Kannenberg [?] because they would not tell him the meaning of certain words. One was given seventy-five lashes and the other one hundred. The first chief died in the night of the effects of his flogging.

Hottentots

When Germany founded its colony in South West Africa, there were there certain clans of haif-breed Hottentots, with some European blood, who

were Christians who had received some education and were in a semicivilized state. In 1892, Hendrik Withboi (1830-1905), one of the principal Hottentot chiefs, wrote the following appeal for help to the “British Magistrate” at Walvis Bay: The German personally punishes our people at Windhoek and has already beaten people to death for debt. . . . It is not just and worthy to beat people to death for that. . . He flogs people in a scandalous and cruel manner. We [seem] stupid and unintelligent, for he regards us thus, have never yet punished a human being in such a cruel and improper way. He stretches persons on their backs and flogs them on the stomach and between the legs be they male or female. So your Honour can imagine that no one can survive such a punishment. Let all the great men of England know of it, so that they say consider this position of the Germans and if possible call these people back because they 38. [Lemkin’s footnote] Op. cit., page 70.

The Germans in Africa

205

are not following the Agreements and Resolutions on the strength of which you let them enter the land.*°

Hendrik did not yield to German force and starvation until September 1894. A letter written by Governor Leutwein on February 29th, 1904, describes the destruction of one of the Hottentot clans: The rising of Khauas Hottentots in 1896 ended by bringing the whole tribe to Windhoek, the two leaders were shot by court-martial and the whole tribe was practically annihilated and deprived of 12,000 head of cattle. A few of the tribe who fled in time are still alive. The tribe, as such, has disappeared.”

In October 1904 the Hottentots, under Hendrik Witbooi, then an old man, joined the Herero rebellion and suffered with them their defeat. nine

thousand of a tribe of twenty thousand Hottentots survived for a life of virtual slavery. Dr. Karl Peters [1856-1918]

Dr. Karl Peters, an explorer, geographer, and advocate of German colonial expansion, went to Zanzibar in 1884 and negotiated treaties with natives by which he gained concessions to a territory of sixty thousand square miles, particularly rich in coal. It has often been asserted that the chiefs had no knowledge of the document they signed. The following treaty reveals that the chiefs received nothing in return for their loss of freedom: Mangungo, Sultan of Msovero in Usagara, and Dr. Karl Peters, Sultan Mangungo simultaneously for all his people, and Dr. Peters for all his present and future associates, hereby conclude a Treaty of eternal friendship. Mangungo offers all his territory with all its civil and public appurtenances to Dr. Karl Peters of the Society for German Colonisation (subsequently the German East African Company), for the exclusive and universal utilization of German colonization. Dr. Karl Peters, in the name of the Society for German Colonization, declares his willingness to take over the territory of the Sultan Mangungo with all rights for German colonization, subject to any existing suzerainty rights (Oberhoheitsrechte) of Mwenyi Sagana. 39. [Lemkin’s footnote] [George L. Steer, 1909-1944] Judgment on German Africa [1939], page 59. 40. [Lemkin’s footnote] Elf Jahre Gouverneur in Sudewestafrika, page 270.

206

Chapter One

In pursance therefore, Sultan Mangungo hereby cedes all the territory of Msoveri, belonging to him by inheritance or otherwise, for all time, to Dr. Karl Peters, making over to him at the same time all rights. Dr. Karl Peters, in the name of the Society for German Colonization, undertakes to give special attention to Msoveri when colonizing Usagara. This treaty has been communicated to the Sultan Mangungo by the Interpreter Ramazan in a clear manner, and has been signed by both sides with the observation of the formalities valid in Usagara, the Sultan on direct in-

quiry having declared that he was not in any way dependent upon the Sultan of Zanzibar, and that he did not even know of the existence of the latter.

(signed) Dr. Karl Peters Signature of Mangungo*!

One of the treaties which Peters signed was with the Galla Sultan Hugo in which the Sultan placed himself, with all his territory, under the protection of Dr. Peters. The treaty ended: “Dr. Karl Peters is to be the supreme lord in the country of the Gallas, to command the armed forces, and to judge the people. This is done for the blessing and welfare of the Gallia land.” After consulting this treaty, Peters exercised his authority by shooting the chief of the Gallas at Bokore when “he felt the proud intoxication of the victor” by destroying the stations of the British company and burning their official papers and shooting down all who opposed his proceedings.” In February, 1885, Peters made over his concessions to the German East Africa Company when he had returned to Berlin. Emperor William II (1859-1941) extended his “protection” over the territories seized by Peters. As a reward for his exploring activities, Peters was placed in charge of the Kilimanjaro District, over which he had the powers of life

and death, and where he practiced the most extreme cruelty, committing horrible atrocities, and leaving death and destruction wherever he turned. The natives of East Africa called Peters “the man with the bloodstained hand.”** The Danish explorer [Erik] Scavenius (1877-1962) wrote the following account of his expedition up the River Tana: 41. [Lemkin’s footnote} The Rape of Africa, page 135. 42. [Lemkin’s footnote] The Germans and Africa, page 228. 43. [Lemkin’s footnote] The Prussian Lash in Africa, page 79; Statement by Scavenius in Poli-

tiken, March 1896.

The Germans in Africa

207

A few years before Dr. Peters had made practically the same journey; natives were terrified at my white face, for the last white man they had seen was Dr. Peters, who had committed all these atrocities.

... On every side | came

upon traces of war. In the neighborhood of Obangi I found eleven villages that had been destroyed by fire, and everywhere skeletons of men, women, and children, those of women and children being especially numerous. It was almost impossible for me to secure the necessary rice for my people. As soon as we approached, the whole populace fled panic-stricken. The English Commissioner in Lamu, Mr. McClellan, remarked to myself and others, if we

had only caught Peters then we should have hanged him on the nearest tree.“

In an open letter to Peters, Herr Eltz [?] says: “Before God and man, you are responsible for the devastation of fertile countrysides, responsible for the deaths of my comrades von Bulow [?] and Wolfram [?], of our brave soldiers, and hundreds of Wadschaggas.’”*° Peters had a harem of native women, whom he termed his “princesses.” These women were brutally whipped day after day “so that the blood flowed copiously and the captives were finally unable to scream.” The girl Jagodja was flogged until her back resembled “chopped meat.” Mahbruk, one of the servants, was suspected by Peters of intimacy with Jagodja and also of stealing some cigarettes. Mabruk was tried in a mock court and was hanged at Kilima Njaro in October 1891. Jagodja fled for protection to the village of her Chief but was caught and taken back in chains; she again escaped and when she was caught this time she was hanged. The Government was finally forced by political agitation to take action, but this was not until six years after these particular crimes were committed. Peters was dismissed from the service, not because of the crimes but

because he had given false reports of his actions to his superiors. Peters was supported by powerful officials and appealed, and this time Peters was condemned on all charges. After a certain interval, Peters’ friends petitioned the Emperor and Peters was rehabilitated, having his title of Imperial Commissary restored to him. Bebel took up the case in the Reichstag on March 17, 1906, and an election was fought upon it, Peters being supported by the whole power of organized officialdom. In April 1914 Karl Peters was awarded a pension 44, [Lemkin’s footnote] Copenhagen, Politiken, March 1896. 45. [Lemkin’s footnote] Vossische Zeitung, October 19, 1892.

208

Chapter One

for his great service in East Africa, and a statue was afterward erected in his honor at Dar es-Salaam.

The Case of G. H. Schmidt

This case was revealed at the German Reichstag on December 3rd, 1906,

by Deputy Réren. A district director in Togoland, Dr. G. H. Schmidt began his career by calling the native girls at Atakpame to dance for him at his station on pain of a twenty-marks fine levied on their mothers if they did not appear. The Catholic missionaries intervened, stating that no girl who wished to become a Christian could go to Herr Schmidt’s party, whereupon Schmidt issued instructions that no complaints were to be made at the mission. Schmidt thereupon seized a native girl of fourteen years named Adjaro, and refused to return her to her parents, abusing and flogging her severely. It was known that Schmidt kept a harem of young native girls, some under the age of puberty. Adjaro’s parents went to the mission for help, and the missionaries laid the matter before the District Judge, Lieutenant Preyl. Schmidt organized a night expedition led by another District Judge named Rothberg, a socalled Prosecutor named Lang, and a party of about twenty native soldiers, and attacked the mission, seized the private papers and imprisoned the missionaries for twenty-one days. All witnesses were intimidated. Kersting, a friend of Schmidt’s, having one chief shot with a revolver and his head cut off. The case was tried before Kersting and it was a foregone conclusion that he should be aquitted. Deputy Ro6ren stated at the Reichstag: “There was some doubt of Schmidt’s sanity, for he seems to have proclaimed another of his concubines queen of the district, and to have given her power to collect black girls as well as judicial rights and the right to collect taxes.” Schmidt was defended by the Colonial Department, and on December 3, 1916, Judge Réren was rebuked by the secretary of state for his campaign against colonial officials.

The Case of Herr Kleist

Kleist, deputy-governor of Cameroon, caused a native rising in Cameroon in 1893 by flogging twenty wives of native soldiers. The men were drawn

The Germans in Africa

209

up on parade to witness the flogging, and “each of the women received ten strokes with a whip made of hippopotamus hide, and Herr Kleist stood

by and looked on.” Kisist was charged with cruelty and improper conduct accompanied by acts of violence toward other women held by him as hostages. The Disciplinary Court held, on October 16, 1894, that he had not exceeded his rights. At a second trial on April 7, 1895, he was dismissed from the Service be-

cause his conduct had “injured the prestige of the German Empire.” Lieutenant Schennemann

[and Others]

The Station Director at Yaunde, Cameroon, had a black wife and sus-

pected her of betraying him with certain natives. He ordered his native sergeant to castrate three blacks whom he suspected. The sergeant went to the wrong village, but fearing he would be flogged if he made no attempt to carry out orders, he grabbed the first three natives whom he met, threw them to the ground, and mutilated them according to Schennemann’s order, then leaving them to their fate.” Three Deputies disclosed the case of Captain Kannenberg in the Reichstag on March

12 and 13, 1906. Bebel, Erzberger, and Ledebour stated

that Kannenberg was disturbed by the crying of a child one night in 1898 when he was stationed at Kongwa in German East Africa. He grabbed his gun and thrust it through the grass wall of a hut where a woman lay with her crying baby, and shot the woman in the back. He then fired several times more. An enquiry was instituted but no proceedings followed. Deputy Ablass stated on December 15, 1905, that it was commonly reported that Captain Theirry “had simply shot down the natives like game, and that he was notorious in the whole of the Protectorate for his cruelty.” He was finally charged with shooting down the father of a pupil of the Catholic Mission at Lome, who, in terror, had fled up a tree, on November

22, 1904, but the Colonial Department took no action. Waldemar Horn (1864-19107), the Governor of Togoland, after years of mistreating the natives in his province, was finally tried before the Disciplinary Court on May 6, 1907, on the main charge of causing the death of a native in 1902. According to the evidence, this native had been 46. [Lemkin’s footnote] “Treatment of Natives,” page 34—Statement of an eyewitness writing in the Berliner Tageblatt. 47. {Lemkin’s footnote] Bebel, Reichstag, December 1, 1906.

210

Chapter One

sentenced to five years in chains and two floggings of twenty-five lashes each for petty theft. By Horn’s order, after the first flogging, he was bound to a post fully exposed to the heat of the sun. From time to time the native was untied in the hopes that he would lead his jailors to the stolen money, [and] then retied to his post for twenty-four hours more without food or water. The next morning the native died. The High Court of Togoland had sentenced Horn in 1905 to a ninehundred-marks fine or three months imprisonment. The Disciplinary Court dismissed him from the Service.

Brutalities in South West Africa

In newly colonized countries where the settlers have to depend on their own strength to enforce law and order, often measures are resorted to which seem excessive to the outside world. In the case of the German colonies

in Africa,

however,

there are no extenuating

circumstances

which could justify the atrocious brutality practiced by the farmers and police upon the natives who were at their mercy. The following cases occurred in 1915-1916 and were dealt with by the British administration: A farmer named Holtz murdered a native who had deserted from his service by striking him on his head with a heavy knife and then shooting him in the back and the stomach. Antonius Stecki had a young native shepherd who lost two calves. Stecki locked him in a room and tied reins round his neck and hands, the

latter being secured by placing behind his knees a stick to which the rein was attached. Next day he took the boy out and tied him to his horse with the rein round his neck. He was beaten with a stick and Stecki then threw the rein over the branch of a tree, hoisted the boy up until his toes just touched the ground, and kept him in this position, repeating the torture three or four times during his journey. A police officer, Frank Juzek, killed a native at Okhambahe. The boy, who was in custody for theft, had got away, and was recaptured and tied up, and then beaten and knocked about. Next day the boy, whose feet were in leg-irons, was unable to move. He was knocked and stamped on and the next day he died. Two farmers, Nauhas and Jakubowski, caught a bushman, put a chain around his neck, tied him to a cartwheel, and ordered a native to flog him

The Germans in Africa

211

with a twisted rein for nearly an hour. Then Jakubowski continued the threshing and left the man tied to the cartwheel overnight. In the morning the bushman was dead.*8 A farmer, Walter Bohmer, shot at several natives who had run away from his farm, and killed two. He had already been condemned by a Protectorate Court in 1912 for beating to death a native in his employ who was weak and consumptive and unable to work hard. These cases are indicative of the treatment afforded the natives by the Germans throughout the years of their colonization.

The Duala Massacres

A Blue book published by the British Government in 1916 (Cd 8306) was compiled on the order of Major-General C. M. Dobell (1869-1954), Commander of the British Forces. The Blue book contains a report by Major-General Dobell and various other reports of French and English officers, and as corroborative evidence, reproduces photographs at the end of the book. When the First World War broke out, the German feared a native uprising and took prompt measures to prevent one. Rudolph Bell (1873/1878— 1914), the paramount Chief of the Dualas, who had been educated in Ger-

many, was hanged, and several other Chiefs were summarily executed. According to Mr. Bonar Law (1858-1923), “a large number of Dualas

were put to death for no other reason that can be discovered than the usual

frightfulness.”” The lands of the Dualas had been expropriated by the Germans contrary to treaty (see section on “Abasement of Chiefs”), and although they undoubtedly resented the treatment they had received, they were a harm-

less tribe of semicivilized natives and were without arms. They, however, were suspected by the Germans of sympathizing with the British, and at the outbreak of the war it was decided that the entire tribe be destroyed, as is evidenced by the following order: Kake, October 7th, 1914, 11.6 a.m.

Several cases of Dualas attacking my soldiers and who openly help the English in taking over from them their safety and outpost services, show 48. [Lemkin’s footnote] “Treatment of Natives,” pages 42-43. 49. [Lemkin’s footnote] The Prussian Lash in Africa, page 70.

212

Chapter One

them the roads, and communicate with each other by call, horn, and flag signals—enforce on me the safety of my movements, i.e., to treat the Duala natives and their intertrading compatriots on the Mungo, Abo, and Diombe rivers as combatants in the war, and, in special cases, to treat them as rebels

and traitors. |have ordered the destruction of all Duala villages. All Dualas met on the roads carrying weapons (machetes, bows and arrows, spears, and also rifles) are to be shot. Prisoners will only be made when they are caught red-handed and can be legally tried and condemned to death. All Dualas still in the employment of the Government in the northern railway part of the Duala district will be arrested and sent under charge to Dschang. Bare district is going to do the same. Von Engelbrechten

The following cases were reported by Mr. K. V. Elphinstone, M.A., chief political officer with the British forces: April 20, 1916 Nogodi Bobe of Koto (Nduru) affirmed: Some months ago nine black German soldiers came into our village during the morning. They said they were looking for Dualas; we said there were no Dualas there. They caught hens and sheep. They looted our boxes as well. They then said we must carry these loads for them. We were roped together. My father and my young brother were given loads as well as myself. When we had gone some way, my father said that his load was too heavy. The soldiers would not let him change his load; after a bit the soldier who was looking after him put his bayonet into him three times. He died at once. Before leaving our village, for some reason | do not know, a soldier picked up my small brother by the feet and dashed his head into the ground; he did this twice and then kicked the body. The boy was only four or five years old and he died at once. We were not allowed to bury him.%° Duala, September 28, 1915

Mam Bitok of Bewang, Jabassi, affirmed: When the Germans were driven out of Jabassi, they came and stopped in my village. There were four Europeans and many soldiers. One night they tied up twenty of us. They took us the next day to Ntongla, who lives a little distance away. We were tied up in a house. The soldiers said they would kill us because we did not give them food. I do not know if the Europeans knew about this. We were taken out in turns and put to cut down an orange tree. As each pair cut the tree, they 50. [Lemkin’s footnote] The Prussian Lash in Africa, page 116.

The Germans in Africa

ils

were shot by the soldiers. | was kept to the last with Mbum Teke. I came out of the house and saw the dead bodies; there must have been eighteen of them lying there. We were told to pick some oranges. We went to the tree; we were shot at. When | dropped, | was hit in the left thigh, but ran away. I was the only one who escaped. I hear that altogether thirty-nine men have been killed out of our village; but this was all I saw.

The Blue book relates that old men, old women, and young girls were stabbed, shot, and mutilated. Other natives were flogged with elephant hide whips and chopped with machetes.°!

Atrocities against the Natives during War The following documents were given by British inhabitants of East Africa who were imprisoned by the Germans, and they were collected and printed in a white paper by the British Government (CD 8689, 1917). The following report was made by the Rev. E. F. Spanton: Many of the German askaris [Arabic, soldiers], and practically all porters, required for transport, were recruited by the following simple process. Parties of soldiers were sent out into the villages (they were generally timed to arrive at night, when the people of the village were likely to be caught in bed) to seize all the young men. They fastened them together somewhat in the fashion of the Arab slave raiders of older days, and drove them to the nearest fort. They were confined in the Port, or more frequently in a camp, and were told that any attempt to escape would be punished with death. The porters engaged in transport work were consistently treated with the greatest brutality. When a man fell exhausted under the weight of his load, he was flogged until he staggered to his feet and stumbled on again. Those who were too weak to do this were shot as they lay. For example, one of the German officers, with the column retreating from the Ruanda [Rwanda] country before the advancing Belgians, wrote in a private letter: “Our road is paved with the corpses of the natives we have been obliged to kill.”

Mr. James Scott Brown gave the following descriptions: The prisoners had ample opportunity of witnessing the very harsh treatment meted out to the natives by the Germans. For the slightest breach of 51. [Lemkin’s footnote] The Prussian Lash in Africa, page 73.

214

Chapter One

discipline the native askaris were given twenty-five lashes with the kiboko, a thick long whip, usually made from hippopotamus hide. The German native servants not unusually received two punishments of twenty-five leashes each within fourteen days. The boys were laid out in the central yard of the prison camp, each limb being held down by an askari, a fifth holding down the head, while a sergeant applied the lashes with full force. Blood was invariably drawn by the severity of the punishment, and in the case of the askaris, pack drill of four or five hours, with haversacks sandloaded, followed. These scenes occurred daily in camps and were an extremely revolting

sight to the prisoners.

Godfrey Herbert Pattison, manager of the Maraugu Coffee Estates, testified: At New Moshi we, Smith, who was on plantation; Gower, a storekeeper

on the plantation; and my wife saw four chains, of about twelve prisoners each, of German natives, carrying bundles of corrugated iron, four men to a bundle. I think a bundle weighs about 3 2 cwt. They were being made to run, and lashed by askaris with and kibokos and rungas. They were without clothes?.."On the safari to Kondoa, near Arusha, the porters were constantly beaten by the askari with his rifle, taking the flesh off the shin—apparently for no reason. The corporal of the native guard amused himself by walking up and down the line of porters, beating them. The European guard was appealed to by the porter whose leg had been hurt, and was to go on and not give trouble. .. . At Kondoa Irangi, on two occasions at least, I saw natives (Irangi) flogged to extract confessions. No, | was an old man, who was flogged in front of the secretary, Herr Jopp—Jopp stood near, when the man said something the flogging was stopped. Every three or four lashes (koboko), the askari said in Swahili: “Will you confess now?” . . About November, 1914, eighty-four natives of the Universities Mission were brought in chains from Hardeni. They stated that had no water for two days. They were brought in collapsed, and two collapsed when the chains were removed. Some of these natives were flogged daily. In about three months there were fourteen deaths among them. I attribute some of these deaths to the fact that natives who reported sick were flogged for so reporting, with the consequence that they were afraid to report sick again. Native women were mixed with men in chain gangs, some of them carrying babies. This was done with the idea of degrading them. Some had half their

The Germans in Africa

heads shaved. The Bezirksamtmann,

215

Herr Grass, told me he had had this

done as a deterrent. Personal boys of Germans at the front were flogged and imprisoned for refusing to follow their masters into the firing line. In one case a boy got fifty lashes at the front, and further forty, and four months imprisonment on reaching Kondoa Irangi. German native prisoners were charged 3 rupees a month for their keep in jail, and on release were given tasks if they could not pay this sum. In the case of long-term prisoners the result was that they became very emaciated while working off this charge. The tasks were valued at 3 rupees per month, and the natives themselves said they got no food. They slept in the prison while doing these tasks. The askari recruits were, as a majority, forced to serve. The discipline was such that sometimes a quarter of the men would be flogged for mistakes or slackness in their drill on the Boma Square.”

Reactions

The recruiting of forced labor was strongly protected by the merchants of Duala: Against such official recruiting we merchants must protect with all energy. . . . It is simply intolerable that the Government should tear the men from their families, and also, as is clearly proved, arbitrarily take the men recruited against their will to these prescribed plantations. . .. No German Government must be responsible for forcing people against their will to work on plantations, especially on plantations which have a bad name, where the people know that every third, fourth, or fifth man dies. It is simply iniquitous to tear people who have their own property and who are busy as farmers, from their work or to take married men against their will from their families. That, in plain German, is simply slavery for a time, instead of, as formerly, for life.”

The Cameroon Chamber of Commerce, despite strong pressure brought to bear on its members, sent the following remonstrance to the Governor of Cameroon: We do not think that the Government is fully cognizant of the effect which the - continuous enlistment of labour and the unrest among the natives has had in this district. Not only the mercantile community, but all the missions, which 52. [Lemkin’s footnote] The Prussian Lash in Africa, pages 125-135. 53. [Lemkin’s footnote] “Treatment of Natives,” page 25.

216

Chapter One

have complained of this to the local Bezirksamt [German, District Office]. ... The bush people are absolutely afraid of coming to Edea, and in various districts the chiefs have declared that they prefer to let the kernels spoil in their houses rather than send them to Edea, as in the latter case they are

apprehensive that the people, together with their kernels, may be seized.”

Speeches were made in the Reichstag and protest voiced against conditions in the colonies: Deputy Erzberger, the leader of the Centre Party, stated: “I was quoted just now, without being named, as declaring that if the Secretary of State did not succeed in removing these abuses in our colonial policy as quickly as possible I could no longer bear the responsibility of allowing Imperial money to be voted for colonial policy. I hold to that decision most emphatically, and I am ready to take all the consequences arising from it.” R6ren made a similar statement regarding the atrocities in Togoland: “With this system the colonies cannot develop healthily, and therefore one must have scruples about giving them another he/ler for the development of the colonies, which seems entirely precluded under these conditions.”*° Deputy [Wilhelm] Dittman (1874-1954), a Social Democrat, also made a damning indictment of the system of forced labor: The effect on the natives of the exploiting reign of capitalism is simply awful. What has become known in the last few weeks puts a definite end to the naive representation that since the Dernburg era®’ a good time had dawned for the natives through the reforms introduced; it shows, on the contrary,

gentlemen, that an awful decimation of the native population runs parallel with the coming to the fore of the so-called capitalistic “Kultur.” ... We Social Democrats have always pointed to this fact, and drawn from it the most telling arguments against the capitalist’s colonial policy. This year we live to find a simply overwhelming wealth of proof as to the correctness of our assertions, brought from the middle-class side. .. . The natives are dragged by treachery and force from their home districts to places where they die in masses. That concerns Cameroon and East Africa particularly. Ostensibly there is no forced labor there, as the Secretary of State, Dr. [Wilhelm] Solf (1862-1936),

assures us in Committee.

In fact, however, the system of

work-tickets introduced by the Government in East Africa really means a 54. [Lemkin’s footnote] Protest dated March 18, 1913. “Treatment of Natives,” page 25. 55. [Lemkin’s footnote] Reichstag, March 7, 1914. 56. [Lemkin’s footnote] Reichstag, December 3, 1906. 57. Reference is to Bernhard Dernburg.

The Germans in Africa

27

brutal compulsion to forced work on the plantations, for every black man must prove by his card that he has worked at least twenty days each month for white men. If he cannot he is dragged to the district police station, and there officially flogged with the sjambok, according to the new order regarding work; this is done even without any request from the employer. Gentlemen, surely, there we have without doubt the most brutal compulsion

to plantation work it is possible to conceive.™

The depopulation in German Africa was a matter of great distress to right-thinking people both in Africa and in Germany. Deputy Wells [7] quoted from a letter from the Bishop of Cameroon saying: “Cameroon was suffering from depopulation in a truly terrible degree; the land had only miserable remains of population where twenty years ago there were flourishing villages.”°? In an address to the South Cameroon Chamber of Commerce in 1913,

Dr. Solf remarked: It is a sad state of things to see how the villages are bereft of men, and how women and children carry heavy burdens; how the whole life of the people appears on the roads. What | saw on the high roads at Jaunde and Ebolowa has grieved me most deeply. Family life is being destroyed; parents, husbands, and wives and children are being separated. No more children are born, as the women are separated from their husbands for the greater part of the year. These are wrong conditions and difficulties which must cease.

Socialist Democrat deputy Dittmann exclaimed in the Reichstag on March 7, 1914: “The comparatively tiny stratum of white people in our colonies sits like a vampire on its neck, and sucks the blood out of its

veins and the marrow from its bones.” Dr. Frank Weston (1871-1924), the [Anglican] Bishop of Zanzibar who lived in East Africa for twenty years, ten of which he spent as Bishop of a considerable portion of German East Africa, wrote an open letter to General [Jan Christiaan] Smuts (1870-1950) in which he said that the

German ruled entirely by fear. ‘Their failure is due to their inbred cruelty, which they encourage their A fri-can underlings to copy. .. . Flogging is the Germans’ pleasure. Twenty-five 58. [Lemkin’s own footnote:] Reichstag, March 7, 1914. 59. [Lemkin’s footnote] Reichstag, May 12, 1914. 60. [Lemkin’s footnote] Koloniale Rundshau (1913), page 740.

218

Chapter One

lashes are given as commonly as in London, on a big day, the police cry, ‘Move on.’ ... The German method of governing Africans is cruelly inhuman and destructive of the native’s self-respect. It is extremely designed to make him, and keep him, the obedient slave of a European power, forever and a day. The fear of the Germans is so deeply rooted in the natives that the power of initiative remains only with those who, sharing in the administration of the country, act for their own profit. As slavery the system is splendid. Otherwise it is sheer cruelty, and all the Africans I know of whatever tribe or religion, have for years past been longing for the Germans to go from their land.*

The mutilations practiced by the native soldiers in their forages against the natives were sanctioned by the German officials, and in fact the soldiers were ordered to bring back the ears of dead natives as proof of the number of the enemy they had killed. When it was found that the ears of women were cut off to increase their trophies, the German commander Dominik ordered that heads be brought instead, but this proving a great trouble, the soldiers brought the genitals instead. The British Government complained to the German Ambassador in London in August, 1902, and the Imperial Chancellor was shamed into writing to the Governor of the Cameroons as follows: Sir: I send you enclosed a copy of the report of the Imperial German Embassy in London, dated August 10th, 1902, together with the enclosure, requesting you to admonish and order Senior Lieutenant Dominik at once to abstain in all instances from illegal acts and cruelties towards the natives and during any necessary punitive expeditions to abstain from all habits incompatible with the civilized state, such as the mutilation of corpses.

The actions of Karl Peters (1856-1918) were strongly criticized in the Reichstag on several occasions and the Vossische Zeitung published the following: Herr Peters is one of those latter-day “superior beings” who shrug their shoulders at the traditional conceptions of ordinary morality and imagine that they may be a law to themselves. Filled with consuming ambition, 61. [Lemkin’s footnote] Black Slaves of Prussia, published by the Universities Mission to Central Africa, 9 Dartmouth Street, Westminster, S.W.1.

62. [Lemkin’s footnote] The Prussian Lash in Africa, pages 100-101.

The Germans in Africa

219

unscrupulous in their choice of means, these gentlemen thought that it was their business on the Dark Continent not so much to disseminate Christianity and civilization as to taste life to its dregs. Champagne for themselves, the whip of rhinoceros hide for the blacks, were the principles of the colonial policy of these conquerors of the world.”

Psychological Reactions The result of the German rule in Africa left the natives completely cowed and those who did not rebel or escape to British territory became hopeless and apathetic. According to Dr. Weston, the Bishop of Zanzibar: “The German method of governing Africans is cruelly inhuman and destructive of the native’s self-respect. It is exactly designed to make him, and keep him, the obedient slave of a European power, forever and a day. The fear of the Germans is so deeply rooted in the natives that the power of initiative remains only with those who, sharing in the administration of the country, act for their own profit. As slavery the system is splendid. Otherwise it is sheer cruelty, and all the Africans I know, of whatever tribe or religion,

have for years been longing for the Germans to go from their land.” In some tribes, the mistreatment by the Germans fostered a fanaticism which was both religious and nationalistic. This was encouraged by the American missionaries of the Ethiopian Church who expounded the doctrine of South Africa for Blacks. In 1904 a prophet of this church visited Hendrik Witbooi (1830-1905) in Damaraland, one of the principal chiefs of the Hottentots, who regarded himself as predestined to lead a great movement of liberation. He believed that God Himself had placed the weapons in his hands, and wrote to [Theodor] Leutwein (1849-1921), the governor: “The accounts which I must render to God the Father, who is in heaven, are very great. God has heard our tears and supplications and sighs and has delivered us. I await and I implore until he shall dry our tears and deliver us. God has, from Heaven above, broken our treaty.”

Who Is Guilty? The Germans introduced the Prussian military system into their rule of the African colonies, a system of cruelty and oppression, and the results 63. [Lemkin’s footnote] The Germans and Africa, footnote, page 229.

220

Chapter One

for the natives were suffering and death. Prussian militarism was founded on the principles of terror and power. The natives were denied all rights and were compelled to perform forced labor for officials and colonists so that they lived in a state of enslavement, overworked and undernourished

and subjected to degradation and cruelty. The laborers were hunted down like beasts and taken in chains from their villages and forests to work on the plantations and roads, and were unmercifully flogged with rhinoceros whips if they made any attempt to escape. The African natives have always been divided into two categories: the peaceable and the warlike, and the Germans turned this situation to their own advantage. The warrior tribes were turned into tools of the German army and were thoroughly trained, ferociously disciplined, and given practically unlimited power over all other natives. The word of a German native soldier was always believed rather than that of a subject native, and thus the native soldiers were free to tyrannize over their fellows, giving free rein to their savage lust for murder and rapine, and the subject natives had no redress anywhere. According to Dr. Weston, the bishop of Zanzibar, the Germans ruled entirely by fear. “Their failure,” he says, “is due to their inbred cruelty, which they encourage their African underlings to copy.” The Germans did not colonize Africa with the intention of ruling the country justly, living in peace with the true owners of the land, and developing its resources for the mutal advantage of both races. Their idea was to settle some of the surplus German population in Africa and to turn it into a German white empire. [Otto von] Bismarck (1815-1898) said, “A German who can put off his Fatherland like an old coat is no longer a German for me,” and it was undoubtedly this idea which encouraged the policy of deliberate extermination. This extermination was carried out so thoroughly in South-West Africa that a whole nation was destroyed, and the planters were thereafter obliged to import native labor from the Cape of Good Hope.” General [Eduard] von Liebert (1850-1934) expressed the German viewpoint when he said that “it was impossible in Africa to get on without cruelty.”°

64. Handwritten note in margin vis-a-vis this paragraph: “Good.” 65. [Lemkin’s footnote] von Liebert, at one time Governor of German East Africa, made this statement in the course of his evidence in defense of Karl Peters.

The Germans in Africa

221

Many of the officials sent out to Africa were men with poor reputations at home but high connections, who were dumped into the colonies to get rid of them, and yet these men were given practically unlimited opportunities to indulge their sadistic tendencies and lust.® Cruelty and exploitation were unchecked for twenty years and more in the German colonies, with the result that native labor decreased and

Germany obtained the results she should have expected, in the loss of labor which meant loss of wealth also. In Togoland the native population, which was two and a half million in 1894, was only a little over a million in 1911,°’ and as Herr Dernburg admitted in 1908, in South-West Africa,

seventy-five thousand people perished in the Rebellion in 1903.

[LEMKIN’S] BIBLIOGRAPHY {Editor’s Note: In the order in the manuscript. ] The Prussian Lash in Africa, “Africanus,” London, 1918.

The Rape of Africa, Lamar Middleton, New York 1936. l’Expansion Allemande hors d'Europe, E. Tonnelat, Paris, 1908.

The Germans in Africa, Evans Lewin, Oxford Pamphlet, 1914. Treatment of Natives in the German Colonies, Br. Gov., 1920.

The Germans and Africa, Evans Lewin, 1939. Judgment on German Africa, G. L. Steer, London, 1939. A Doctor’s Diary in Damaraland, H. F. P. Walker, London, 1917.

South-West Africa, Albert F. Calvert, London, 1916.

Civilization by War, R. R. Fox Bourne, Aborigines Protection Society, 1905. Is the South-West African Herero Committing Race Suicide? W. P. Steenkamp, Cape Town, 1944. Peter Moor’s Fahrt nach Sudwest Afrika, Gustav Prenssen, Berlin, 1906.

Cape Argus, September 25 and 28, 1905. Deutsche Kolonialwritschaft, P. Rohrbach, Berlin, 1907.

EIf Yajre Gouveneur in Deutsch Sudwestafrika, T. G. von Leutwein, Berlin, 1910. Deutsche Sudwestafrikanische Zeitung. Die deutschen Kolonien, Prof. K. Dove, Vol. IV, Sudwestafrika,

Leipzig, 1913. Die Herero, |. Irle, Gutersloh, 1906.

66. Hand-written note in margin vis-a-vis this paragraph also: “Good.” 67. Deutscher Kolonialatlas, 1914.

Berlin and

222

Chapter One

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Africanus. The Prussian Lash in Africa: The Story of German Rule in Africa. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2010. Reprint. Bridgman, Jon M. The Revolt of the Hereros. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.

lliffe, John. A Modern History of Tanganyika. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

lliffe, John. Tanganyika under German Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Lowry, John S. (2006). “African Resistance and Center Party Recalcitrance in the Reichstag Colonial Debates of 1905/1906.” Central European History,

39(2): 244-269. Noyes, John. Colonial Space. London: Routledge, 1991. Oluysoga, David, and Erichsen, Caspar W. The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s Forgotten Genocide and the Colonial Roots of Nazism. London: Faber and Faber, 2010.

Pakenham, Thomas. The Scramble for Africa: White Man’s Conquest of the Dark Continent from 1876-1912. New York: Avon Books, 1992.

Peters, Carl. The Eldorado of the Ancients. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2009. Reprint. Sarkin, Jeremy. Colonial Genocide and Reparations Claims in the 21st Century: The Socio-Legal Context of Claims under International Law by the Herero against Germany for Genocide in Namibia, 1904-1908. Westport: Praeger, 2008. Sarkin, Jeremy. Germany’s Genocide of the Herero: Kaiser Wilhelm II, His General, His Settlers, His Soldiers. Oxford: James Currey, 2011. Simon, Jean Marie. Bishop for the Hottentots: African Memories, 1882-1909. Allen: Benziger Brothers, 1959. Steinmetz, George. The Devil’s Handwriting: Precoloniality and the German Colonial State in Qingdao, Samoa, and Southwest Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Timm, Uwe. Morenga. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation,

2005. Translated by Breon Mitchell. (Novel) Vandervort, Bruce. Wars of Imperial Conquest in Africa, ton: Indiana University Press, 1998.

1830-1914. Blooming-

Chapter Two

Assyrians in Iraq ... Christians

CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO MACEDONIAN PROBLEM (FROM ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 1911) 330 AD [CE] End of fourth century Third to seventh centuries Eighth to ninth centuries 804 893-927 1014 1185

1204

1222

1230 1234

Byzantium became capital of Roman Empire Goths and Avars devastation Slavonic immigrations Slavs conquered by Bulgarians Byzantines, who had stayed in southern part, conquered by Saracens Reign of Simeon, Bulgar Tsar (864/865— 927) Greek domination Southern Macedonia raided by Normans under William [II] of Sicily (1155-1189) Franks took Constantinople in 4th Crusade (1202-1204) Latin Empire of Romania Feudal Kingdom of Thessalonica bestowed on Boniface’ Above kingdom overthrown by Theodore of Epirus (d. 1253) Theodore defeated by Bulgarians Empire of Nicaea

1. In all likelihood a reference to Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303).

223

224

1257

1330 1331-1355

1389 1428

Chapter Two

Extinction of famous Asen (Bulgar) Dynasty (1187-1280) Period of decadence Servians [Serbians| overthrew Bulgars Durhan Tsar Anarchy—Macedonia and Thrace devastated by Turkish raids Servian forces routed by Sultan Murad I (1362-1389) Salonica taken by Murad II (1404-1451). Inhabitants massacred.

1451-1481 1452

Fifteenth and sixteenth centuries c. 1817

1827

System of feudal tenure Mohammed II (1429-1481) Constantinople taken from Christian Emperor by Turks Christians assumed subjugated position (“cattle”) under Turk feudal lords (this became much worse in 17th and 18th Cents.) Albanian incursions Serbs and Greeks began struggle for independence ({Arnold J.] Toynbee [1889-— 1975], The Murderous Tyranny of the Turks, page 13.) England, France, and Russia help Greece gain her independence

Hakkiyari Assyrians moved into Iraq when the settlement of Iraq-Turkish boundaries cut them off from their homeland in Turkey, and joined a smaller band of Assyrians in Barwar-i-Bala. As victims of one of the losers in World War I the Assyrians felt entitled to exceptional restitution, whereas they were still in permanent exile from their homes in an uncon-

genial climate on the Mesopotamian plains. They had no gratitude to the Iraqis, whose uninvited guests they were. Many served under the colors of the Mandatory Power (Assyrian Levies in British Army) where serving as comrades in arms with their European coreligionists, their conditions were in extreme contrast to those of their families living as destitute refu-

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

225

gees among an alien Muslim majority; and “this unresolved contradiction was no doubt one ofthe causes ofthe violent collisions between Assyrian troops and Muslim civilians which occurred in Mosul in 1923 and Kirkuk in 1924,” The Assyrians were tactless with the Iraqis, addressing their complaints over the heads of local officials, direct to the British High Commissioner, so that the Iraqis became increasingly unsympathetic toward the Assyrians. But on March 8, 1927, at the instigation of the British High Commissioner, the Iraqi Council for Ministers passed a resolution exempting the Assyrians from taxes if they would “develop and till the land, and comply with the advice and orders of the Government according to law.”? But the Assyrians were demoralized and supine [handwritten insert illegible] and had been led by the British to expect more assistance (although by the end of 1929 all but 350 families had gotten homes). The Baghdadi Arabs purposely set the Kurds against the Assyrians to divide their two more formidable non-Arab minorities. By 1931 [the] Iraqi Government had withdrawn [the] tax exemption to the Assyrians. In October 1931, Mar Shimun, Assyrian chief, summoned a conference

of Assyrian notables at Mosul, where they drafted two petitions to the League of Nations, dated October 20 and 23, stating it would be impossible for them to go on living in Iraq after the termination of the Mandate (1920-1932), requesting transfer to a territory under a Western power. These petitions were not brought before the Permanent Mandate Commission until November 1932 and after waiting six months for a reply, “the

Assyrians resorted to direct action.’ June 1, 1932, all Assyrian Levies Officers (except one) signed a notice that they would discontinue their service on July 1 because the British Gov. had failed to adequately ensure the future of the Assyrian nation after the termination of the Mandate. On June 17, they sent nine demands which were to be granted by June 28 if the British wished to retain the Assyrian Levies.” The same demands were to be adopted by the Council of the League of Nations and made part of the Iraqi Constitution. Later Mar Shimun urged the Levies Officers to postpone their ultimatum until the above petition had been considered by the League of Nations and an 2. 3. 4. 5.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Survey Special Survey British

of International Affairs, 1934, pages 136-7. Report, 1920-1931, page 273. [of International Affairs], 1934, pages 141-142. Government Report on Iraq for 1932, pages 7-8.

226

Chapter Two

answer given. All complied except those at Hinaidi who behaved in a mutinous manner and were permitted to be discharged at a daily quota of about thirty men—about 250 being released in all. A portion of the Assyrian petition was communicated to the Iraqi Government, who formed a committee, with one Assyrian representative, to find more land suitable for Assyrian settlement. Certain construction action was taken. In September another Assyrian petition was received for transmission to the League of Nations, drawn up by minor chiefs, who claimed to represent 2,400 families, repudiating the petition of June 17, declaring contentment with their present location and conditions and loyalty to the Iraqi Government. These families were still living in their original villages. But the Hakkiyari Assyrians, though fatuous suggestions were made that they return to their original highlands, which were still uninhabited, could not return because, since 1924, the Turks had driven and kept them out. Furthermore, they could not form an enclave in Iraq without forcibly ejecting Kurds and Arabs over a wide area. The Council, the Mandates Commission, Great Britain, and the Iraqi Government all worked for many months on a scheme for safeguarding the non-Arab minorities after the termination of the Mandate in Iraq. An agreed undertaking on the question had been subscribed to by the Iraqi Government as one of the agreed conditions for its membership in the League [of Nations]. Mandate Commission’s “rapporteur” concluded: “As regards the future status of minorities in Iraq... it has already been defined and guaranteed by the declaration recently signed by the Iraqi Government on the recommendation of the Council of the League of Nations. This declaration makes it open in [the] future to the Assyrians, as to the other minorities in Iraq, to resort to the

ordinary procedure in the matter of the protection of minorities.” [The] Mandate Commission’s opinion was considered by the League of Nations on December

15, 1932, in consultation with Iraq, which was now

a member. Council passed a resolution that (1) the demand of Assyrians for administrative authority within Iraq could not be accepted, (2) a foreign expert would be selected by [the] Iraqi Government to help with the settlement of landless inhabitants, including Assyrians, (3) if Assyrians are still unwilling or unable to settle in Iraq, the Iraqi Government will take such measures as are possible to facilitate the settlement of the Assyrians 6. [Lemkin’s footnote] Minutes of the 22nd Session of the Permanent Mandate Commission, page 375.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

227

elsewhere, (4) the Iraqi Government [will] keep the Council informed on these foregoing measures. From this time on the problems of the Assyrians in Iraq was constitutionally out of the hands of the Permanent Mandates Commission and Great Britain and only under the League of Nations and the Baghdad Government. Great Britain took responsibility for Iraq should it prove an unworthy member of the League of Nations. Mar Shimun upon his return from Geneva to Mosul gave an interview to the Iraq Prime Minister saying on the whole he was inclined to accept the decision of the Council. However, after his arrival in Mosul, where

he heard that the Iraqi Government had been propagandizing against him and had appointed his chief enemy as president of the Assyrian Advisory Settlement Committee, he changed his tune. He tried to prevent a settlement. The Minister of the Interior asked Mar Shimun to sign a written guarantee that he would “do nothing to make the task of Major Thompson [?] and the Iraqi Government in connection with the settlement scheme difficult.’ In the same letter, Mar Shimun was informed

that his position would be analogous to that of the other spiritual heads of committees but he could not be delegated “any temporal authority.” Because of the recent actions, Mar Shimun refused to sign it. Because

of Mar Shimun’s refusal to cooperate with Major Thompson and the Settlement Commission, only one Assyrian family in Mosul applied for settlement. [The] Iraqi Government then detained Mar Shimun in Baghdad against his will. Incensed by this treatment of their chief, the young Assyrian men took arms under the leadership ofa certain [Malik] Yaqu [Ishmael].8 He was captured by the Iraqi Government and was interceded for by Colonel Stafford [?], Administrative Officer in Mosul, and bail was put up by an American Anglican Missionary. According to Stafford Lecture pages 240-241, the Iraqi Government was culpable in not mak-

ing public the Council’s decision of December 15 (terms given above). The attitude of Mar Shimun’s followers was “unless we are told by Mar Shimun to settle we remain refugees.” About one hundred Assyrians of both pro and con Mar Shimun groups were asked to meet at Mosul and there addressed by Stafford, Thompson, 7. [Lemkin’s footnote] Text in Mar Shimun’s Report, page 1791, Iraqi Blue Book, number 29. 8. See Khaldun S. Husry (1974), “ The Assyrian Affair of 1933 (1),” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 5(2); 161-176; and Khaldun S. Husry (1974), “ The Assyrian Affair IL,” /nternational Journal of Middle East Studies, 5(3): 344-360.

9. [Lemkin’s footnote] Thompson, Report of September 28, 1933 in [the] League of Nations Journal, December 1933, page 1835.

228

Chapter Two

and Arab Acting Mutasarrif [Arabic, District Governor]. The latter explained that in the Iraqi Government’s eyes the Kurdish and Arab chiefs like the Assyrian maliks [Arabic, king] were not recognized as political or administrative authorities. They all promised to obey Iraqian [sic] laws, but retained the right to ask Mar Shimun if they should stay in Iraq or leave. Yaqu and [Malik] Loco [of the Tkhuma tribe] were asked to go to Baghdad to urge Mar Shimun to sign the Secretary of the Interior’s guarantee and they left on the mission. However, instead of going to Baghdad they went to Syria. Just prior to this, almost all Assyrians of military age had left their villages and about five hundred of them, armed, crossed into Syria on July 21. The French forced them back, but reinforced by two hundred others, they again crossed. The Iraqi Government told the French to disarm them and keep them a certain distance from the frontier (in accordance with Article 6 of the French-Iraqi agreement of 1927).'° Only July 29, the Assyrians entered Syria where they were immediately disarmed. The French promised the Iraqi[s] fair warning if they decided to return arms to the Assyrians. August 4 there was a parley of Assyrians with an Iraqi official and the Assyrians decided to return to Iraq; the Iraqian [sic] said they must leave their arms in Syria. However, the Assyrians asked [the] French for their arms and received them. They crossed the Sufan Deri and Tigris Rivers and found the Iraqi Army waiting for them on the eastern bank of the latter (the French probably having warned them as

promised). It was never established which side fired the first shot but very soon the Assyrians took the aggressive, but were surprised to find that the Iraqis (for whom they had no respect as soldiers) were holding their own. When the Iraqi Army saw that it was winning, they “took the bit in their teeth.”'' Civil authority lost its control completely. On August 11, troops killed about 320 Assyrians in the village of Simel; it was a methodical massacre of all men and boys, with a few women and children killed as

well.!* The Assyrians had fled to the police in Simel for protection and had given up their arms. The police turned them over to the Army. Kurds and Shammar Arabs were called across the Tigris [River] to loot. About 10, [Lemkin’s footnote] Survey [of International Affairs], 1934, page 161; and Survey [of International Affairs|, 1928, pages 337-338. 11. [Lemkin’s footnote] “Notes on Iraq and Syria, 1932-33,” dated September 29, 1933 by E. Main, printed in Journal of Royal Central Asian Society, Vol. XX, page 670. [Full citation is Ernest Main (1933), “Iraq and the Assyrians—1932-33,” Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society, 20(4):

664-674. | 12. [Lemkin’s footnote] For details see notes on Stafford’s Lecture.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

229

six hundred Assyrians lost their lives (only twenty of which were killed actually fighting). Sixty out of their sixty-four villages were looted. Baghdad became uneasy over these happenings and asked the Minister of the Interior to investigate. He gave instructions for medical and other aid. He did arrive in time to prevent further shootings at Dohuk and to stop an even bigger measure planned at Al Qosh."” Police were not concerned in any serious crime but had been extremely incompetent according to Stafford. [The] Iraqi Delegation told Geneva that the murder “merited and received the severest condemnation,” when actually the military leaders involved were promoted. The British adopted a policy of “whitewash”;'? they were anxious to preserve their newly acquired air bases in Iraq and the commercial air route through Iraq to India and Australia, and the concession which the Iraqi Government had granted the Iraq Petroleum Company could not be jeopardized. In the nineteenth century the British seized on such a pretext as the Simel massacre to incorporate Iraq into the British Empire,'® but British “taxpayers no longer saw any glamour in the exercise of political dominion over oriental countries.”'’ “The only chance of saving either British face or British interest in Iraq seemed to lie in getting and keeping on the right side of the strongest native political force in the country.”'* It was the British who had insisted that the Mosul district be included within the Iraq frontiers and who had assumed responsibility for the good behavior of Iraq as a League [of Nations] member. For its part Iraq expected intervention from both the League [of Nations] and Great Britain. They threatened to massacre all Christians if there were any interference (this was terrifying since there were ten thousand Christians in Mosul). The Minister of the Interior said to Stafford, “If there is any attempt at interference or to seek revenge here, worse things will occur than have already occurred.”'? Although Britain had formerly requested the removal of the General Officer commanding the Mosul district (because of his anti-Assyrian prejudice), the Iraqi Government had refused to do so.”°

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] 20. [Lemkin’s footnote]

Stafford Lecture, page 245. “ Survey 1934,” page 165. Main, op. cit., page 673. According to Toynbee in “ Survey, 1934,” pages 166-167. “ Survey 1934,” page 167. Ibid. Stafford Lecture, page 250, and Stafford Tragedy, pages 202-204.

E. Main, op. cit., page 669.

230

Chapter Two

The events were brought to the attention of the League of Nations Council by Mar Shimun, who was still forcibly detained in Baghdad. Then he was deported to Cyprus by British plan from where he sent a series of dispatches to Geneva, dated August 16, 30, [and] September 12, 24. He had already sent two from Baghdad (July 31 and August 17), referring to a Committee of Three (Mexico, Eire, and Norway), asking them to place the question on the Council’s next agenda. They complied and the matter was considered on October 14, 1933. But by then Iraq had her own representatives to plead her cause and no representative of the Assyrians was heard. No one suggested an inquiry commission. The Iraq delegate was smart enough to make confession of guilt and he asked that the League [of Nations] find the Assyrians land in another country. By the time Stafford left Mosul in [the] middle of November 1933, no compensation had been paid and thirty-two of the sixty-four looted villages were still empty. Even the settlers in the occupied villages were too disheartened and demoralized to sow seeds.*! There was still a refugee camp at Mosul for more than 1,500 persons. In 1934 an agreement between the French and the Iraqis transferred the families of 533 Assyrian fighters, who were still interned in Syria, to there and the French established for them a refugee camp for two thousand with cultivable land to work on. The Iraq Government contributed £10,000 for its maintenance. Through the assistance of the Nansen Office for Refugees, the Committee of the Council obtained a private colonization company, the Parana Plantation Ltd. In January 1934, Brazil told [the] League [of Nations] she was prepared to accept all Assyrians in groups of five hundred families a month.” A British Brigadier General was invited to investigate the conditions of the area. His report was favorable,

but by then Brazil had written an amendment to her original proposition, saying she would only accept 2 percent or less of the total number of nationals of that country already settled on her soil during the last fifty years, and that concentration of immigrants in any part of the national territory would be prohibited*—this made settlement in Brazil impossible. Then Committee then appealed to fourteen countries. Two suggestions were made by Great Britain and France for colonization in British 21. [Lemkin’s footnote] Stafford, op. cit., pages 247-248. 22. [Lemkin’s footnote] Committee’s Report of January 19, 1934, of the League of Nations official Journal, September 1934, page 226.

23. [Lemkin’s footnote] “Survey 1934,” page 172.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

231

Guiana and on the Niger [River].* Again investigating inquiries on the spot were launched delaying action until the end of 1934. The problem of financing the operation were still unsolved (at Toynbee’s time of writing—January 1935). Iraq and Great Britain both made unspecified offers, but Britain’s stipulation that its offer constitute a contribution to

a fund “provided by the League” was turned down by the League [of Nations] as “impracticable.” Finally, appeals were made “to the generosity of governments and private organizations.” * kK OR

IRAQ AND GREAT BRITAIN Under the Mandate, Iraq was in a peculiarly ambiguous situation (they called it “al-wad’u’shadhdh’’), being under the Mandate and at the same time having sovereignty. They had their own Army, which they could not move without [the] British High Commissioner’s permission, had martial law but could not administer it, [and] administered the railroads and ports but did not own them. The Iraq Government paid half of the cost of the British High Commissioner and his staff. The Great Britain—Iraq Treaty of June 30, 1930 (following those of 1922, 1923, and 1927 which was never

ratified), was ominously silent re[garding] minorities. Actually the Treaty was looked upon with suspicion and misgivings by the Arabs, Great Britain, and other countries—all for different reasons. The Arabs felt that

Iraqian [sic] independence was “ illusory” and that granted two air bases to Britain was incompatible with this aim. The British were in the peculiar position of maintaining forces in Hinaidi and Mosul for five years, which meant obligation to enforce policies of the Arab Government in Baghdad, over which they had no political control, on non-Arab peoples, like the Kurds and the Assyrians. The Syrians were led by the new arrangement between Iraq and Great Britain to demand a similar treaty with the French. French criticism was severe and can be surmised from the following excerpts from Le Temps (French, “The Times”), August 1, 1930: With the end of the Mandate, Iraq will cease to be under the aegis of the League of Nations and will become in reality a member of the British 24. [Lemkin’s footnote] Texts of British and French communications in the League of Nations official Journal, November 1934, pages 1515-1521. 25. [Lemkin’s footnote] Committee’s Report on January 19, 1934 to the Council.

232

Chapter Two

Commonwealth. . . What is to become of the liberty of conscience, liberty of worship, equality of races, creeds and languages (etc.) which are inscribed in the Organic Statute which the Iraqi public authorities will henceforward have full discretion to modify? What is to become of foreign privileges of juridical order, of the economic equality between the States, Members of the League of Nations and of the protection of nationalities? What is to become in general of that protection of minorities upon which the attention of the Commission of Inquiry of the Council at Geneva was concentrated with a special intensity at the time of the delimitation of the Turco-Iraqi frontier?

Minorities in Iraq In a population of 2,849,282, the 1920 census revealed 775,000 (or 27 percent) were non-Arabs—these are equally distributed throughout the country. They consist of:

1. Assyrian Nestorian Churches—1/4 natives of Iraq, the rest refugees from Persia during World War I. Mostly farmers—‘highlanders.” 2. Kurds—distributed among Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria, but located in these countries contiguously. Are Sunni Muslims—farmers, most nomads, largely “highlanders.” 3. Turks—also Sunni Muslims. 4. Armenians—Greek Orthodox Christians, townspeople and tradesmen (Monophysite branch of Armenian Church) 5. Jews—townspeople and tradesmen 6. Bahais—small community, very peaceful and cooperative. Own religion. (Came in for some unjust discrimination; see “Survey, 1934,”

pages 120-122.) 7. Yazidis—farmers, highlanders, own religion.

8. Chaldeans—ex-Nestorian Uniate Catholics. Townspeople and tradesmen. All these groups spoke different languages, though some like the Assyrians were bilingual; often there were several dialects among each group. Religious liberty was confirmed in Iraq by the Treaty of 1922 with

Great Britain and later by the Organic Law of Iraq.” 26. See Nigel G. Davidson (1925), “The Constitution of Iraq,” Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 7(1); 41-52.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

233

Kurds

Feudal, broken up into many quarrelling political groups, always difficult to govern. Treated with safety valve tolerance by the Iraqis, at the suggestion of the League of Nations. On January 21, 1926, [the] Iraqi Prime Minister declared that officials in Kurdish districts should be Kurds (this was not entirely fulfilled); schools, language, etc., should be Kurdish. The

Mosul Villayet (Arabic, “province”) Commission concluded that Kurds would prefer being returned to Turkish sovereignty rather than remain under Iraqian [sic] if the Mandate were liquidated. Recommended that they be returned to Turkey. After it had been awarded to Iraq, the same commission recommended that the British mandate continue in the Kurdish district for a period of twenty-five years unless Iraq became a member of the League of Nations, which happened in 1932. The rest of the Mosul Commission recommended. [Editor’s Note: Rest of this section appears to be missing.]

BACKGROUND

OF ASSYRIANS

(Assyria: Isaac Levine, 1919)?’ [Editor’s Note: The following is crossed out.] Only a handful of the race that built Assyria and Babylon remain. Are centered around the cities of Uramia and Mosul in the Tigris [River] Valley. C[h]ristian sects known as 1834 American Presbyterians mission built college and hospital. Church of England and Russian Orthodox also sent missionaries, who were more

political intriguers; they won many Nestorians over to the Russian Orthodox Church by promise of special Russian protection. Kurds and Assyrians were friendly during the first years of World War I, but promises from Russia to the Assyrians that they were imminently to be freed and should rise against the Kurds or run away to join the Russian ranks, along with similar incitations from the Turks to the Kurds, developed incidents which led to the formal declaration of war by the Kurds against the Assyrians. The Assyrian Patriarch, Mar Shimun, led his men into the mountains, where they lived for three months, but running short of supplies, had to risk the Turkish lines to reach the Russians and solicit aid. However Russians, so weakened by the fall of Warsaw (1916), could help little 27. Lemkin’s reference is to Isaac Don Levine.

234

Chapter Two

and consequently the Assyrians were forced to scatter through the valley in search of food, where 15 percent died in three months of starvation or

disease. Assyrians held the castle of Chal, fifty miles from Mosul up to October 1917, but with the Russian armistice (November 7, 1917), the

Assyrians were left alone and “ thousands of women and children were threatened with extermination.” Relief was sent from the United States and Great Britain, and the intermediation of two American missionaries,

Shedd [?] and Packard [?], with the Kurds, saved thousands of lives. Mar Shimun was killed in March, 1918. His successor finally effected a junction with the British forces in Mesopotamia.

Assyrian Need Security against attacks by Kurds, Persians, Tartars, and Turks. Do not wish to be included in the new Armenia. *

KK

KK

ACCOUNT OF ASSYRIAN MASSACRE, GIVEN BY LT. COL. R. S. STAFFORD, D.S.O., M.C., BEFORE THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. PBLD. IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, VOL. XII, NO. 2, MARCH-APRIL 1934.” On August 8, reports were received that the Kurds and Arab tribes were commencing to loot the Assyrian villages near Simmel. These reports became more and more serious, and added greatly to our anxieties. I will deal with this looting later. In the meantime the army had left Dairabun, and had joined with the second column which had been at Bashkili Bala; the total number of the troops were just under five thousand. On August 11 the columns passed Simmel, where the worst massacres of all took place. The following is an account. : Simmel is a large village some ten miles from Dohuk and on the main road to Zahko. Here lived one hundred Assyrians and ten Arab families, about seven hundred souls in all. Here is a Police Post in the village with a normal garrison of a sergeant and four men. The Assyrians of Simmel did 28. Citation today would be: R. S. Stafford (1934), “Iraq and the Problem of the Assyrians,” Inter-

national Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1931-1939), 13(2): 159-185.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

239

not all belong to the same tribe. Most of them were Baz, but the headman

belonged to the Diz. The great majority of the Baz were peaceful cultivators, and their leading man at Simmel, Gabriel, had long been one of the

strongest supporters of the government policy, vis-a-vis the Assyrians. When the exodus to Syria took place, about fifty men left Simmel. They were mostly of the Diz section, and are now interned in Syria. On August 8, Kurdish tribes commenced looting the Assyrian villages lying five or six miles north of Simmel. All the men of these villages, who had all along been the strongest supporters of the Mar Shimun, had gone to Syria, leaving their families behind. The next day large numbers of Arabs from the right bank of the Tigris [River] began to cross the river with the intention of looting the Assyrian villages on the left bank. The villagers were naturally alarmed. At first the tribes looted the livestock of the Assyrian villages, in spite of the efforts of the police to prevent them. Fear among the villagers increased, and on August 9 and 10 they fled to Simmel, hoping to find protection under the Police Post. On August 8, the Qaimaqum (Arabic, Deputy Governor] of Zahko, with a small part of the army, had come to Simmel and advised the Assyrians to hand in their rifles. He said that he was afraid that some incident might occur, and that it would be better if they had no arms. He assured them that they would be quite safe under the protection of the Police Post. On August 9 the army came again and took away the rifles of the villagers who had come in from outside. The next day, August 10, passed quietly. Most of the Assyrians remained near the Police Post, which is situated on the high mound. Arabs and Kurds were seen looting the grain from the threshing floors. The police, owing to their inadequate numbers, could do nothing to prevent this. Early on the morning of August 11, the Arab villagers from Simmel left the village, driving their sheep with them. They had been warned.

Shortly afterwards, tribesmen entered the village and commenced looting the houses. After about two hours they left. A little later, about 8 a.m., the

police sergeant told the Assyrians, who had come in from the surrounding villages, that they must leave Simmel. They protested that this was unsafe, whereupon the sergeant told them to go down from the Police Post into the Assyrian houses in the village. While the Assyrians, who were now in a state of panic, were obeying this order, some army troops on lorries and some motor machine guns arrived in Simmel. Suddenly, and without any warning, fire was opened by the troops. A number of casualties, including

236

Chapter Two

four women killed, occurred before the Assyrians could take refuge inside the houses. The soldiers then entered the village. An officer, who has

since been identified as Ismail Abbawi Tohalla of the Motor Machine Gun Company, then drove up in a car. He shouted to the soldiers not to kill the women and children, who were ordered to go up to the Police Post. Many of them did so. The soldiers then proceeded methodically to massacre all the men. In some cases machine guns were fired through the windows into the crowded rooms. In others the men were dragged out, shot, and their bodies thrown on the pile of dead. A few men hid among the women, but these too were hunted out. The soldiers left the village at about 2 p.m., whereupon the tribes returned and completed the looting. The tribes had taken no part at all in the massacre. About 6 p.m. some of the soldiers returned. The police sergeant had sent word that about twenty Assyrian men had survived and were in the Police Post. These were then killed. The conduct of the police sergeant, who is an old Turkish gendarme, was, throughout, in marked contrast to that of the rest of the police, who,

though powerless to prevent the slaughter, are testified by the Assyrian women to have given them every help possible. The number of killed will never be accurately known; it was probably about three hundred twenty. Among the men, six priests were killed, and Gabriel, the staunchest of the Government supporters, met the same fate. Four women and six young children were also killed and about twelve were wounded. All or practically all the killed were peaceful citizens, who had committed no offense whatever against the Government. They had come into Simmel to be under the protection of the Iraqi flag which flew over the Police Post. They had no arms and no means of resistance. All these Assyrians had taken no part in the Yacu adventure. Terrible though the account of the massacre is, the aftermath was as terrible. The army buried and burnt the corpses the next day (August 12). They did so, however, so badly that the stench from the bodies was overpowering. A thousand terrified, weeping women and children who had seen all their male relatives killed before their éyes were crowded into the Police Post. In this atmosphere they lived without food and with little water until August 15. For, incredible as it may appear, the administra-

tive authorities did not realize the full horror of what had occurred until the Minister of the Interior himself visited Simmel, not indeed with the

intention of inquiring into the massacre, but in order personally to see the condition of the women and children who had the evening before been

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

237

reported to be starving. It was another two days before the women were removed from Simmel and sent to Dohuk and thence to Mosul. This massacre, though the worst which took place, was by no means unique. At Dohuk and the neighboring villages men, in three cases priests, were taken out of their houses by the army. They were shot in batches. It had been difficult to ascertain with any accuracy the number of Assyrians who lost their lives. The Assyrian themselves claimed that nearly two thousand had been killed. The local Iraqi officials at first talked of about one thousand. My own inquiries have, however, led me to consider that not more than six hundred were killed. Of these not more than twenty could, by any stretch of the imagination, have been said to have been killed in action. The army killed in cold blood over five hundred others, and perhaps fifty lost their lives at the hands of the Kurds. Here I must say that the Kurds, on the whole, behaved much better than expected, es-

pecially in view of the encouragement to murder and loot which they had received. They were guilty of a bad massacre at a place named Savora, where twenty Assyrians were murdered in cold blood, and vile atrocities at Qalla Badri, where some women [were shot?] in the looting of friendly villages—the Yezidis, too, were guilty in this respect. On the [other] hand, there were instances of Kurdish Aghas [officials] were protecting women and children and sometimes men as well. Fortunately the presence of an exceptionally able and strong Qaimaqum [District Governor] in Amadiyah prevented much trouble there. The still more distant Assyrians in Agra, Zibar, and Rowanduz were also unaffected. The civil authorities, where they were not terrorized by the army, behaved, with one or two

exceptions, reasonably well. The police were guilty of much omission and were often hopelessly weak and incompetent, but neither the regular nor the newly recruited irregular police committed many crimes. These were the work of the army. It had been stated at different times and by different people—the Iraqi delegates at Geneva for instance—that these excesses merited and had received their condemnation. Actually, the officers responsible were praised and promoted. Bekir Sidky [d. 1937], who was in command, on his arrival in Baghdad drove through the streets sitting on the right hand of the Prime Minister amid the plaudits of an enthusiastic crowd.””? However,

29. See “The Case for the Assyrians” (1934), Journal of The Royal Central Asian Society, 21(1): 38-57.

238

Chapter Two

much responsible Iraqis may deplore these excesses—and in private many of them expressed their genuine disgust—no one has made any official announcement to declare that the army behaved otherwise than well. I must say a word about the looting. In all there were sixty-four Assyrian villages in the Qodhas of Dohuk and Sheihkan. Of these sixty were looted. Of course the degree of looting varied considerably. Six villages were entirely burnt out; in many others the houses were destroyed by the wooden roof beams being destroyed. The household effects were all looted except the more portable, in the few cases where the villagers had some warning and were able to flee. Most of the livestock and most of the grain were looted. The losses of the Assyrians must have exceeded £50,000 and were quite possibly twice as much. As with the killed, the heaviest sufferers were innocent Assyrians who had taken no part whatever in the Yacu venture and who had been loyal supporters of the Government. The Iraqi Government promised compensation, and indeed the following telegram from the Iraq[i] Minister of Foreign Affairs was published in the English newspapers on August 20: There was some trivial looting in certain villages evacuated by families of the rebels, but the Government restored the stolen goods to their owners,

and indemnified the people whose property it was impossible to recover. There is no truth to the reports of the burning of villages, but a few insignificant outbreaks of fire occurred in deserted villages. The whole damage does not exceed a few pounds in each village.

This statement was a travesty of the facts, as indeed were practically all the official statements from Iraq[i] sources. Nor has the Government yet taken any serious steps to compensate these innocent Assyrians for their losses. In about twelve villages the roofs were repaired, a few sheep were returned, but taking it as a whole, much less than 5 percent of the loot has

been recovered, and this thought is quite well known where much of the loot is. I reported again that nothing was being done, but I quite failed to get anything done. Eventually a British Land Settlement officer was sent up to help, but his terms of reference were limited, nor have any of his

recommendations been carried out. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Assyrian villagers had refused to sow. I did my best to persuade them,

whenever I visited the villages, but I met with little success. The villagers were cowed and dispirited. They were living on the borderland of starvation, as the very small sums which had been distributed by the Iraq[i]

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

239

Government were totally inadequate. They had been disarmed, whereas upwards of one thousand rifles had been distributed among the Kurds, and they were afraid to leave their houses. After several months a few rifles have now been returned to people who had been quite unjustifiably disarmed, but even these are not enough. There is no confidence left. The attempts to drive out the refugees at Alqosh back to their ruined villages at the point of the machine gun were the last straw. When I left Mosul in the middle of November 1933, thirty of the Assyrian villages were still entirely deserted, seven have been partly and twenty-three fully reoccupied. This acccunt is sufficiently gloomy, but it is only fair to say that the stories of daily murders of Assyrians are untrue. After August 20, when it may be said that things began to return to normal, up to November 10 there were five separate murders of Assyrians. In no case were the murderers caught. Petty thefts of animals are certainly common, and despite the establishment ofthirteen temporary Police Posts, are likely to continue. A normal state of public security can hardly be expected to return at once. The one bright spot is the refugee camp at Mosul. This has been run with a maximum of efficiency and a minimum of fuss by Major Thompson. He had at first to be as firm with Iraqi officialdom as with the refugees. And here it must be said that what little has been done in the way of relief has only been done on the pressing insistence of British officials. The Iraqi officials were callous to a degree. There has been a steady population of 1,550 women and children in this camp, which costs about £200 a week to maintain. Of these women and children about six hundred have relations amongst the internees in Syria, the remainder have no male relations left. Apart from these refugees the RAF [British Royal Air Force] took to Baghdad upwards of eight hundred dependents of the serving Levy soldiers. In this humanitarian work the AOC [?] met with every possible hindrance of the Iraq[i] Government. The AOC also lent a doctor to the refugee camp, and this doctor did most excellent work.

Summary of the Rest of Col. Stafford’s Paper Following the massacre there were offers of help from all over the country. For a time there was the appearance of national unity. The most serious reaction to all this was in Mosul, a town with a one hundred thousand

population, 10 percent of which is Christian, There was a strong antiBritish feeling; the British were accused of helping the Assyrians. The

240

Chapter Two

Iraqians [sic] feared intervention by either the British of the League [of Nations], which they would threaten their newly acquired independence. As a precaution against this, they warned that they would take even more violent action against the Christians in the north if there were intervention. (This threat against Christians did not arise from religious prejudice but because the Christians were considered the weakest link in national unity.) The Minister of the Interior himself said to the speaker: “ If there is any outsider interference or demand for revenge far worse will take place than has already happened.” No pressure was brought to bear on the Iraq[i] Government even to carry out an inquiry of the incident on their

own. A large part of the Iraq[i] Army expressed its indignation at the massacres and thus an official British prestige in Iraq East has suffered a severe sul no Christian and very

inquiry would not have been difficult to make. certainly and probably throughout the Middle blow. During the speaker’s last months in Mofew Moslems would visit any British official. KKK

RK

THE CASE OF IRAQ, THE CALIPHATE, AND SYRIA UNDER HULAGU

Background Tule was governor of Persia after Jenghiz [Khan] had conquered the Kwaresmian Empire. However, at Jenghiz’s death in 1227 the conquest of that empire was not final. Jalal ad-Din (Rumi, 1207-1273), the son of

the Kwaresmian Shah, had gathered up a revolutionary army and fought Mongol contingents [which] devastated Asia Minor and Georgia, while fleeing from the Mongols. Tchamarghan was ordered by Khan Ogdai to follow Jalal ad-Din, and he devastated Persia again and pushed on into Georgia and Armenia, conquering both. In the meantime Baidu was given the task of subduing Asia Minor. Hulagu, Tule’s son, was ordered by Ogdai’s successor, Mengku, to complete the Asiatic conquest in the west by subduing the Caliphate and

Syria, as well as the fortresses of the Assassins in 1251 in Kuhistan. He achieved all three. Some words ought to be said about the Caliphate in Baghdad. It was the center of Islam and a beautiful and flourishing city amidst a fruitful well-cultivated country—the two river valley of Mesopotamia. Until

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

24)

the ninth century, it had been the queen of cities in Asia—probably the world. Its fabulous wealth and flourishing culture have been praised by noets and historians throughout history; the famous “Thousand and One

Nights” being just one example. Its cultural and spiritual significance as the seat of the Caliphate was tremendous. However, gradually, Baghdad lost its primacy as a political center. The Caliphate became degraded by opposing forces, particularly the Seljuks in the tenth century, until it was a mere puppet in the hands of the Turkish bodyguards who were usurping

political power.*° At the time of the Mongol invasion the Caliph’s political authority did not extend beyond little Mesopotamia; his religious authority was expressed only by his old spiritual prerogatives; in practice he had many enemies, even at his own court. A sect calied the Shia had risen to some

power; they claimed that the Caliph was a usurper of the throne of Islam and should be replaced. Other Mongol princes defied him, notably the Kwaresmian

Shah. However, despite his weakness, the Caliph was still

the moral and spiritual head of the Moslem world and as such sacred. The Assassins, also called Ismaili, were a fanatical sect which had

entrenched itself in a large number of almost impregnable fortresses in Kuhistan and Iraq. They were inclined toward freethinking but were imbued with a fierce fanaticism which gave them but one chief function in life—to assassinate anyone anywhere on being so ordered, even should they lose their lives in the process. They were feared by the Sultans, by the Caliph, and even in Europe—their daggers having upset dynasties everywhere. Their cultural significance is hardly this gruesome function but the fact that they lived by a certain creed and collected at their chief fortress, Alamut, a large and invaluable library of religious and philosophical works. Syria and Iraq with their wealth and beautiful cities such as Aleppo and Damascus in the former, and Mosul in the latter, were at the time ruled by Seljuk princes and in tributary relationship to the Mamluk sultan in Egypt. The Caliphate was divided by the religious hostilities between the pro—Caliph Sunni and the anti-Caliph Schii [Shia]. Then the Turkish bodyguards had changed from loyal protectors of the throne to usurpers of [the] same; a number of them had made themselves sultans.*' Powerful

30. [Lemkin’s footnote] Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume II, page 922. 31. [Lemkin’s footnote] Hammer, I, page 118.

242

Chapter Two

traitors at the court of the Caliph contributed to its downfall. Thus Ibn Alkami (1195-1258), the Caliph’s learned vizier, helped the Mongols under Hulagu® to destroy the Caliphate. The Caliph himself did not have sufficient mental stamina to deal with this terrible crisis. Howorth considers him in a state of “mental imbecility” when he receives the four survivors of his army with the words “God

be praised that Mashaid-ud din is safe.”*? On a previous occasion, when the Mongols invaded Iraq, he had said: “How can they even pass it?” (meaning Jebel Hamrin, Arabic, “Mount Hamrin”).*4 His avariciousness was legend and he probably could have greatly increased and improved his armed forces had he spent some of his fabulous wealth for the purpose. Hulagu himself is reputed to have taunted him with this mistake.* A Moslem prince later accused the Caliph of thus causing the downfall of Baghad.*° In February 1258, Hulagu’s siege of the city of Baghdad was succeeding. On the 7th, Syrian and Iraqian [sic] troops as well as a multitude of inhabitants left the city and entered the camp of the Mongols, hoping for protection. They were divided into thousands, hundreds, and tens,

handed over to the corresponding Mongol officers, and systematically butchered by them.*’ On the next day many others of the population were led out of the city with the promises of protection and then massacred.*® Then those closest to the Caliph, Suleiman Shah and the astrologer and general and seven hundred of his followers were also murdered after having been summoned to Hulagu’s presence. The three heads of Diwitdar and his sons were sent to the Atabeg [Turkish, “governor”] of Mosul who had to hang them up on the gate of his palace, though the victims had been his friends.*? When the Caliph and a large following came to Hulagu he was ordered to send out the rest of the inhabitants to be counted. As Hammer-Purgstall puts it (ed. transl.) “Baghdad’s inhabitants went to the bench of slaughter like sheep”? for they were immediately cut down. On February 20, all attendants of the Caliph and 32. [Lemkin’s footnote] Op. cit., 120. 33. [Lemkin’s footnote] Howorth, III, 123. 34. [Lemkin’s footnote} Ibid. 35. [Lemkin’s footnote] Yule I, 67-68.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Hammer Hammer Op. cit., Op. cit., Ibid.

I, 188. I, 151. 152. 152.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

243

his relations except for his youngest son (who was given to the wife of

Hulagu) were killed; the Caliph himself was rolled into a carpet and trampled to death by horses.*! The estimates of the dead vary, but at any rate the number was enormous.” Regarding Baghdad’s genocidal horrors a Moslem author lamented: “Then there took place such wholesale slaughter and unrestrained looting and excessive torture and mutilation as it is hard to hear spoken of even generally; how think you, then, of its details? There happened things I like not to mention; therefore imagine what you will, but ask me not of the matter!’? Such sensitivity in the cruel days of the thirteenth century speaks for itself. Hamdullah [?] related that a Mongol found over forty motherless babies in one small street during the massacre, and put them to death to relieve them from their thirst after mother’s milk. In contrast to his usual policy, Hulagu ordered a general massacre of Christians in Tikrit because they had not handed over the property of some executed Moslems.“ The sect of the Assassins was completely exterminated in 1256. At Khaf and Tun which fortresses were taken first, the entire population was massacred with the exception of some attractive girls. At Alamut, the main fortress, also called the “Eagle’s Nest,” the population had been allowed to leave and then be distributed among the Mongol legions; the same seems to have been true of the other fortresses. After the chief of the sect had left on his journey to the Khan, command was given to the Mongol officers to murder all his subjects without exception. This was done in the usual efficient Mongol fashion; infants at the breasts were not

spared even.*° In Kuhistan, Tun was captured and all its people slain, except young women and children.*’ In the fall of 1259 Hulagu marched toward Syria through Mesopotamia. The first massacre occurred in Mendbedsch; then the fortresses on

the Euphrates [River] were all taken and their inhabitants massacred.”

41. [Lemkin’s footnote] Op. cit. 154. [He also notes “Howorth states that the mode of the Caliph’s death is not known—part III, 128.”] 42. [Lemkin’s footnote] Rashid ud din counts 800,000 and Makrizi 2,000,000—Howorth III, 127.

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Quoted by Sykes, 174-5. Hammer I, 165. Curtin, 245. Op. cit., 246. Curtin, 242. Hammer I, 152.

244

Chapter Two

At Hakkar all Kurds were cut down.” In the city of Aleppo taken January 1260 the general slaughter lasted six days; the number of victims exceeded those of Baghdad.* The streets were filled with corpses.*' The Christians of the city who had fled to the Greek Church were slaughtered by Mongol soldiers with the exception of those few who were saved by an Armenian priest. Fifty thousand people had saved themselves by hiding in those buildings which were not destroyed.” The city of Harim, between Aleppo and Antioch and famous as a repeated scene of Crusade battles [e.g., 1164], was taken after Haleb and all its inhabitants including women and children were slaughtered.” Sarudj’s inhabitants were slaughtered to the last man.» In January 1260 Aleppo was taken after seven days of siege. For five days the city’s inhabitants were slaughtered. The streets were filled with corpses. Only those who sought refuge in four houses of dignitaries, a Moslem school, and a synagogue were spared. The city of Mosul was taken by storm in January 1262. As the defenders left the city driven by hunger, they were cut down by the Mongols outside the gates. For nine days the Mongols murdered the population in the city; only a thousand returned from their mountain hideouts after the Mongols had left.°° Salih, the sultan of the city, was brutally killed by Hulagu’s order. He was wrapped in felt and thrown into the hot sun which was deadly at that time. His three year old son was sent back to Mosul and there cut in two, the two halves hung on either side of the

Tigris [River].°’ Under Hulagu’s son Akaba, the commander of Haleb sent a detachment to Armenia which took Kinuk. The men were massacred, the women en-

slaved and Tarsus devastated.” In the same year (1273), during a conflict between the IIkhans and the

Jagatais, Kwaresmian cities were plundered and filled with corpses.” 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s {Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote} footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Curtin, 260. Hammer I, 184. Curtin, 265. Ibid. Ibid. Op. cit., 186.

55. [Lemkin’s footnote] Curtin, 261.

56. 57. 58. 59.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote} footnote] footnote] footnote]

Hammer I, 195. Ibid. Hammer I, 269. Hammer I, 272.

Assyrians in Iraq...

Christians

245

Deprivation of Livelihood Hulagu laid waste the richly cultivated country of Mesopotamia. He broke down the intricate irrigation system which had made possible the production of delicious fruit and thus converted the region into sterile grassland.”

Separation of Families From Aleppo one hundred thousand women and children were led off into slavery.®' In Tun, Kuhistan, only young women and children were spared massacre, probably to be enslaved. The many slaves made all over Syria by the Mongols were often sold in the market of Damascus.” Under Hulagu’s successor, in 1273, Bokhara was taken during a fight with the Jagatais; fifty thousand boys and girls were carried off as slaves, half of which were forcibly taken back by the Jagatais.“

Destruction of Cultural Symbols In Baghdad the most honored places of pilgrimage, the great mosque,

the tomb of Musa [?] and the Rosasafa tombs [?] were pillaged.® Artistic and literary treasures were destroyed.” Baghdad was rich in libraries. Ibn Alkami’s (1195-1258) library of ten thousand volumes as well as all the others were pillaged, the books were then thrown into the Tigris [River] or burned.®’ The cultural loss as a result of this book destruction was irreparable. In the Assassin fortress of Alamut, the philosophical and other books of the large library were burned, with the exception of the Korans and a

few valuable books.® The Christians of Damascus, who were located with protection and privileges by Hulagu, took advantage of their long-awaited ascendancy 60. 61. 62: 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Encyclopedia Britannica, II, 924. Curtin, 265. Curtin, 242. Hammer I, 200. Hammer I, 272. Hammer I, 153-4. Sykes, 175. Hammer I, 158. Hammer I, 103.

246

Chapter Two

to revenge themselves on the Moslems. They drank wine in the streets, pouring it out in front of the mosques; they marched through the streets holding the cross and forced all those passing by to rise, beating them up otherwise.”

Destruction of Leadership I Rukn-u-din—the “Old Man of the Mountain’”—leader of the Assassins,

was taken to Hulagu’s camp from where he was made to order the surrender of his remaining fortresses. Then he was sent as a trophy of war to Mengu Khan in Mongolia; during which trip he was murdered.’ According to Hammer-Purgstall, the Assassin’s children and relatives were all murdered by Hulagu after he himself had been killed on the way to the Khan.”' Many artisans were found in the citadel of Aleppo and driven off as slaves.” In Harim only one person was saved from the general massacre—a skilled Armenian jeweler whom Hulagu needed.”

Destruction of Leadership II At Baghdad Hulagu destroyed the Caliphate utterly after it had reigned there for five hundred fifteen years.“ Although the Caliphate had been stripped of its real power for hundreds of years, it was still the nominal spiritual head of the Moslem world. With the murder of the Caliph and his relations, Baghdad forever ceased to be the seat of Islam. The Caliphate was later moved to Cairo. Besides the Caliph, the learned men of the

city were massacred contrary to the Mongol habit of deporting them as slaves.’”> The destruction of the Caliphate was such a remarkable historical event that it has been the subject of many poems and stories. The one best known to the West is perhaps [Henry Wadsworth] Longfellow’s (1807— 1882) poem “ Kambalu” which elaborates on the story told by the chronicler Ibn al Furat (1334-1405) that Hulagu bade the avaricious Caliph eat 69. [Lemkin’s footnote] Hammer I, 200. 70. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prawdin believes that a non-Mongol murdered him despite the vigilance of his Mongol escort which would never touch a prisoner on his way to the Khan, 308; HammerPurgstall still claims that the Khan himself ordered him killed, Part 1, 105. 71. [Lemkin’s footnote] Hammer I, 105. 72. [Lemkin’s footnote] Curtin, 265. 73. [Lemkin’s footnote] Curtin, 266. 74. [Lemkin’s footnote] Altunian, 45. 75. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sykes, 175.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

247

his own hoarded gold.” The “Threnody of Sadi” will be quoted here as a touching testimony to the tragic significance of the Caliph’s murder:”7 Well it were if from the heavens tears of blood on earth should flow For the Ruler of the Faithful, al Musta’sim (1213-1258), brought so low. If, Mohamed, at the Judgment from the dust thy head thou’It raise,

Raise it now, behold the Judgment fallen on thy folk below; Waves of blood the dainty thresholds of the Palace beauties whelm; While from out my heart the life blood dyes my sieeve with hues of woe. Fear vicissitudes of Fortune; fear of Sphere’s revolving change; Who could dream that such a splendour such a fate should overthrow? Raise your eyes, O ye who once upon that Holy House did gaze, Watching Khan and Roman Caesars cringing to its portals go. Now upon that self-same threshold where the Kings their foreheads laid, From the children of the Prophet’s Uncle” streams of blood did flow! Loot

The loot obtained in Baghdad by Hulagu’s armies was unprecedented in luxuriousness and amount. Hulagu entered the Caliph’s palace and exclaimed to the spiritual leader: “You are the master of this house and I am your guest. Let us see what you can give us.”” The trembling Ca-

liph broke locks to some of his vaults and brought out two thousand sets of robes, ten thousand gold dinars, and many precious stones. Hulagu ignored these treasures assigning them to his court. Then he said: “It is

unnecessary to point out what is patent; disclose your hidden treasures.”*° Thus the Caliph pointed to a subterranean cistern filled with gold pieces, each of which weighed one hundred miskals. The treasures were all

listed and the piled around Hulagu’s tent in veritable mountains. Wassaf [Persian historian, 1299-1323] reports that the Mongols carried the gold and silver vessels which they carried off as if they were lead. Overnight the humblest Mongol soldier became rich. Money, rich fabrics, foreign products, Arab horses, slaves from all over the world abounded to such an extent that it was impossible to keep an inventory of it all.*' The saddles of 76. [Lemkin’s footnote] For quotation of Longfellow see Sykes, 174; for discussion on various versions of the maltreatment and death of the Caliph, see Yule I, 87-8, notes.

77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

[Lemkin’s Abu Talib, [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] 549-619. footnote] footnote] footnote]

Sykes, 162. Howorth, lil, 125. Ibid. Ibid.

248

Chapter Two

the soldiers’ horses and their most ordinary utensils were inlaid with precious jewels. Some Mongols broke off their swords at the hilt and filled up the scabbards with jewels. Others actually emptied the body of a Baghdad victim, stuffed it with gold and pearls and carried it from the city.** The Caliph opened his harem of seven hundred wives and concubines and one thousand eunichs. All of these were enslaved or killed except one hundred females which the Caliph could select for himself after imploring the Khan.®

Destruction of Cultural Property The great city of Baghdad was completely destroyed by Hulagu. All palaces and houses were burned except those of Christians and foreigners who were [e]specially exempt.™ Foreigners probably meant merchants from Europe or elsewhere. Baghdad was more to the Moslem world than its most illustrious and wealthy city. It was the symbol of Islam[ic] culture, being the seat of the Caliphate. Its destruction, therefore, was a great

blow to Islam in general. According to Sykes, Moslem civilization “has never recovered from the deadly blow.”® Even sixty years later, Wassaf

discovered not a tenth part of the old city.®° Shortly before Baghdad’s destruction, Hulagu annihilated the strongholds of the Assassins. In 1256 the siege attempts were successful. First Khaf and Tun were taken and destroyed, after which the leader of the sect, Rukn-u-Din, abandoned Alamut, the chief fortress of the Mongol camp, and bid others surrender.*’ Many including Alamut disobeyed but were taken by storm soon afterwards, all being destroyed.** The city of Mahuj was destroyed. In Aleppo the walls were torn down, the mosques were demolished and the gardens ruined.* Under Hulagu’s successor, Bokhara was completely destroyed by fire. It remained in ruins for several years.”

82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Op. cit., 126. Ibid. Hammer I, 152. Sykes, 175. Howorth III, 132. Sykes, 173. Curtin, 244. Curtin, 265. Hammer I, 272.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

249

Prohibition of Cultlic] Activities or

Religious Codes of Behavior During the period of Hulagu’s rule of Persia, he once levied two hundred thousand heads of swine upon Armenia; then he hundred swine sent to each of the Persia[n] towns with orders Moslems were to eat them. A careful report was made of those

a tax of had two that the that ate

the pork, while those that refused to eat it were decapitated. Malakia, a

pro-Christian chronicler [?], claims that Hulagu did this in order to please the Georgians and Armenians in his service.”!

THE GENOCIDISTS

Responsibility Hulagu as the ruler of Tule’s fief in Persia and the chief commander of his armies, was of course primarily responsible for the genocide committed on his campaigns. Khan Mengku ( d. 1283) and the Mongol Kurultai had, however, ordered him to commit some of the most significant genocides— against the Caliphate and the Assassins.” Georgian troops which were in the service of the Mongol armies distinguished themselves in the genocide on Baghdad. They led in the massacre after having breached the walls of the city, and they did much of

the looting.” King Hethum bears his share of the responsibility for genocide against Mesopotamia. Hulagu had intended to march to Jerusalem. King Hethum then pointed out to the Mongol that the key to Palestine was the city of Haleb and that Mesopotamia should be conquered first.** Hethum is also supposed to have requested of Khan Mengku that the Baghdad Caliphate be dissolved (as part of his set of proposals for an alliance between Armenia and the Mongols).” Massireddin

[?], Moslem astrologer in Hulagu’s service, assured the

Mongol commander that there would be no evil consequences to a conquest

91. [Lemkin’s footnote] Howorth III, 211. 92. [Lemkin’s footnote] Altunian, 44. 93. [Lemkin’s footnote] Howorth II, 126; Spuler, 58. 94. [Lemkin’s footnote] Altunian, 47.

95. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid.

250

Chapter Two

of Baghdad. To convince him he pointed out examples of successful campaigns against the Caliphate in the past.” Hulagu’s Shia advisors (anti-Caliph sect) urged the commander to kill the Caliph, warning: “If the Khalif continues alive, the whole of the Musulmans [Muslims] among the troops, and the other Mussulman [Muslim] peoples who are in other countries, will rise up and bring about his liberation, and will not leave thee alive.’®”

Intent

Massireddin, in Hulagu’s service, sent the following message to Sultan Nassir of Syria (1285-1341) (in July 1259):°8 Know

thou, Prince Nassir, and know all commanders and warriors in Syria, that we are God’s army on earth. He has taken from our hearts every pity. Woe to those who oppose us, they must flee, we must hunt them. By what road can they save themselves, what land will protect them? Our steeds rush like lightning, our swords cut like thunderbolts, our warriors in number are like sands on the seashore. Who so resists us meets terror; he who implores us finds safety. Receive our law; yours and ours will then be in common. If ye resist, blame yourselves for the things which will follow. Choose the safe way. Answer quickly, or your country will be changed to a desert. Ye yourselves will find no refuge. The angel of death may then say of you: “Is there one among them who shows the least signs of life, or whose voice gives out the slightest of murmurs?” We are honest, hence we give you this warning.

Hulagu’s plans regarding Egypt which he pointed out here, if merely for comparison. ing message to Cairo (ed. transl.): “Tell the coming accompanied by naked sabers and

was unable to realize may be In 1260 he sent the followland of Egypt that Hulagu is penetrating swords; he shall

humiliate the powerful,.tell of the great and send the children after the

aged.” 96. [Lemkin’s footnote] Hammer I, 146. 97. [Lemkin’s footnote] Howorth III, 127. 98. [Lemkin’s footnote] Curtin, 259-60. Also Hammer I, 175-6. 99. [Lemkin’s footnote] Hammer I, 201.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

251

Motivation

As in the other cases of the Mongols, revenge was a dominant motive in much of the genocide committed under Hulagu. Before Baghdad, one of the favorites of Hulagu’s following, an Indian, had an eye shot out during deliberations with the Caliph’s party. Hulagu is reported to have been so

furious at this incident that he refused all delay and ordered all the inhabitants out of the city after which they were all slaughtered.'!°° At Harim, Hulagu was deeply offended because the garrison did not want to surrender to anyone except the Moslem judge of Haleb (they only trusted the oath of aMoslem with regard to their safety);'°' thus the Mongol commander ordered the massacre of all the inhabitants despite his promises.'°? The Georgian troops which so enthusiastically helped in the sack and slaughter at Baghdad were repaying the Moslem city for the ravages committed on

Christians in Georgia and elsewhere in the past.'° Desire for grain was of course present throughout Hulagu’s genocidal campaigns to which the overwhelming accounts of loot especially from Baghdad bear witness. Expediency, perhaps more than any other motive, played a part in the destruction of the Caliphate and the fortresses of the Assassins. Until the 1250s the Mongols had not been able to conquer the west of Asia. The Caliphate and the Assassins were formidable powers which prevented Mongol infiltration in the west.'* Howorth believes that Hulagu might have spared the Caliph’s life if his Shia advisors had not counseled against it,!° reminding him of the Caliph’s moral influence over Moslems and their troops everywhere. Sheer sadistic pleasure in killing probably played its part as a motive especially among the soldiery. One of Hulagu’s Moslem advisors expressed fear and dismay at his determination to capture and sack Baghdad. An astrologer in Hulagu’s ser-

vice predicted six great calamities in the case of the siege of the capital.'°° 100. 101. 102. 103. 104.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Hammer I, 151-2. Curtin, 266. Hammer I, 186. Howorth III, 126. Spuler, 49.

105. [Lemkin’s footnote] Howorth III, 127.

106. [Lemkin’s footnote] Curtin, 250.

252

Chapter Two

Once in the city, Hulagu spared Christians who assembled in one of

their churches. This act of mercy may have been due to the influence of his Nestorian wife, Tokus. Rationalization

After Baghdad was taken, Hulagu challenged the assembled doctors of law there with : “ Who is to be preferred, a just, unbelieving ruler, or a Mussulman [Muslim] ruler, who is unjust?” The dignitaries at first hesitated but then a famous scholar replied solemnly in Hulagu’s favor.'®’ Deceit

Hulagu had all inhabitants of Harim exterminated despite the fact that he had promised them protection.'® Submission

Ibn Athir (Muslim historian, 1160-1233) relates that he heard about a Mongol wishing to kill a prisoner and finding himself without any weapon, commanded the wretch to lie down. He went to get a sword and when he returned the terror-stricken victim had not moved. He then killed him with ease.'°’ The same chronicler reports the story of another eyewitness: “I was on the road with seventeen other men. We saw a Tatar horseman come up to us. He ordered us to tie up our companions, each man to bind up the other’s arms behind his back. The others were beginning to obey him, when [ said to them: ‘This man is alone. Let us kill him and escape.” They replied, ‘We are too much afraid.’ ‘But this man will kill you,’ I said. ‘Let’s do for him and perhaps Allah will preserve us.’ Yet, by my faith, not one of the seventeen dared do it. So I killed the Tatar with a blow of my knife. We all ran away and saved ourselves.”!'°

Escape When the Mongols were approaching Baghdad, the people of surrounding towns and communities fled in haste to that city. They gave bracelets, 107. [Lemkin’s footnote] Howorth III, 132. 108. [Lemkin’s footnote] Hammer I, 185. 109. [Lemkin’s footnote] Lamb, 61; also briefly Sykes, 167. 110.

[Lemkin’s footnote] Lamb, 62.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

253

brocaded robes, and large sums of money to the boatmen to be transported over the Tigris [River] to Baghdad.'!'! The Nassir’s [Arabic, “Protector” Syrian army was disbanded before it could offer effective resistance to the approaching Mongol armies. At a council held among Egyptian and Syrian leaders, it was decided to send the families of Nassir, his officers

and warriors to Egypt. The general escape to Egypt was contagious. A “large throng of people” went. Officers left, as if to take farewell of their families, but many of them never returned.''? When the Mongol marched on Aleppo, multitudes of its populace left in haste for Damascus, and from

Damascus many as from the pest which was then raging in Damascus, and throughout Syria. The refugees were mercilessly robbed on the way.'” From Mosul about one thousand people had managed to flee to the mountains before the Mongols ravaged the city.'"4 Political Subordination

In Mardin, northern Mesopotamia, Muzaffar ad Din [?] poisoned his father who had led a heroic resistance against the Mongol besiegers for six months. Muzaffar then surrendered his city to the Mongols and was rewarded for his “service” by being granted the rule of his territory.'! Damascus surrendered to the Mongols before the Mongols were at the city walls and thus was saved.''° Resistance

The fortresses of the Assyrians did not all surrender at the bid of their leader. The fortress of Meimdiz resisted a siege; when chief Assassin Rokn ud-din’s (d. 1236?) brother left the fortress to surrender, he was threatened with death by the inhabitants; all others declaring for surrender

were also threatened.'"’ The Caliph’s troops fought the Mongols repeatedly but were pitifully exterminated.''® 11f. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Howorth III, 121. Curtin, 262. Curtin, 264. Hammer I, 195. Spuler, 58. Hammer I, 182. Curtin, 245. Howorth III, 121-2.

254

Chapter Two

Nassir’s answer to Hulagu’s insolent letter (see section on genocidists’ intent) reads as follows: +119 To say that God has removed from your hearts every pity. That is the condition of devils, not sovereigns. But is it not strange to threaten lions with

bruises, tigers with hyenas, and heroes with clodhoppers? Resistance to you is obedience to the Highest. If we slay you our prayers have been answered; if ye slay us we go into paradise. We will not flee from death to exist in opprobrium. If we survive we are happy; if we die we are martyrs. Ye demand that obedience which we render the vicar of the Prophet, ye shall not have

it; we would rather go to the place in which he is. Tell the man who indicted your message that we care no more for his words that for the buzz of a fly or the squeak of a Persian fiddle.

Some troops of Aleppo including a large number of civilians marched out of the city despite Prince Poazzam’s [?] order not to resist the oncoming Mongols. They attacked the Mongols from a mountain nearby but were quickly driven back to the city; on being summoned to surrender, exclaimed: “There is nothing between thee and me but the saber.”’!”° The city resisted the Mongol onslaught for one week. Miafarakain resisted the Mongol siege for months until it was forced to surrender from starvation. When the Mongols entered the city they found only seventy half-starved and mutilated soldiers and two mounted soldiers who had repeatedly made courageous attacks during the siege and now battled the Mongols surging into the city until they too succumbed.'!

Demoralization

The Moslem astronomer and poet, Nassireddin (1200-1273), had for a long time nurtured a deep hatred for the Caliph who had once thrown a poem ofhis into the Tigris [River]. Greatly offended, the poet had left the

Caliph’s court for one of the fortresses of the Assassins. There his protectors were warned by the Caliph’s vizier against sheltering him. Nasireddin, now more hostile than ever, first subjected himself to the Mongols

when the latter were attacking the Assassins, and was of great service to them in this campaign. Then he facilitated the fall of the Caliph by giv119, [Lemkin’s footnote] Curtin, 260; see also Hammer 1, 78-9. 120. [Lemkin’s footnote] Curtin, 264; also Hammer I, 183. 121. [Lemkin’s footnote] Hammer I, 188-9.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

255

ing the favorable prophecy regarding Hulagu’s destiny in Baghdad. The vizier Alkamiyi who was instrumental in the Caliph’s insult to Nassireddin, as well as in the warning to the Assassins, committed treason on his part. He felt neglected at the Caliph’s court and besides was a member of the anti—Caliph Shia sect. In a secret letter to Hulagu, he minimized the power of the Caliph and invited the Mongols to invade Mesopotamia and take Baghdad.'” Most of his critics have denounced Alkamiyi as a traitor. Books used in colleges were for a long time inscribed with the following motto: “May he be cursed by God who will not curse Ibn ul Alkamiyi.”! Terror

The amazing effect on the behavior of victims of extreme fear, which robs them of all will for resistance, hypnotizes them into submission, as it were, have been discussed under the section on submission.

In Damascus there reigned such terror at the news of the sack of Aleppo that the panic-stricken people sold their belongings for a song; the value of camels—the chief means of transportation—rose to fabulous heights.'”4

HULAGU—RESPONSES

OF OUTSIDE GROUPS

Indifference

The Moslem princes were shortsighted enough not to speed to the aid of the Caliph when Baghdad was threatened by the Mongols.'”

Condoning Already in 1238, Rukn ud Din, the Grand Master of the Assassins, dis-

patched an embassy to Europe, which visited the various capitals. They pleased the cause of the Assassins who were in danger from the Mongols, but their plans were met by indifference if not actual condoning of Mongol genocide. The Bishop of Winchester is reputed to have said: “Let 122. [Lemkin’s footnote] Hammer, 141-2.

123. [Lemkin’s footnote] Howorth III, 137. 124. [Lemkin’s footnote] Curtin, 265. 125. [Lemkin’s footnote] Spuler, 52.

256

Chapter Two

those dogs devour each other and be utterly wiped out and then we shall see, founded on these ruins, the universal Catholic Church.”!”° In 1260, Hulagu received a letter from the Pope [Alexander IV, 1199-1261] in which the pontiff expressed his joy at hearing that Hulagu

was inclined to become Catholic. (This was merely a rumor based on the fact that Hulagu, on the entreaties of his Nestorian wife, Tokus Khatun,

protected Christians.)'*’ Collaboration

The basis for Christian collaboration with the Mongols was their common hatred of Islamic nations for different reasons.'*® A letter from Edward I (1239-1307) to Hulagu’s son and successor Abaga (1234-1282) is of interest in this connection:!'” Brother David has arrived at our Court and presented letters sent through your envoys to the Holy Father and other Christian Kings. We note in them the love you bear to the Christian faith, and the resolution you have taken to relieve the Christians and the Holy Land from the enemies of Christianity. We pray Your Magnificence to carry out this holy project. We cannot at this time send you any certain news about the time of our arrival in the Holy Land, and of the march of the Christians, since at this moment nothing has been settled by the Sovereign Pontiff. (dated 1274 or 1275)

It should be noted that this letter was written after the Mongol invasions of Europe. This son of Hulagu’s married a natural daughter of Byzantine Emperor Michael Palaeologus (1223-1282), The letter written by Pope Alexander IV to Hulagu which has been mentioned above, contained also the following: “Think how your power to subjugate the Saracens will be increased if Christian warriors assist you openly and with force, as with God’s grace they would, sustained by Divine power under this shield of Christianity. In shaping your actions by Catholic teaching you will heighten your power and acquire endless glory.”!?!

126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Sykes, Sykes, Sykes, Sykes, Ibid. Curtin,

172. 176. 181. 177. 294.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

257

AFTERMATH Cultural Losses

The cultural iosses brought about by the genocidal campaigns of Hulagu were as tragic as those perpetrated by Jenghis Khan on Transoxania and Persian Kwaresm. According to Althunian, “the Orient was like a desert.”!*? It could not recover for many centuries.'* In a sense it was the deathblow to the cultural world leadership of Central and Western Asia. The destruction of the Caliphate was perhaps the greatest single blow dealt to Moslem civilization. “The awful nature of the cataclysm which set back the hands of the clock of progress among Moslem states, and thereby indirectly throughout the world, it [is] difficult to realize and

impossible to exaggerate,” exclaims Sykes.'*4 Material Deterioration

Material harm done by Mongol genocide was no less tragic, at least from the human point of view. Famines broke out in Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia-Minor, and Iraq-Arabia as a result of the Mongol invasions;'*> the general devastation and the lack of shelter contributed to the misery of the survivors. (Asia Minor had been devastated to such an extent that Greek

farmers could charge fanciful prices for their agricultural products there. Cambridge Medieval History, Volume IV, page 499.)

Political Consequences As a result of Hulagu’s conquests, Persia was made a national unit for the first time in six hundred years.'*° He became the founder of a Mongol Persian dynasty, the IIkhans. This ruling House reigned from Byzantine [Byzantium] to China (Mongol Prince Baidu had subdued Asia Minor while Hulagu conquered Persia, Caucasia, and Syria), and from Jagatai’s domain in Central Asia to Egypt. Between 1258 and 1335 no serious challenge presented itself to the IIkhans’ power.'*’ Only Egypt could not 132. [Lemkin’s footnote] Altunian, 13.

133. 134. 135. 136. 137.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Ibid. Sykes, 175. Encyclopedia Britannica, “Mongol Campaigns.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 17, page 587. bid.

258

Chapter Two

be conquered and remained a formidable military power. The empire prospered under Hulagu’s son Abaga who married a natural daughter of Michael Palaeologus, Byzantine ruler. His brother, Nikudar, succeeded in 1281 and was converted to Islam. He committed genocide against Christians in contrast to his predecessors, and allied himself with the Mongols elsewhere who detested Christianity (Jagatai and the Golden Horde).'** With this change to Islam, the IIkhan relations with Egypt and Europe changed. No longer were attempts made to subdue the Mamluk Empire and to collaborate with Europe on Crusade plans.'*? However, Ghazan Ikan, who ruled 1295 to 1304, defeated an Egyptian army despite the fact that he adopted Islam and was the first Mongol ruler to induce large numbers of his nomad subjects to do likewise.'*° Ghazan became famous for his wise administration and financial reforms. After his death the IIkhan dynasty disintegrated. It was broken up into five smaller dynasties and the empire lay helpless when a new dynamic Mongol-Turkish meteor swept over it—Tamerlane (1336-1405).

Internal conflict and war between two major Mongol dynasties—the IiIkhan and the Golden Horde—undermined the strength of the Mongols in Western Asia even before Hulagu’s swords of conquest had ceased to flash. Berke (d. 1266), then ruler of the Golden Horde, resented the lack of consideration given for the participation of his armies in the West

Asia campaigns of Hulagu. The Caucasus, with the kingdom of George, had completely passed into Hulagu’s hands . . . [illegible] . . . between Berke and Hulagu exploded into bloody conflict in the Caucasus. Being a Moslem, Berke had also resented the campaign against the Caliphate; besides, many of his troops had deserted to Moslem Egypt and even some high officers of Hulagu’s army had followed their example, weakening his forces considerably.'*!

Sociocultural Changes The sociocultural implications of the creation of an Iranian (Persian) kingdom by the Ilkhans were far-reaching.'? It stamped the area with a new 138. 139. 140. 141. 142.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Op. cit., 588. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Spuler, 59.

Assyrians in Iraq... Christians

259

national unity and it stamped, in turn, its conquerors. The suggestive force of the motto: “One God in Heaven, one ruler on earth!” which had animated Jenghiz Khan was gradually diminished by the impact of national dynastic problems,'* no less than by the influences of Islam.'4 The effect on Mongol behavior through gradual Moslemization can be gleaned from Ghazan IIkhan’s treatment of Damascus on his campaign into Syria and Egypt. Instead of simply threatening with genocide in case of resistance and later letting his troops run amok in the city, Ghazan issued a proclamation after the city’s submission, in which he liberally quoted from the Koran and made himself out as the deliverer of the city from a bad monarch. Then he kept his soldiers outside the city and did not even allow the famous gardens to be damaged. However, it seems that Ghazan’s humane attitude was not entirely shared by his soldiers, and his Armenian allies who had desired revenge on the Moslems for past injuries.’ Hulagu had already begun the work of cultural reconstruction. Certain artisans were selected from each town, one from each of the small ones and two from

the large ones, who were sent to repair the ruins; they were exempt from all taxation except that they had to supply bread and soup to Mongols passing their way.'*° * KOK OK OK

EDITOR’S NOTE While Lemkin does not supply a Bibliography of his sources at the end of this chapter—and they do not appear anywhere else—consulting the

various bibliographies attached to other chapters will help provide insight into the sources he consulted.

UPDATED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“The Case for Iraq” (1934). Journal of The Royal Central Asian Society, 2\(1):

38-55.

143. 144. 145. 146.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Spuler, 26. Ibid. Sykes, 189. Howorth III, 211.

260

Chapter Two

Davidson, Nigel G. (1925). “The Constitution of Iraq.” Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 7(1): 41-52. Husry, Khaldun S. (1933). “The Assyrian Affair of 1933 (1).” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 5(2); 161-176. Husry, Khaldun S. (1933). “The Assyrian Affair of 1933 (II).” Jnternational Journal of Middle East Studies, 5(3): 344-360. Levine, Isaac Don. The Resurrected Nations: Short Histories of the Peoples Freed by the Great War and Statements of Their National Claims. New York: Frederick A. Stokes, 1919.

Stafford, R. S. (1934). “Iraq and the Problem of the Assyrians.” /nternational

Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1931-1939), 13(2): 159-185.

Chapter Six

Chios

BACKGROUND On April 5, 1821, at the outbreak of the Greek war of liberation, twenty-

five Greek ships appeared near Chios, and [Jakomaki] Tombasis, their leader, urgently asked the Chiotes to join the fight against the Turks. The Chiotes refused emphatically for the following reasons: Chios merchants had settled everywhere. Big and small merchants lived in Turkish towns. The wealthy young were educated in Smyrna and Constantinople. The Chiotes had managed to get favorable treatment from the Turks, partly by maintaining some rich merchants in Constantinople

who, by greasing the right palms, influenced the choice of the Turkish governor for the island. In case of war, a great number of people would be taken hostages and great riches destroyed. Therefore, they declined to enter the fight. After the appearance of Tombasis, the Turkish Musselim asked about thirty of the most prominent Greek families to assemble in the Castle, together with the demogerontes (the Greek administrators), pretending to wish to deliberate with them; in reality, to hold them there as hostages for

the quiet ofthe island. They were kept in a Turkish coffeehouse, all in the same low room. After a few days, their number was increased to forty-six, plus twelve from the Mastix villages (the villages where mastix was cultivated). Later the hostages were exchanged for others, a monthly turnover, which lasted for about a year. Only the archbishop and one diaconus (deacon) were kept throughout this time. Even severely sick persons were not allowed to go home to their families and two died. In January 1822, three of the most 261

262

Chapter Six

prominent were sent to Constantinople and there held in the Bostandshibaschi prison. After Tombasis left the island, the Turks demanded all the weapons and wrote to Constantinople for troops and material. Soon one thousand armed Turks appeared; a wild Asiatic horde, with-

out any officers, who day after day committed murder, robberies, and mistreatments. The people remained locked in their houses. Neither the orders of the Sultan nor the threats of the Kapudan-Pasha could stay them. All traffic stopped, the ships which had brought food from Asia Minor did not come any longer, and a rebellion threatened to break out which was prevented only by the demogerontes who distributed food among the poor. Finally the wealthy and influential Chiotes at Constantinople managed to have a high Turkish official, Bachet Pasha, sent with 1,100 soldiers who

stopped the outrage. The people sighed with relief. But soon Bachet Pasha, a formidable tyrant, began to extort money. He demanded nine thousand thaler monthly for the upkeep of the troops and took four thousand centner of wheat which the demogerontes had stored for the use of the islanders. The Turkish soldiers took whatever they found in eatables, chased the salesmen from the market. Bachet had orange trees cut down, ordered masons, carpenters, and peasants to hard labor at the

fortresses where they were chastised or killed if he felt like it. Suddenly a rumor sprang up that preparations were being made at Samos to liberate the island of Chios, which frightened the inhabitants, because they were sure then of complete ruin. The archbishop and the demogerontes sent priests and emissaries to Samos and begged them not to undertake anything against the Turks. Yet, soon another rumor circulated that eighteen people from Samos had landed on the island in the north. A few days later many ships from Samos were sighted. The Pasha, at once, took the hostages from the café into the castle. On March 23, 1822, the Samos fleet anchored near the city of Samos

and after cannon fire, put two thousand soldiers on land under the leadership of Lycurgos Logothetis (1772-1850) from Samos. Logothetis had undertaken the trip at the urging of Antonios Burnias, peasant from Chios, who had fought in Egypt under Napolean (Bonaparte,

1769-1821). Burnias was ambitious, uneducated, and a braggard. The demogerontes informed the Pasha of the landing of the soldiers. Six hundred soldiers were sent against them, but were driven back with heavy losses into the castle.

Chios

263

The people from Samos soon showed that they had come less for liberation than for pillaging. They burned down some Turkish houses, desecrated some mosques, and then broke into Greek warehouses and proceeded to send as much loot as possible back to Samos. Soon they were joined by some poor peasants from the mastix villages. Within a few days, a wild mob, armed with sticks, sickles, even forks

fastened to sticks, circulated in the streets of Chios—and singing psalms or songs of liberty and hiding whenever there was a rumor of Turkish soldiers appearing. Lycurgos Logothetis, accompanied by Antonios Burnias, installed himself in the palace of the archbishop and announced to the demogerontes that from now on the administration of Chios would be in the hands of six people of his choice. He wrote to Psara and Corinth for war material and thereupon was promised several canons and a number of philhelenes for the planning of the battle. They arrived after the destruction of Chios. The soldiers from Samos began shooting at the castle, while the Turkish soldiers bombarded the town from the castle, while the worst anarchy prevailed among the citizens. Logothetis and Burnias began to quarrel, each one claiming to be the first leader, while many soldiers from Samos

returned secretly to their own island, and those who remained showed more enthusiasm for pillaging than for fighting the Turks. Many wealthy people tried to leave the island, but were prevented by Burnias, who jailed them to prevent their flight. In the middle of this disorder appeared the Turkish fleet. It was April

bie eS 22, They anchored near the city and began at once to fire upon the city. Terror spread and everyone fled, some into the European consulates, some into the mountains. The Turks landed and massacred and burned and robbed systematically until twenty-three thousand were killed and fortyseven thousand were taken and later sold into slavery. In Chios only about five thousand remained, most poor peasants. Those of the merchants who escaped refused to return, but rather preferred to carry on their trade in England and elsewhere; thus was the ruin of the island completed, and not even the terrible earthquake which occurred eight years ago was required to render this once flourishing island a desert.!

1. [Lemkin’s footnote] J. Theodore Bent, 480.

264

Chapter Six

TECHNIQUE When the Turks descended upon the city they murdered everything in sight. Shouting like wild animals, they rushed through the streets. Girls and children were dragged away into slavery. Those who had fled into the interior of the island tried to escape to other islands. The fleet of the Psariotes [from the Greek island of Psara], which had come to fight the Turks, realized that the fight was hopeless and managed to bring a number of refugees into safety. The majority of the people wandered about the wild mountainside, cowering in caves, their shoes torn, their feet bleeding, suffering from hunger and thirst and cold at night. Two days after their arrival, the Turks finished with the city and systematically explored the hinterland. They hunted the people down in their hiding places and killed them—all men over eighteen, all women over sixteen, all children under two. The rest were carried away into slavery. An amnesty was announced in order to entice people to return to their homes, where they were killed. An old priest of Voliss6 told [Themistokles von] Eckenbrecher (1842-1921): “When the Turks came for the second time, the real horror began. Nobody was hidden anymore—and those who hid in a rush were soon found. Just as we used to hunt partridges in the mountains, so they tracked down the people and shot them. Most of those who were saved pretended to be dead and hid among the corpses.”

PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTIONS According to Turkish thinking the infidels were allowed to exist—if at a lower level. But in case of revolt, they were regarded as so much vermin which deserved only to be destroyed. In contrast to the other people under Turkish rule, the Chiotes were not

willing to fight. We hear only one act of revenge during the massacre, and that was committed by the Psariot [Constantine] Kanaris (1793/1795— 1877). On July 1, 1822, he burned the admiral’s ship of Kapudan Pasha in the harbor of Chios. Dulsiniotis [?], the admiral, managed to reach land, where he died from the consequences of his burns. With him, two thousand Turks perished.

Chios

265

WHO WAS GUILTY? When the Sultan heard about the arrival of the people from Samos at Chios and the uprising, he decided the fate of Chios with three words: “fire, sword, slavery!” Almost all the prominent Chiotes at Constantinople and the three hostages from the island were killed. The governors in Asia Minor were informed and Kapudan Pasha was ordered to exterminate the people of Chios. Kapudan Pasha faithfully executed his master’s will, and even resorted to treachery. Helped by the infamous Bachet Pasha, he was determined, after the slaughter of the city people, to reach all the refugees in the mountains. He ordered the European consuls and the archbishop to announce an amnesty. Everyone who returned would be forgiven. He showed a fake order from the Sultan to that effect. Without the slightest suspicion, the consuls sent messengers into the country. The refugees were overjoyed. They sent seventy men to Kapudan Pasha to thank him. They were hung the same day by Kapudan Pasha on the masts of his ships. The following day the archbishop and all the hostages were killed, seventy-five in all, who were in the castle. Practically all of those who returned because of the amnesty were killed or sold as slaves. Guilty also were the hordes from the coast of Asia Minor who heard of the slaughter, and, judging this a good moment for pillaging, arrived in small boats and helped to increase the horror.

AFTERMATH Estimates of the number of those killed or sold into slavery vary. Konstantinos Oekonomos (1780-1857), preaching at Odessa in July 1822, put the number at eighty thousand. Twenty thousand who had been saved by the Psariotes and through the help of the European consuls dispersed like the Jews all over the world. Eight thousand went to Trieste [Italy], others to Greece. Many went to London,

Manchester,

Liverpool,

Astrachan

[Russia],

Teheran,

North

and-South America. Only ten thousand, most poor peasants, remained in Chios. Chios had been a flouishing island. The many who lived abroad always came back there in their last years, brining their considerable riches. It

266

Chapter Six

had been a center of culture, of serene living. Following the disaster, the trades, for which they had been famous, died out—the stonemasons, the

shipbuilders, the weavers. In 1780, there had been twelve thousand looms in Chios, and silk, although abundantly manufactured on the island, had

to be imported to supply them. The end products had been compared to those of Lyon [France]. The city had been beautiful with gardens which were admired by all travelers. The houses were equipped with all the luxuries of the Orient [East] and Occident [West], and the wine of Chios had kept the flame which it acquired in antiquity. The women had been famous for their beauty. A school had been founded in 1792, kept up by contributions from the rich, which soon acquired a great reputation in the Near East. The school was a heap of rubble after the Turks had done with it. Its library of twelve thousand books was destroyed. Innumerable churches were razed. The island where [the eighth-century Greek poet] Homer is said to have lived and which had been praised by [the Greek historian] Heroditus (484-425 BCE) and by numerous travelers since, was as completely ruined as if an earthquake had destroyed it.

[LEMKIN’S] BIBLIOGRAPHY L’isle de Chio. H. Pernot. 1903. Die Insel Chios. Gustave von Eckenbrecher. 1845. “The Lords of Chios.” J. Theodore Bent. (English Historical Review, July 1889,

p. 467.) Various Encyclopedias.

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Bent, J. Theodore (1889). ““The Lords of Chios.” The English Historical Review,

4(15): 467-480.

Vikelas, Demitrios. Louis Laras: Reminiscences of a Chiote Merchant during the War of Independence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 1881.

Chapter Eleven Hereros

The Herercs were a pastoral people who lived in small settlements scattered over the wide area of their ancestral highland territory. Their language was Bantu, and they were proudly conscious of their tribal heritage. Although they did some farming, the Hereros’ almost exclusive diet of milk and meat made them vitally dependent on their large herds of cattle, for which they had a worshipful devotion. The cattle were believed to belong to the Hereros’ ancestors, and, as such, were considered sacred,

for the Hereros were ancestor worshipers. The Hereros were discovered by the missionary Schmelen, a German by birth, who was sent out by the London Missionary Society. Schmelen found the climate healthful and the people peaceable, though good warriors. They soon became converted to Christianity and seemed eager to learn the ways of the Christian world, for the Herero women quickly adopted the Victorian mode of dress, and, ever since, have modestly appeared in the long full skirts and tight waists of the period. In 1878, Chief [Samuel] Kamaherero (1854—1923) wrote through an intermediary to the British Governor at the Cape: “We want to see our children grow up more civilized than we have any chance of being, and so, after many meetings among ourselves, we have agreed most humbly to ask Your Excellency to send someone to rule us and be the head of our country.” Great Britain did not accede to this request, and consequently, in 1884, Germany was able to make this land part of its Protectorate, though in reality it was occupied as a territorial colony.

267

268

Chapter Eleven

GERMAN When the German very often without it became evident they possessed the

COLONIAL RULE

immigrants arrived, they settled wherever they pleased, making any attempt to acquire the land legally. Soon that the German colonists would not be satisfied until land. As Paul von Rohrback (1869-1956) wrote: “The

decision to colonize South West Africa could, after all, mean nothing but

this: that the native tribes would have to give up their lands on which they had previously grazed their stock in order that the white man should have the land for the grazing of his own.”! In conformity with this determination, “most of the Hereros’ land, or the best of it, was parceled out among

German colonists and the land companies.”” The missionaries described the method by which the natives were stripped of their land: Almost all land sales are accomplished in the following manner: the Hereros buy (goods) on credit, or rather, as is characteristically said here, “on the road to bankruptcy,” from the merchants, who frequently saddle them, against their will, with all sorts of merchandise and not at all useful and good articles, but often perfectly superfluous articles of clothing, which they are encouraged by the merchants in question, by every means possible, to buy as long as the natives still own something, either cattle or land.’

In this way the lazy colonists rapidly fell into an easy method of earning a living, and the Hereros found themselves always in debt. Under the German treaty with the Hereros, strict equality of the two races was recognized. But flogging, by means of birch rods, straps, and the infamous sjambok* became the officials’ standard disciplinary measures, administered for real or imagined offences of far less importance than a misdemeanor. Despite elaborate measures designed to conceal this practice from the outside world, eventually it came to the attention of certain deputies in Germany who strongly condemned it in speeches in the Reichstag.° 1. [Lemkin’s footnote] Deutsche Kolonial Wirtschaft. 2. [Lemkin’s footnote] Elf Jahre Gouverneur in Sud-west Afrika, [Theodor] Leutwein (1849— 1921), p. 270. Theodor Gotthilf Leutwein was colonial administrator of German Southwest Africa

from 3. 4. long 5.

1894-1904. [Lemkin’s footnote] [Lemkin’s footnote] by one centimeter in [Lemkin’s footnote]

stag, December 3, 1906.

Op. cit., Th. Leutwein, p. 270. The sjambok is made of strips of rhinoceros hide, 80 to 100 centimeters circumference. [August] Bebel (1840-1913), Reichstag, March 20, 1906; Roren, Reich-

Hereros

269

In legal disputes over property, the Hereros were the losers (if indeed a property dispute reached the courts). In criminal cases, they experienced an astonishing demonstration ofthe relative value of human life. In a table prepared by Von Leutwein® (the colonial governor from 1894 to 1905) of specific murder cases tried in the courts over a period of eighteen years, these ratios emerge: for the murder of seven whites, fifteen natives were

condemned to death; for the murder of five natives, five whites received an aggregate sentence of eleven years and three months imprisonment. For natives accused of murder, no distinction was made between first- and

second-degree murder. According to Von Leutwein, governor of the colony from 1894 to 1905, the German colonial view (with which he did not agree) was: “It is only just and strictly conforms to the aims of colonialization in this territory that all land should pass from the natives to the whites.”” Von Leutwein seems to have attempted to govern the native tribes with some degree of humanity and regard for their rights and native customs. But the German administration was generally carried out by poorly qualified officials. In the Reichstag, Conservative Deputy Dr. [Otto] Arendt (1854-1936) declared: “It is unfortunately not to be denied that amongst the many faults which we have committed in our colonial policy must be included the fact that in the beginning, the colonies served as a dumping ground for damaged reputations, and that unsuitable elements were often sent out.”* And [Otto von] Bismarck (1858-1898) foresaw the results of a colonial policy carried out on Prussian lines: “No success could be hoped for from transplanting the

Prussian government official and his bureaucratic system to Africa.” Under such conditions, the small native constabulary which the Germans established in 1887 to protect German interests proved inadequate. After the first Herero uprising the following year, this native constabulary was disbanded in favor of a European police force which was gradually increased in strength. [Editor’s Note: At this point, several pages are missing from this chapter and have yet to be discovered—SLJ] Then they, the former masters of the bush, would be confined within the

narrow boundaries of reservations. The Hereros’ basic sense of patriotism 6. [Lemkin’s footnote] L’Expansion allemande hors d'Europe, p. 231. 7. [Lemkin’s footnote] Leutwein quotes from an article in the Deutsche Sud-west Afrikanische Zeitung. 8. [Lemkin’s footnote] Reichstag, March 15, 1906.

270

Chapter Eleven

made them fully aware of the political abasement of their country, and when the rebellion came, their hatred turned on the Germans alone, and even

among the Germans they distinguished between those who had treated them fairly and those who had brought about their ruin. With their cumulative experience at the hands of the Germans and the above accounts of final incidents, a feeling of rebellion spread all over the land until but a slight event was needed to start the explosion. The theft of a sheep started the rebellion of the Bondelzwarts [1922] and all the garrisons were emptied of soldiers to combat this uprising. [Editor’s Note: Again, a single page is missing here also—SLJ]

REBELLION The attitude of the colonists became more violent than ever and public opinion in Germany joined them in condemnation. It became necessary to sacrifice both Von Leutwein and his colonial policy, and, in May 1904, he was recalled and the troops placed under General [Lothar] von Trotha (1848-1920). Before the arrival of von Trotha, the Hereros, with between six thou-

sand and seven thousand rifles, threatened the military posts and settlements along the line from Swakopmund to Windhoek. But when the reinforcements arrived in a few months from Germany, the Hereros were driven toward the north. Soon they were but a confused and fleeing mass, driving their sheep and cattle from oasis to oasis. Stopped finally by the red wall of Waterberg, they were forced to do battle (August 10-12, 1904). For two days it appeared that they were holding the Germans in check, but suddenly, however, they were overcome with panic and fled, some into the Omaheke desert, others, under their Chief Samuel Maherero, to the Kalahari Desert.

Pastor Irle [?] estimated that fourteen thousand Hereros were thus driven into the desert to die, and Pastor Schowalter [?] stated that “after the battles in the Waterberg, the rebels disappeared in the sand desert, and here the bones of 12,000 to 15,000 men lie bleaching. Five thousand may have fallen in the battles and thousands more in the concentration camps

and railway work.’ 9. [Lemkin’s footnote] Gartenlaube, 1907 [Gartenlaube, German “Gazebo,” was a German family magazine which began publication in 1856.]

Hereros

271

Later in 1904, General von Trotha issued the following proclamation: !, the great General of the German soldiers, send this letter to the Herero

nation. The Hereros are no long German citizens. They have murdered and robbed, then they have cut off the ears and noses, and other members, of wounded soldiers, and they are now too cowardly to fight. Whosever brings one of the chieftains as a prisoner to one of my stations shall receive 1,000 marks, and for Samuel Herero (their leader) I will pay 5,000 marks. The Herero nation must now leave the country. If the people do it not, I will compel them with the big tube. Within the German frontier every Herero, with or without rifle, with or without cattle, will be shot.

J will not take over any more women and children, but I will either drive them back or have them fired on. The Great General of the Mighty Emperor, von Trotha.'°

After the defeat of the Hereros at the Waterberg, von Trotha reported to Berlin: The making of terms with the Hereros is impossible, seeing that their chiefs ... have rendered themselves so liable that the German Government could not treaty with them. I regard the acceptance of a more or less voluntary surrender as a possible means of building up the old tribal organizations again, and as such it would be a great political mistake."

[Editor’s Note: The next two paragraphs are badly damaged in the original manuscript and omitted here.]

By the end of 1905, official extermination had reduced the Herero people from ninety thousand to fifteen thousand. As Professor [Moritz Julius] Bonn (1873-1965) of Munich wrote: “In South-West Africa we solved the native problem by smashing tribal life and by creating a scarcity of labor.”

GENOCIDE As a result of von Trotha’s proclamation, the fleeing Hereros were relentlessly pursued and cut down. The following excerpts from eyewitness accounts show how this order was carried out and the effects of the “amnesty” issued by his successor [Friedrich] von Lindequist (1862-1945). 10. [Lemkin’s footnote] The Rape of Africa, p. 276. 11. [Lemkin’s footnote] Judgment on German Africa, p. 63.

272

Chapter Eleven

From soldiers who returned to Germany after the Herero campaign: The further we went in the burning sun, the more disheartening became our journey. .. . There lay the wounded and old, the women and children. . . . Babies lay helplessly languishing by mothers whose breasts hung down long and flabby. Others were lying alone, still living, with eyes and noses full of flies... . All this life lay scattered there . . . broken in the knees,

helpless and motionless. It looked as if it had all been thrown down out of the air. At noon we halted by waterholes which were filled to the very brim with corpses. The Germans were pitilessly driving them into the desert. .. . Single tribes were trying to detach themselves from the main body and break through to the west to escape a death from thirst... . They were stopped and driven back. At one point five men and eight or ten women and children were found squatting about a dismal little fire. We led the men away to one side and shot them. The women and children . . . we hunted into the bush. As I was peering by chance into some bushes . . . | saw, among and under them, people sitting in crowds . . . quite motionless. The heads of some dropped as if they were asleep. . . . Breathing fast and hard, their mouths open, they regarded us with stupid eyes. From F. Wepener, a Dutchman, in the Cape Argus: At Okanjiso, about February 12th, 1905, I saw a number of women and chil-

dren executed. ... They were strung up to trees by the neck and then shot. ... The women who were captured and not executed are set to work for the military as prisoners . . . performing the hard work in such a condition of starvation that they were nothing [but] skin and bones.

From another witness in the same paper (Cape Argus, Sept. 25, 1905): You will see (the Hereros) carrying very heavy loads on their heads along the shore, in connection with the harbor works, and they are made to work

until they fall down. While I was there, there were-five or six deaths every day. The other women have to bury them. . . . If one falls down of sheer exhaustion, as they constantly do, they are sjakboked.'*

From a group of leading Hereros who had survived the massacre: 12. [Lemkin’s footnote] The sjambok is made of strips of rhinoceros hide, 80 to 100 centimeters

long by one centimeter in circumference.

Hereros

273

After 1906, the end of the rebellion, we were placed by the Germans in kraals. In these kraals our people suffered terribly from cold. No sanitation had been provided for, so that disease soon broke out, especially among the women. Since that time, disease had been in their blood and is transmitted

to the children. Medical aid was unobtainable. Not only was (the food) insufficient, but it was ofa nature that we did not know and was mostly rice.

Then our bodies began to swell, joints became painful and gums started to bleed. After a few days death usually followed. Those who survived never fully recovered and always complained of pain in the joints. Under all this we had to hard labour, even the women having to pull wagons or carry heavy loads of ammunition on the head. . . . Our womenfolk never fully recovered and complain to this day of pain over the abdominal regions. As regards the men—they lost all claim on their women. Our wives were forced to go and work for their white man and the men were taken to copper and diamond mines or put on railway construction works. In this way, many of our deported wives and daughters later returned either pregnant or with a child from a white man. This obligation to go and work for the white man was not a government ordinance, but white men came to the kraals and just

gave an order... . and we had no choice."

From Percival Griffiths in the Cape Argus (Sept. 28, 1905): Across the face was the favorite place of sjamboking, and I have often seen the blood flowing down the faces of the women and children from the cuts of the weapon. From Dr. H. F. B. Walker, who went to Damaraland during the First World War: Of the various peoples in the country, the Germans can only claim to have subdued the Hereros, who seem to be a very docile and peace-loving people. What are left of them the Germans have reduced to a state of slavery by a very simple and efficient means. They do not allow the Hereros to own cattle or land except under conditions which make it next to impossible. . . . There is no doubt whatever that the Germans have treated these people systematically with the greatest cruelty. Their lives are oflittle account; since we have been in Windhoek, several bodies of murdered natives have been exhumed and their murderers brought to justice. One man readily admitted shooting a native. “But why make such a fuss about it?” he queried. .. . [ have several times seen the shackles used by the Germans; they are very heavy and remind one of those used in the Middle Ages... German soldiers and others had regular harems of Herero

13. [Lemkin’s footnote] [Henry Francis Bell Walker, 1876-1948] A Doctor’s Diary in Damaraland (London: E. Arnold Publications, 1917], p. 146.

274

Chapter Eleven

women who, when they happened to have a child, were given a few goats

and cut adrift."

IMMORALITY AND DEGRADATION After the rebellion and von Trotha’s proclamation, the decimation of the Hereros by gunfire, hanging, starvation, forced labor, and flogging was augmented by prostitution and the separation of families, with a consequent lowering of the birthrate. A group of intelligent leading Hereros related the following to Mr. Steenkamp: Our wives and daughters were forced either by starvation or by the authorities to go to villages and farms of the white people. In these villages and on these farms they came in contact with immoral whites and soldiers, contracted gonorrhea, and when after years they again were met by their husbands and fathers, they were sterile. At Windhoek a house of prostitution was opened for the German military. Our daughters were placed in it, and when they returned from there and got married to Herero men, they were sterile. Our wives in this way also infected us, and we too became sterile. Our tribal life has been broken up. Our children were taken from the parents . . . and therefore escaped the strict discipline of the Herero rites and customs by which a young person did not have the right of choices in marriage, and by which an immoral act was punished by confiscation of all the cattle of the culprit’s father.'>

Before the coming of the white man, alcohol was unknown to the Hereros because they did not cultivate wheat and vegetable and had no sugar. Later, however, they learned to make a very strong beer called Kari, which means “the drink of death,” brewed from potatoes, peas, sugar, and yeast. This drink made the natives wild and afterwards unconscious for hours. Kari, drunk by the Herero women as well as the men, had a most

weakening and exhausting effect on their productive powers. These combined factors and their inevitable consequences among the fifteen thousand—odd survivors of the once-proud and independent nation of Hereros prompted this comment by Dr. Vedder, of Okahandja: “The

14. [Lemkin’s footnote] 4 Doctor’s Diary in Damaraland, p. 146. 15. [Lemkin’s footnote] /s the Southwest African Committing Suicide?—Steenkamp, p. 19.

Hereros

275

Herero is disappearing from the scene in South African history without making a sound or noise.”!°

REACTIONS ABROAD In the early stages of African colonization, a member of the German colonial party said that “Germany had nothing to learn from England or any other colonizing nation, having a method of handling social problems peculiar to the German spirit.” How well the German method worked out can be seen from the words of Professor Moritz Bonn: “We have the native risings and extremely silly European settlement schemes. Apart from South-West Africa, where we solved the native problem by smashing tribal life and by creating a scarcity of labor, we are only just now beginning to understand native administration.” And further Professor Bonn said: The German peasant who successfully colonized large parts of the world is not the ideal settler for Africa. . . . We wanted to build up on African soil a new Germany and create daughter States. ... We tried to assume to ourselves the function of Providence, and we tried to exterminate a native

race, whom our lack of wisdom had goaded into rebellion. We succeeded in breaking up the native tribe, but we have not yet succeeded in creating a new Germany.'”

The colonial policy was upheld by General [Eduard Wilhelm Hans] von Liebert (1850-1934), an ex-governor of German East Africa, a member of the Reichstag and president of the Anti-Socialist League. He declared that cruelty was necessary “to open up a black continent to civilization,” and that “it was impossible in Africa to get on without cruelty.” The Clerical and Social-Democratic elements in the Reichstag persistently sought to uncover the official scandals occurring in Africa, but government forces were consistently at work to conceal the corruption from Germany. Deputy [August] Bebel (1840-1913) made the following statement: “I am absolutely convinced that we should hear much worse things from our colonies than we have heard yet if strict measures were 16. [Lemkin’s footnote] Op. cit., p. 32. 17. [Lemkin’s footnote] Speech before the Royal Colonial Institute, January 13, 1914. “German Colonial Policy,” Professor Moritz Bonn.

276

Chapter Eleven

not taken in the colonies to prevent any European, and especially any German who has settled there, from telling in public anything about the abuses that come to life there.”'® Even the missionaries found it difficult to explore abuses because they were under the authority of the various Governors or District Judges." One Herr Scholze, however, dared to speak out in a lecture in Karlsruhe in 1904: “I will not say that the government directly favored the pernicious excesses in the colonies. ... There are men who are indignant at the treatment of the natives, but there is hardly ever one who has the courage to disobey the official order against telling friends of anything that occurs in the colonies or making it public.””° Such exposures subjected missionaries to direct threat from the Reichstag. One Secretary of State made this comment to the Chapter of Cologne Cathedral: “This campaign against officials must cease, else it would be impossible to get anyone to enter the colonial service.”?! After the Herero rebellion, when von Trotha was recalled to Berlin, he

was howled down in the Reichstag by the Social Democrats, but defended by the Chancellor, Prince [Bernhard Heinrich Karl Martin] von Bulow (1849-1929); it was said that von Trotha had given proof of great humanity during his command. At the Fourteenth

Universal

Peace Conference

in 1905, H. R. Fox

Bourne submitted a paper in which he declared: It is clear from official statements that the prolonged and desperate rebellion in the Southwest . . . are the result of administrative tyranny in aid of commercial greed, involving complete repudiation of the legitimate rights of the natives, not only to ownership of the lands and the fruits of the lands inherited by them, but also to such elementarily humane treatment as is vaguely recognized by the most uncivilized communities, and as is the groundwork of all genuine civilization—may I add, of Christianity?”

It is difficult to say whether Dr. [Paul] Rohrbach (1859-1956), the imperial commissioner for South-West Africa, wrote with conscious or 18. [Lemkin’s footnote] Bebel, Reichstag, March 20, 1906. 19. [Lemkin’s footnote] Erzeberger , Reichstag, December 1, 1906. 20. [Lemkin’s footnote] J. Scholze, Die Wahrheit uber die Heidenmission und ihre Gegner, Berlin,

21. [Lemkin’s footnote] Dernburg, Reichstag, Dec. 3, 1906. 22. [Lemkin’s footnote] Civilization by War, pp. 6-7.

Hereros

277

unconscious irony when he stated: “The land question is solved. The Hereros have lost their land, which is now fiscal land (and) is settled by

whites. The cattle question is also solved. The whole of the livestock of the Hereros has been destroyed; there are hardly any cattle left. Yet that does not appear tragic when one remembers the wonderful fertility of the

country.” After the First World War, Germany was deprived of her overseas colonies with the words: “Germany renounces in favor of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and titles over her overseas possessions.” President [Woodrow] Wilson (1856-1924) had made it an axiom that the interests of the colonial populations should receive equal consideration with the claims of the government which was proposed to rule them, and the “free, open-minded and absolutely impartial adjustments of all colonial claims” at which he aimed were to have that principle as a foundation. The British case for depriving Germany of her colonies was partly founded on the assertion that the natives had been mistreated and terrorized by the Germans. This contention was supported by the debates in the Reichstag in 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1912, and 1914. The Atroci-

ties Blue Book of 1916 was published to reveal certain aspects of German administration in South-West Africa. The South-West Africa report was additional to other reports which were not published.

UPDATED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bridgman, Jon. The Revolt of the Hereros. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.

Gewald, Jan-Bart. Herero Heroes: Socio-Political History of Herero of Namibia. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1999. Olusoga, David, and Erichsen, Caspar W. The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s Forgotten Genocide and the Colonial Roots of Nazism. London: Faber and Faber, 2010.

Poewe, Karla O. The Namibian Herero: A History of the Psychological Disintegration and Survival. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1985. Salkin, Jeremy. Colonial Genocide and Reparations Claims in the 21st Century: The Socio-Legal Contexts of Claims under International Law by the Herero 23. [Lemkin’s footnote] The Germans and Africa, p. 314.

278

Chapter Eleven

against Germany for Genocide in Namibia, 1904-1908. Westport: Praeger, 2008. Salkin, Jeremy. Germany’s Genocide of the Hereros: Kaiser Wilhelm II, His General, His Settlers, His Soldiers. Oxford: James Currey, 2011. Walker, Henry Francis Bell. A Doctor’s Diary in Damaraland. General Books, PLE 2010:

Chapter Fourteen

Huguenots

The Huguenots were the Protestants of France, although the name has come to include certain groups which differed from the Roman Catholic Church in their religious viewpoints, yet existed previous to the [Protestants] Reformation (1517-1648). Because of religious intolerance, fear of heresy, considerations of power among royalty and clergy, and general ignorance among the people, the Huguenots were the victims of great

persecutions of genocidal proportions. Before specific massacres, slaughters, and outrages, it would do well to

get an overall picture of the history of the Huguenots. The term Huguenot became popular at about the middle of the sixteenth century, and was derived, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, because the Protestants of Tours assembled near the gate of the mythical King Hugo (939-996). (There is, however, some uncertainty about this theory.) The French reform movement began as early as 1512, the year in which Jacobus Faber of Etaples (1455—1536) published his Santi Pauli Existolae ... cum commentaries, which enunciates the cardinal doctrine of reform

and justification by faith. As early as 1525, Jacques Parvannes, the hermit of Livry, and shortly afterwards Louis de Bergin (1490-1529), the first martyr, were burned at the stake. But no persecution could stop the reform movement, and on the walls of Paris there were found placards concerning the mass (1534), and on January 29, 1535, an edict was published ordering the extermination of the heretics and resulting in a general emigration. One of the exiles was John Calvin (1509-1564), future leader of the reform movement, who was pastor of a church at Strasbourg, the first Protestant church. Pipe,

280

Chapter Fourteen

Persecution became more vigorous. The Vaudois (valley people) of Cabrieres and Merindol had been massacred in 1545. A special court was created in the parliament for the suppression of heretics, a court which became famous as the Chambre ardente (1549) [French, “burning chamber]. Despite the danger, a synod of churches of the Protestant faith was called in Paris on May 25, 1559. From then on there was a remarkable increase in the reform movement; at the synod, fifteen churches were represented. Two years later, the number was 2,150. The increase carried the struggle into the arena of national politics. The conspiracy of Amboise, formed with the object of kidnapping the king (March, 1560) resulted in the death of the plotters and was followed by the proclamation of the Edict of Romorantin (May, 1560), which laid an interdict upon the Protestant religion. However, the reformers had become powerful enough to declare themselves against this violation of the liberty of conscience. The Edict of January, 1562, accorded religious liberty to the Huguenots. On March 1, 1562, however, the Duke of Guise (Henry I, 1550-1588)

slaughtered a number of Huguenots assembled for worship in a barn at Vassy. This was the cause of a great civil war, which lasted, with brief intermissions, to the end of the century. In 1570, after a daring march on Paris by the near-vanquished Huguenots, the Peace of St. Germain (August 5) was established. Then, in 1572, at a conference at which were assembled the leaders of the Protestants, there occurred the Massacre of St. Bartholomew (August 24) which had

repercussions throughout France, and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Huguenots. In 1598 Henry IV (1553-1610),

an ex-Protestant who converted to

Catholicism, issued the Edict of Nantes (April 13), which proclaimed religious freedom for the Reformers. In 1610, Henry was assassinated and civil war broke out, ending with defeat for the Protestants. On October

28, 1628, La Rochelle, the last stronghold of the Huguenots, was obliged to surrender. The Peace of Alais, June 28, 1629, marked the end of the

civil wars. The Huguenots had ceased to exist as a political party. On the death of Louis XIII (1601-1643), who succeeded Henry IV, the declaration of July 8, 1643, had guaranteed them religious freedom. The Roman Catholic clergy, however, had never accepted the Edict of Nantes, and when

Huguenots

281

Louis XIV (1638-1715) came of age, a legal persecution began which was to bring ruin to the reform churches. The Edict of Nantes was evaded by depriving Protestants of all rights not specifically mentioned in it, and demolishing all churches built after it was issued. All personal liberties were taken from the Huguenots. However, they continued to exist, and to compel them to accept them the king’s religion, the dragonnades (1683-1686) were organized, which forced conversion to Catholicism by torture. Stating that the Edict of Nantes was unnecessary, as most of the reformed church members on October

had become Catholic, Louis XIV revoked it

18, 1685. In the next few years, France lost more than four

hundred thousand of its The Protestants were in 1702, the war of the insurgents. By the 1760s, public Edict of November,

inhabitants. not entirely suppressed, and in the Cevennes, Camissards broke out, ending in defeat for the opinion began to revolt at the persecution. The

1787, renewed

the civil rights of the Huguenots,

and in 1789, the Declaration of the Rights of Man affirmed the liberty of religion. At the fall of the Empire in 1815, the reaction of the White Terror' once more exposed the Protestants to outrage, and many fled. Peace reestablished, Protestantism gained ground [Editor’s Note: rest of sentence is illegible—SLJ]. . . . Out of this general background of the Huguenots,

1. The name derives from the traditional use of the colour white as a symbol of the Bourbon monarchy, as opposed to the red used by revolutionaries/republicans as in their Phrygian caps and red flag. The original White Terror took place in 1794, during the turbulent times surrounding the French Revolution. It was organized by reactionary “Chouan” royalist forces in the aftermath of the Reign of Terror, and was targeted at the radical Jacobins and anyone suspected of supporting them. Throughout France, both real and suspected Jacobins were attacked and often murdered. Just like during the Reign of Terror, trials were held with little regard for due process. In other cases, gangs of youths who had aristocratic connections roamed the streets beating known Jacobins. These “bands of Jesus” dragged suspected terrorists from prisons and murdered them much as alleged royalists had been murdered during the September Massacres of 1792. Again, in 1815, following the return of King Louis XVIII of France to power, people suspected of having ties with the governments of the French Revolution or of Napoleon suffered arrest and execution. Marshal Brune was killed in Avignon, and General Jean-Pierre Ramel was assassinated in Toulouse. These actions struck fear in the population, dissuading Jacobin and Bonapartist electors (forty-eight thousand on seventy-two thousand total permitted by the census suffrage) to vote for the ultras. Of 402 members, the first Chamber of the Restoration

was composed of 350 ultraroyalists; the king himself thus named it the Chambre introuvable (“the Unobtainable Chamber”). The Chamber voted oppressive laws, sentencing to death Marshal Ney and general la Bédoyére, while 250 people were given prison sentences and some others exiled (Joseph Fouché, Lazare Carnot, Cambacérés). On both the White Terror and the Bourbon Monarchy, see Rob-

ert Alexander, Re-Writing the French Revolutionary Tradition: Liberal Opposition and the Fall of the Bourbon Monarchy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); and Daniel P. Resnick, The White Terror and the Political Reaction after Waterloo (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966).

282

Chapter Fourteen

specific insistences of open, flagrant genocide will be drawn and elabo-’ rated upon. The first major incident of this sort was the persecution, or massacre, of the Vaudois, or valley people. That part of Provence, the ancient Roman Provincia, which skirts the north-

ern bank of the Durance, formerly contained at a distance of between twenty and fifty miles above the confluence of the river with the Rhone near Avignon, more than a score of small towns and villages inhabitants by peasants of Waldensian origin. The entire district had been desolated by a war about a couple of centuries before the time of which we are now treating (1530). ... By the industrious culture of the Vaudois, or Waldenses, the face of the country was soon transformed.”

The Waldenses were actually descendants of the Vaudois. Peter Waldo (Pierre Waldo) in 1170 adopted the Vaudois faith and founded a sect. Walloons (or Waldenses) were persecuted and scattered. One group took refuge in the French Alps. The noted French historian, Sismondi,‘ attests to their industry: Les seigneurs de qui ils tenciant leurs terres a cens les protegecient, parc qu’ils avoient, par leur industrie, change en un fertile jardin tout le district qu’ils occpoient.°

For a while, this group lived relatively free from persecution. The conditions leading immediately to the genocide were as follows: In 1535 the Waldenses furnished the means necessary for the publication of a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Intelligence of this activity of the Vaudois reached the ears of their enemies, among whom the archbishop of Aix was prominent, and stirred them up to more virulent hostility. For a time, however, persecution was individual, and thus limited. The slow methods heretofore pursued having proved abortive, the parliament summoned to its bar, as suspected of heresy, fifteen or twenty of

the inhabitants of the village of Mérindol. These people were forewarned that their death was already resolved upon, and so fled.° 2, [Lemkin’s footnote] Baird, Volume 1, p. 230.

3. 4. 5. made 6.

[Lemkin’s footnote] Purvis, p. 2. Jean Charles Léonard de Sismondi (1773-1842). [Lemkin’s footnote] Sismondi, Tome 2, p. 314. That is, by virtue of their industry, they had the entire area a fertile garden in the entire district. [Lemkin’s footnote] Baird, Volume 1, 233-235.

Huguenots

283

Finding itself balked for the time of its expected prey, the parliament resolved to avenge the slight put upon its authority, by compassing the ruin of a larger number of victims. On the eighteenth of November, 1540, the order was given which has since become infamous under the designation ofthe “Arrét [Massacre] de Mérindol.” The persons who had failed to obey the summons were sentenced to be burned alive, as heretics and guilty of treason against God and the King. If not apprehended in person, they were to burned in effigy, their wives and children proscribed, and their possessions confiscated. As if this were not enough . . . parliament ordered that all the houses of Mérindol be burned and razed to the ground, and the trees cut down for a distance of two hundred paces on every side, in order that the spot which had been the receptacle of heresy might be forever unin-

habited.’ However, Francis I (1494-1547) interfered with the execution of this sentence. Troops were heavily levied. All men capable of bearing arms in the cities of Aix, Arles, and Marseilles were commanded, under severe penalties, to join the expedition; and some companies of veteran troops, which happened to be on their way from Piedmont to the scene of the English war, were impressed into the services by D’Oppéde,® in the king’s name.’

The commissioners and troops marched upon and burned Cabriérette, Peypin, La Motte, and Saint-Martin, villages built on the lands of a Roman Catholic nobleman. “The wretched inhabitants, who had not until the

very last moment credited the strange story of the disaster in reserve for them, hurriedly fled on the approach of the soldiery, some to the woods, others to Mérindol.”!° Numerous other villages were razed, but many were deserted, the inhabitants having been warned of the impending crisis. Early on the eighteenth of April, D?Oppéde reached Meérindol, the ostensible object of the expedition. But a single person was found within its circuit, and he a young man reputed of less than ordinary intellect."

Enraged by this, the person was put to death, and the troops began the horrible massacre which will live in infamy forever.

7, 8. 9, 10. 11.

[Lemkin’s footnote] Jean Maynier, Baron [Lemkin’s footnote] [Lemkin’s footnote] [Lemkin’s footnote]

Baird, Volume 1, page 236. d’Oppéde (1495-1558). Baird, Volume 1, p. 245. Ibid, page 236. Ibid., page 247.

284

Chapter Fourteen

A description of the persecution of the massacre is given by the Abbé Anquetil (1750?-1826?), a Catholic, in his Espirit de la Ligue, Volume 1,

pages 14 et seq (Latin, “and the following”): Uninterrupted executions, however, did not arrest the progress of the seduction; the innovators continued to increase, although the sword of justice was constantly hanging over their heads. . . . Everything was horrible and cruel, says the historian de Thou, in the sentence pronounced against them, and everything was still more horrible and cruel in the execution. Twenty-two towns or villages were burned or sacked with an inhumanity, of which the history of the most barbarous people hardly present examples. . . . Voluntary surrender did not exempt the men from execution, nor the women from excesses of brutality. ... At Cabriéres, one of the principal towns of the canton, more than 700 men in cold blood, and the women . . . were shut up in

a barn, filled with straw, to which they set fire... . The houses were razed,

the woods cut down, and the fruit trees pulled up; and in a short time this country, so fertile and so populous, became uninhabited and uncultivated.

Very many of the Vaudois were killed, and those surviving were left without homes or villages. “The three thousand mountaineers were slaughtered or taken into slavery.”” Although the masses were aroused by various motivations or sadism and religious intolerance, there were a number of private individuals and officials who played a very important part in bringing about the horrible massacre. The two most influential characters in this affair were the Baron D’Oppéde, who bore hatred against the Vaudois and desired their extermination, and Francis I, King of France, who did not desire to see the

massacre, but was duped into allowing it to take place. On the eighth of February, 1541, Francis signed a letter granting pardon not only to the persons who by their failure to appear before the Parliament of Aix [see above regarding “Arrét de Mérindol”] had furnished the pretext for the proscriptive decree, but to all others, meantime commanding them to abjure their errors within the space of three months." The Arrét de Mérindol yet remained unexecuted when, Chassanée [?] was succeeded in the office of First President of the Parliament of Provence by

12. [Lemkin’s footnote] Purvis, page. 2. 13. [Lemkin’s footnote] Baird, Volume 1, page 241.

Huguenots

285

Jean Meynier (1749-1813), Baron d’Oppéde. The latter was an impetuous and unscrupulous man. Even before his elevation to his new judicial position, Meynier had looked with envious eye upon the prosperity of Cabriéres, situated but a few miles from his barony; and scarcely had he taken his place on the bench, before, at his bidding, his first notes of preparation for a great military assault upon the villages of the Durance were heard."4

The frightened peasants again appealed to the mercy of their distant sovereign. “A second time Francis (on the twenty-fifth of October, 1544)

interfered.”!° The Parliament of Aix . . . dispatched to Paris one of its official servants, with a special message to the King. He was to tell him that Mérindol and the neighboring villages had broken out into open rebellion; that fifteen thousand armed insurgents had met in a single body. They had captured towns and castles, liberated prisoners, and hindred the course of justice. They were intending to march against Marseilles, and when successful would establish a republic fashioned on the model of the Swiss cantons.'®

This of course never happened. Thus reinforced, Cardinal Tournon”’ found no great difficulty in exciting the animosity of a king both jealous of any infringement upon his prerogative, and credulous respecting movements tending to the encouragement of rebellion. On the first of January, 1545, Francis sent a new letter to the Parliament

of Aix. He revoked his last order, enjoined the execution of the former decrees of parliament, as far as they concerned those who had failed to abjure, and commanded the governor of Provence, or his lieutenant, to employ all his forces to exterminate any found guilty of the Waldensian heresy.'®

Three months passed, and yet no attempt was made to disturb the peaceful villages of the Durance. Then the looked-for opportunity came. Count De Grignan, Governor of Provence,'? was summoned by the king and sent on a diplomatic mission to Germany. The civil and military administration fell into the Baron D’Oppéde’s hands as lieutenant. . . . On a single day—the

14. 15. 16. 17.

[Lemkin’s footnote] [Lemkin’s footnote] [Lemkin’s footnote] Francois de Tournon

Ibid., page 243. Ibid, page 243. Ibid., page 244. .

18. [Lemkin’s footnote] Baird, Volume 1, p. 244.

19. Francois Adhémar de Monteil, Comte de Grignan.

286

Chapter Fourteen

twelfth of April—the royal letter, hitherto kept secret, that the intended victims might receive no intimations of the impending blow, was read and judicially confirmed, and four commissioners were appointed to superintend the execution.”°

Thus, it was the work of a few individuals, notably the Baron D’Oppéde that produced the Massacres of Cabriéres and Mérindol. The Baron kept secret the letter of Francis . . . and, when the time was ripe, struck and caused the desolation of the valley of the Vaudois. There were a number of motivations for the heinous crime. Of course, one of the most important was religious hatred and intolerance. The Vaudois were persecuted as heretics, disbelievers in the accepted faith. As was

related above, the publication of a translation of the Bible was one of the immediate causes of the massacre. However, this was not the only reason for the atrocities. Jealousy of the prosperity of the Vaudois was certainly another motivation. The desire of the Baron D’Oppéde for the rich lands of the Cabriéres was mentioned above. ... Certainly sadism played an important part. The perversions of the minds of the soldiers must have been great. The Abbé Anquetil tells how “the pitiful cries of the old men, the women, and the children, far from softening the hearts of the soldiers, mad with rage like their leaders, only set them on to following the fugitives.””! The psychological reaction of the victims of the disaster was, for the most part, despair, although Baird related that some of them attempted to recultivate the land and rebuild their homes. Records at this time are not extremely copious, but it does not appear that the Baron D’Oppéde or any large number of his followers suffered any qualms of conscience at the incident. The extermination of heretics was regarded as a proper, even a noble business, and it is doubtful whether a feeling of guilt pervaded. Long before the massacre, “Pope Innocent VIII (1432-1492) issued a bull of extermination against the Vaudois with the promise of remission of sins to everyone who would slay a heretic.” The aftermath of the massacre was depopulation and economic destruction of the Vaudois, and desolation of the entire area which they occupied. 20. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., page 245. 21. [Lemkin’s footnote] Espirit de la Ligue, page 14.

22. [Lemkin’s footnote] Purvis, page 2.

Huguenots

287

The Vaudois were not directly concerned with the Reformation,”? how-

ever, primarily under the leadership of John Calvin (1509-1564), found many enthusiastic followers among the Roman Catholics of France who had become dissatisfied with the corruption and evil of the Church. As a result, measures were taken to wipe out the heresy. “During the reign of Francis the First and Henry the Second, the Protestant religion got great footing in France, the usual severities of the Church of Rome were then employed to extirpate it.” The Guises, one of the royal families of France, had gained a great deal of control over the French king and government. “When the delegates of the Parliaments of France came . . . to congratulate Francis II (1544-1560) on his accession, and inquired to whom they should henceforth address

themselves, the programme was already fully arranged. The king had been well drilled in his little speech. He had, he said, committed the direction of the state to the hands of his uncles Guise, and desired the same obedience

to be shown to them as to himself.” The Huguenots were against the “intolerable usurpation Guises.””° Pamphlets were circulated against the rulers.

of the

The Guises . . . resolved to meet the difficulties of their situation with boldness. The opposition, so far as it was religious, must be repressed by legislation strictly enforced. Accordingly, in the month of May 1560, an edict was published known as the Edict of Romorantin, from the place where the court was sojourning, but remarkable for nothing save the misapprehensions that have been entertained respecting its origin and object. It restored exclusive jurisdiction in matters of simple heresy to the clergy, excluding the council courts from all participation, save to execute the sentence of the ecclesiastical judge. But it neither lightened nor aggravated the penalties affixed by previous laws. Death was still to be the fate of the convicted heretic, to whom it mattered little whether he was tried by a secular or by a spiritual tribunal except that the forms of law were more likely to be observed by the former than the latter.’ 23. The Protestant Reformation, also called the Protestant Revolt or simply The Reformation. 24. {Lemkin’s footnote] A Relation of the Barbarous and Bloody Massacre .. . , page 5. Reference is to the work “A relation of the barbarous and bloody massacre of about an hundred thousand Protestants, begun in Paris, and carried on over all France, by the Papists, in the year 1572,” and published in London for Richard Chiswell in 1678, and attributed to Gilbert Burnet (1643-1715).

25. [Lemkin’s footnote] Baird, Volume 1, page 351. 26. [Lemkin’s footnote] Baird, page 409. 27. [Lemkin’s footnote] Baird, Volume I, pages 410 and 411.

288

Chapter Fourteen

The law is important, however, as it embodies a clearly stated interdict upon the Protestant religion. The Huguenots had, by this time, become powerful enough to demand their rights, and were finally given the Edict of January, 1562, permitting them a certain amount of religious liberty. Peace seemed at hand when the Massacre of Vassy took place. The responsibility for the horrible act must be laid upon the Duke Guise [Henry I, 1550-1588], who allowed his men to attack and massacre the defenseless Huguenots. The motivations were religious intolerance, which was prevalent in France and was the primary cause of almost all atrocities committed upon the Huguenots, and sadism. “The two Guise brothers, Duke Francis and the Cardinal of Lorraine [Charles, 1524-1574], were called ‘The Butchers,’ because nothing gave them such real joy as the spectacle of Huguenots dying from torture.””* The aftermath of this incident was terror, death, and destruction, for

it marked the beginning of a series of civil wars which were to rend the country until the end of the century. Charles [X (1550-1574) ascended to the throne in 1560 as an infant. Power was divided in the hands of the Queen-mother, the Princes of the blood, the Guises, and the Constable de Montmorency (Anne, 1493— 1567). Sully” relates that Catherine de Medici (1519-1589) was told by an astrologer that none of her children would produce heirs, and that to keep the throne in her family, she would have to destroy the Bourbons, who were next in line. “Whatever there may be in this predilection of the Queen-mother, it is certain it gave birth to two parties in politics, as well as [in] religion, which began from that moment to fill the kingdom with confusion, horror, and the most frightful calamities.” These are the words of Sully, who was prime minister to Henry IV of France.*° In the year 1567, the Prince of Condé (Louis de Bourbon, 1530-1569) and the Admiral de Coligny (Gaspard, 1519-1572), the two most important leaders of the Protestant movement, formed the design to seize Charles IX (1550-1574) at Meaux. But for the arrival of three thousand Swiss troops, this plan would have been successful. This is another cause of animosity between the king and the Huguenots. 28. [Lemkin’s footnote] Purvis, page 3. 29. Maximilien de Béthune, duc de Sully (1560-1641). 30. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sully, Memoires, page 12.

Huguenots

289

In 1570, there was a halt in the Civil War, and a treaty called the Peace of St. Germaine. A marriage was arranged between Henry of Navarre (leter Henry IV, 1553-1610) and Marguerite, sister of Charles IX, representing the Protestant and Catholic parties respectively. The history immediately preceding the St. Bartholomew Massacre [beginning August 23, 1572], describing the conditions leading up to it, we will refer to the first volume of the accurate memoirs of the Duke of Sully: Prince Henry (of Navarre) made use of the quiet that was given him (in the year 1570) to visit his estates and his government of Guyenne: after which he came to settle in Rochelle, with the Queen of Navarre, his mother, the Admiral de Coligny (a Huguenot leader and admiral of France) and the principal chiefs of the Protestant party; to whom this important city, far distant from the court, seemed most advantageous for the interest of their religion. This was a most wise resolution, had they only known to have followed it out. Queen Catherine dissembled the trouble this conduct gave her, and, during the whole year 1571, spoke only of faithfully observing the treaties, of entering into a closer correspondence with the Protestants, and carefully preventing every cause that might rekindle the war. This was the pretext of the Marechal de Cosse (Charles, 1505—1563)’s deputation, whom she sent to Rochelle with [de] Malassize [?] and La-Proutiere [?], masters of her requests, her creatures and confidants; but the true motive was to observe all

the proceedings of the Calvinists, to sound their inclinations, and draw them ostensibly to such an entire confidence in her, as was absolutely necessary to her designs. She neglected nothing on her part that was capable to inspire it into them. The Marchal de Montmorency was sent to Rouen with the President to Morsan, to do justice there for the outrages committed against the Huguenots; their infringements of the treaty of peace was severely punished; and King Charles usually called it his treaty, and his peace.*! The Marechal de Cosse did not fail to make the most of these appearances of sincerity. After he had by these means insinuated himself, he began to entertain the Queen of Navarre more seriously with the project of marriage between the Prince her son, and the Princes Margaret, sister to the King of

France: he was commissioned by Charles to promise a portion of 400,000 crowns.* 31. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sully, p. 13. 32. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., p. 14.

290

Chapter Fourteen

And for the finishing stroke, he added, that the King had an eye upon the Admiral (de Coligny) for conducting his army, with the title of Viceroy of the Low Counties... . This proceeding, so full of seeming frankness, ought to have been suspected by its being overreacted; yet it had the designed effect; and the discourse of the courtiers did not a little contribute to it.®

The Queen of Navarre was invited to make a journey to Paris, and, after about a year of indecision, set out upon the journey in the beginning of 572. The Huguenots, one would imagine, had affected to close their eyes, that they might not see a thousand circumstances that ought to have made the sincerity of so many great promises suspected. The King and Queen could not dissemble so effectually as never to lie open to penetration.

Sully accompanied the Queen of Navarre to Paris. Nothing could be kinder that the reception and treatment which the Queen of Navarre, her children, and principal servants, met with from the King and Queen-mother. Charles IX was continually praising the virtues and probity of the .. . Protestant lords. The Admiral he always called father.*° Pope Pius V (1504—1572) was not spared in the transports of Charles, he having refused the necessary dispensation for Henry’s marriage with the Princess Margaret, for which they prepared with the utmost magnificence. The King carried his deference for this prince so far, as to dispense with his going into the Church of Notre-Dame. He was even excused from observing all the Romish*® ceremonies.*’ The most clear-sighted among the Huguenots, yielding to proofs so convincing, quitted the court, and Paris itself, or lodged at least in the suburbs.*®

This was the situation when the horrible massacres took place. As will be shown later, Catherine de Medici and her son, Henry, Duke

of Anjou, and a Guise, were the principal causes of the great crime. However, to demonstrate the intent to destroy, the planning which was 33. 34, 35. 36. 37. 38.

[Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., p. 16. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sully, page 17. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., p. 22. Of, or relating to, the Roman Catholic Church. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., pp. 23-25. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., p. 27.

Huguenots

291

engaged in, and to further illustrate the conditions leading up to the genocide, we will give here the words of Anjou: I went to see my mother, who had already risen. I was filled with anxiety, as also she was on her side. We adopted at that time no other determination than to dispatch the admiral by whatever means possible. As artifice and cunning could no longer be employed, we must proceed by open measures. But to do this, we must bring the king to this same resolution. We decided that we would go in the afternoon to his private room, and would bring the Duke of Nevers (Louis Gonzaga, 1539-1595), Marshals Tabannes [?] and Retz [?], and Chancellor Birague (Renato Birago, 1506-1583), solely to obtain their advice as to the means we should employ in executing the plan upon which my mother and I had already agreed. As soon as we had entered the room in which the king my brother was, my mother began to represent to him that the party of the Huguenots was arming against him on account of the wounding ofthe admiral . . . the latter having sent several dispatches to Germany to make a levy of ten thousand horses, and to the cantons of Switzerland for another levy of ten thousand foot; (It must be here mentioned that the Admiral de Coligny was shot while walking, receiving an ugly wound in the arm. This was two days before the Massacre of St. Bartholomew.) that most of the French captains belonging to the Huguenot party had already left in order to raise troops within the kingdom; and that the time and place of assembling had been fixed upon. Let so powerful an army as this once be joined to their French troops—a thing which was only too practicable—and the king’s forces would not be half sufficient to resist them, in view of the intrigues and leagues they had, inside and outside of the kingdom, with many cities, communities and nations. Of this she had good and certain advices. Their allies were to revolt in conjunction with the Huguenots under pretext of the public good; and for him (Charles), being weak in pecuniary resources, she saw no place of security in France. And, indeed, there was besides a new consequence of which she wished to warn him. It was that all the Catholics, wearied by so long a war, and vexed by so many sorts of calamities, were determined to put an end to them. In case he refused to follow their counsel, they also had determined among themselves to elect a captain-general to undertake their protection, and to form a league offensive and defensive against the Huguenots. Thus he would remain alone, enveloped in great danger, and without power or authority. All France would be seen armed by two great parties, over which he would have no commands, and from which he could exact

just as little obedience. But, to ward off so great a danger, a peril impending over him and his entire state, so much ruin, and so many calamities which

292

Chapter Fourteen

were in preparation and just at hand—and the murder of so many thousands of men—to avert all these misfortunes, a single thrust of the sword would suffice—the admiral, the head and author of all the civil wars, alone need

be put to death. The designs and enterprises of the Huguenots would perish with him; and the Catholics, satisfied with the sacrifice of two or three men,

would remain obedient to him (the king).*”

The stage was set. The massacre, which was to take the form of general killing and destruction, must now be described. We will try to give an accurate description of the horrible tragedy, and yet spare the reader by not going into excessive detail. The ringing of the bell of St. Germain ain L’Aurxerrois was answered by the bells of all the churches (this was the signal for the massacre) and by a discharge of fire-arms in different parts. Paris resounded with cries and howlings, which brought the defenseless people out of their dwellings, not only unarmed but half-naked. . . . The companies of guards soon dispatched them: the Louvre seemed to hold out a refuge, but they were driven away by men armed with spears and musketry. Escape was almost impossible; the numerous lights placed in the windows deprived them of the shelter which the darkness would have afforded them; and patrols traversed the streets in all directions, killing everyone they met. From the streets they proceeded to the houses; they broke open the doors, and spared neither age, sex, nor condition. A white cross had been put in their hats to distinguish the Catholics; and some priests, holding a crucifix in one hand, and a sword in the other,

preceded the murderers and encouraged them, in God’s name, to spare neither relatives nor friends.”

On the morning of the 24th of August, St. Bartholomew’s Day, the signal was given, and Paris took arms. The Protestants were told it was a

mock siege but soon enough discovered that it was, in fact, a massacre. The Duke of Guise led the attack against the Admiral de Coligny. To quote a pamphlet, printed in 1678, and entitled “A Relation of the Barbarous and Bloody Massacre of about an Hundred Thousand Protestants, begun at Paris, and Carried Out over All France by the Papists, in the Year 1572”: But the Cruelty of the Duke of Guise and his Party, was rather kindled then satiated with blood. So he and his company went out into the streets, and 39. [Lemkin’s footnote] Taken from Baird, Volume 2, pp. 447, 448. 40. [Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, page 87.

Huguenots

cried what were This

293

aloud. It was the King’s command that they should go on, and finish they had begun. And so the Multitude was let loose, to murder all that of the Religion, and the plunder of their Houses was to be their reward. was followed by the most enraged and cruel Massacre that ever was

heard of. Four thousand were killed in Paris, according to Thuanus,"! “But

Veremundus [?] says, they were ten thousand.” No age or sex was spared.”

The Protestants had as much chance to defend themselves as cattle taken to the slaughterhouse. “The Huguenots were so unprepared for any defense at the time of this treacherous attack upon them that out of near seven hundred persons of rank who were murdered, most of them experienced soldiers and of approved courage, only one died with his sword in his hand.” So riotous was the rout that many Catholics were killed by mistake by members of their own religion. The massacre at Paris was then continued throughout the whole realm, some say with the approval of Charles [X (1550-1574), some without. At Meaux, a little town not far from Paris, they . . . spent the whole week in shedding more Blood. They killed two hundred; many of those were women.

... At Troye, in Champaigne, about the same number were killed. At Orleans, a thousand were also killed. Six or seven hundred at Roan. . . . At Bourges, Nevers, and Charite, all they found were killed. At Thoulouse two hundred were killed. At Burdeaux, they were for sometime in suspense, being afraid of the Rochellers; (La Rochelle was the stronghold of the Protestants) but the Priests did so inflame the Multitude that the Governour could not refrain their rage longer . . . so then they massacred all they could find.”

This continued throughout France. Staggering numbers were killed, their property confiscated, homes destroyed. The responsibility for the massacres must be laid upon Catherine, the Queen-mother, and the Guises, and only partially upon Charles [X. The historian Henri Baird’s sentiments on the matter are: I am compelled to acquiesce in the beliefs expressed by the Papal Nuncio, Salviati, who, in his dispatches, written in cipher to the cardinal secretary of 41. 42. 43. 44,

Jacques Auguste de [Lemkin’s footnote] [Lemkin’s footnote] [Lemkin’s footnote]

Thou (Thuanus, 1553-1617). “A Relation .. . ,” pages 26, 27. Browning, p. 93. “A Relation. . . ,” page 34.

294

Chapter Fourteen

state, could certainly have had no motive to disguise his real sentiments, and

whom it is impossible to suppose ignorant of any scheme for the general extirpation of the Protestants, had such a scheme existed for any considerable length oftime: “As to all statements that will be made respecting the firing upon the admiral and his death, different from that which I have written to you, you will find out in time how true they are. Madame the regent, having come to be a variance with him (the admiral), and having decided upon this step a few days before, caused him to be fired upon. This was without the knowledge of the king, but with the participation of the Duke of Anjou, the Duchess of Nemours, and her son, the Duke of Guise. If the admiral had died at once, no others would have been slain. But, inasmuch as he survived, and they apprehended that some great calamity might happen should he draw close to the king, they resolved to throw aside shame, and to have him killed together with the rest. And this was put into execution that very night.’

Sully related how the king and his mother dissembled their true feelings toward the Huguenots, yet sometimes let slip intimations of their plain. “It was known that Charles had one day said to Catherine (previous to the Massacre) ‘Do I not play my cue well?’ To which she answered, ‘Admirably, my son; but you must hold out to the end.’””° It seems quite certain that the would-be assassin of the Admiral de Coligny was acting on the orders of the Queen-mother and the Guises. “The king’s assassin (that was the term applied to the man who wounded de Coligny, whose name was later found to be Maureval) . . . had been selected by Catherine, Anjoy, and the Guises, as possessing both the nerve and the experience that were requisite to make sure of de Coligny’s death.’”4” It passed for certain, that the wound the Admiral received came from the house of Villemur, preceptor of the Guises; and that the assassin had been

met in his flight upon a horse belonging to the King’s stable.*®

A letter from the king, just before the Massacre, may help to demonstrate his innocence of the plot: “Assure everyone,” he wrote, “that is it my intention to observe inviolate my edict of pacification, and so strictly 45. 46. 47. 48.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Baird, Sully, Baird, Sully,

Volume 2, pp. 435, 436. page 17. Volume 2, page 439. p. 26.

Huguenots

295

to punish those who contravene its provisions, that men may judge how sincere is my will.’ Sully states that “When the Admiral was wounded, the King, upon the first notice of it, broke into oaths and threatenings, and vowed he would make the assassin be searched for, in the darkest corner of the palaces of the Guises.”°° It must be mentioned, however, that Sully believed this to

be dissimulation and felt that Charles was as guilty as his mother of the crime.

Responsibility must also be laid upon the Pope. A letter from Pope Pius V (1504—1572) to King Charles IX of France, dated March 28, 1569,

quoted in Browning: But the more the Lord had treated you and me with kindness, the more you ought with care and diligence to take advantage of the opportunity which this victory offers you for pursuing and destroying all the enemies which still remain; for tearing up entirely all the roots, and even the smallest fibres of roots, of so terrible and so confirmed an evil. For unless they are radically extirpated, they will be found to shoot out again... . You will bring this about; if no consideration for persons or worldly things induces you to spare the enemies of God.°!

A similar letter was, at the same time, sent to Catherine, the Queen-

mother, instructing her to pursue the Huguenots “until they are all massacred, for it is only by the entire extermination of the heretics, that the Catholic worship can be restored.” There were numerous motivations for the Massacre at St. Bartholomew,

stemming from both religious and political sources. Intolerance and religious hatred were perhaps the greatest because without these the general

populace could never have been stirred to commit so evil a deed. The hatred of Protestantism engendered in the minds of the people by long years devoted to traducing the character and designs of the reformers now bore fruit after its own kind in revolting crimes of every sort; while the lesson, sedulously inculcated by priests, bishops, and monks, that obstinate heresy might righteously be and ought to be exterminated from the face of

49. [Lemkin’s pp. 36, 37. Le roi 50. [Lemkin’s 51. [Lemkin’s

footnote] Correspondence du roi Charles IX et du sieur de Mandelot (Paris, 1830) a Mandelot, 22 aodat, 1572. footnote] Sully, p. 22. footnote] Browning, page 67.

296

Chapter Fourteen

the earth, permitted many a Parisian burgess to commit acts from which any but the most diabolic nature would otherwise have recoiled in horror.”

Ever since the edict of January, 1562, the clergy attempted to incite the people and arouse their hatred for the Huguenots: “Wherever the Catholics were in sufficient numbers, and not restrained by the authorities, they murdered a great many Protestants.”*? During the massacre, “Restraint of every kind was thrown aside; and ... the men were victims of bigoted fury.”* Sully relates some of the causes for Catherine de Medici’s antagonism toward the Huguenots, as well as further evidence of general religious intolerance: “As for Catherine, she had to that moment persisted in imputing to them (the Huguenots) the death of her husband, which she could never pardon, any more than their having treated as antichrist those of the house of Medicis. Nor was there less imprudence in trusting the Parisians, whose animosity and fury against the Huguenots was just then signally manifested, in the affair of the Cross of Gatine.”>

The following is a footnote by the editors in Sully’s Memoires: “The following is the fact, as related by M. de Thou, book 50, anno 1571. ‘Philip Gatine, a rich merchant of St. Denis-street, having been some years before convicted of lending his house to the Huguenots for a church, was condemned by the parliament of Paris, to be hanged or burnt on the 30th of July. His house being demolished, in its place was erected a pillar in the form of a cross, which was afterwards called the cross of Gatine.’”°® The responsibility of a small group of individuals for the massacre is again shown in the incitement of the Parisians. Here too general prejudice is described: “As midnight approached (on the eve of St. Bartholomew’s Day) the armed companies were collecting before the Hotel-de-Ville. They required some strong excitement to bring them to a proper mind, and in order to animate and exasperate them, they were told that a horrible conspiracy was discovered, which the Huguenots had made against

the king, the queen-mother, and the princess . . . for the destruction of the monarchy and religion: that the king wished to anticipate so execrable an attempt, commanded them to fall at once upon all those cursed heretics 52. [Lemkin’s footnote] Baird, Volume 2, p. 452. 53. |Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, p. 31. 54, [Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, p. 90. 55. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sully, Volume 1, p. 19. 56. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sully, footnote, p. 19.

Huguenots

297

(rebels against God and the king) without sparing one, and that afterwards their property should be given up for plunder. This was sufficient induce-

ment for a populace who naturally detested the Huguenots.”*” Throughout the nation the intolerance of the Catholics caused the massacre to continue. Although the two are, no doubt, intertwined and difficult to separate, the difference between intolerance and sadism must be maintained. Many, perhaps most, of the Catholics believed that they were doing a good deed in ending the life of a heretic. He (the king) told them (the Prince of Condé and Henry of Navarre) in an imperious and furious tone. “That he would no longer be contradicted in his sentiments by his subjects, that they, by their example, should teach others to revere him as the image of God, and cease to be enemies to the images of his mother.” He ended by declaring that if they did not go that moment to mass, he was forthwith to give orders to treat them as criminals guilty of treason against divine and human majesty. . . . Henry was even obliged to send an edict into his dominions, by which the exercises of any other religion but the Romish** was forbidden.”

“Zealous Catholics argued upon these conversations to show the utility

of the massacre.” We see here overtones of greed and power considerations but also the sincerity of some of the Catholics. Catherine, the queen-mother,

and her son, the Duke of Anjou, had

great influence upon the king, and power in the kingdom. The Admiral de Coligny represented a definite threat to their position because he enjoyed the king’s favor. Thus, his death and the destruction of the Protestants which followed, was to a large measure the result of the power lust of a few royal persons. “Several times had Anjou and Catherine perceived that, whenever Charles had conversed

in private with the admiral, his

demeanor was visibly changed toward them. He no longer exhibited his accustomed respect for his mother or his wonted kindness for his brother. Once, in particular—and it was, so Anjou tells us, only a few days before the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre—Henry happened to enter the 57. 58. 59, 60.

[Lemkin’s Reference [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] to Roman footnote] footnote]

Browning, p. 87. Catholics. Sully, pp. 33, 34. Browning, p. 101.

298

Chapter Fourteen

room just after de Coligny had gone out. Instantly the king’s countenance betrayed extreme anger.”*' Anjou feared for his safety and left the room when the king’s back was turned. Sadism, inherent or inculcated into the people of the time, was a very great motivation for the disaster. The cries for blood, the merciless de-

struction of women and children during the massacre indicate this clearly. Sully writes: “I prefer the honour of the nation to the malignant pleasure which particular persons might draw from a detail (of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew) in which they would find the names of those who forgot humanity so far as to imbrue their hands in the blood of their fellow citi-

zens and of their proper parents.” There are records of private individuals boasting of the number of heretics they killed with their own hands. Still another cause for the massacre was scapegoatism. When the attempt upon the life of the Admiral de Coligny failed, the king, it is generally believed, made an honest search to apprehend the perpetrators of the crime (see above). To save themselves from the wrath of the Huguenots,

as well as that of Charles IX, Catherine de Medici and the conspirators resolved upon the massacre.™ The psychological reaction of the Huguenots to the great massacre must have been one of despair. “The number of Protestants massacred during eight days, in all the kingdom, amounted to 70,000. This crushing blow conveyed such a sensible terror into the party that it believed itself extinct and talked no longer but of submitting or flying into foreign countries.”™ Sully’s statement may be taken for the pervading spirit of the time. However, the Huguenots were not completely submerged, and, whether they were driven on and held together by faith, their extreme and dire plight, or the innate force and hope of man, they managed to rally and capture several towns. The psychological effect upon the perpetrators in varied. In Rome, the spirit was one of joy and rejoicing. “At Rome great rejoicing took place: [Charles] the Cardinal of Lorraine (1524-1574) liberally rewarded the messenger, and questioned him like a person informed beforehand. The 61. 62. 63. 64.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Baird, Volume 2, pp. 433, 434. Sully, p. 30. See Browning, pages 80, 81. Sully, p. 38.

Huguenots

299

Cardinal Alexandrin had made no great secret of expecting the news of a great victory gained over the heretics, and exclaimed when it arrived, ‘The King of France has kept his word!’ The pope went in grand procession, performed high mass with all the splendour of his court, and ordered a Te Deum [Latin hymn, “Thee, O God, we praise’”’] to be sung in order to celebrate the event; the firing of a cannon at the same time announced the glad tiding to the neighboring villages. A medal was struck bearing on one side the head of Gregory XIII (1502-1585), and on the other the exterminating angel striking the Protestants with this inscription ‘Hugue-

notorum Strages, 1572.’ Apparently, attacks of conscience did bother the perpetrators of the crime. King Charles himself was sorry for the heinous deed. It was not long before Charles felt violent remorse for the barbarous action to which they had forced him to lend his name and authority. From the evening of the 24th of August he was observed to groan involuntarily at the recital of a thousand strokes of cruelty, which everyone made a merit of in his presence.®

Sully related a revealing confession of King Charles to his surgeon, Ambrose Pare (1510-1590), who was a Huguenot, and very close to the king. The King took him aside and opened himself upon the trouble with which he felt himself agitated. “Ambrose,” said he to him, “I know not what has

befallen me these two or three days past, but I feel my mind and body all as much disordered as if I had a fever. I think at every moment, as well when awake as asleep, that these massacred bodies present themselves to me, hideous faces, and covered in blood. I wish from my heart that the infirm and the innocent had not been taken in.” The order which was published the day following to discontinue the slaughter was the fruit of this conversation.®’

The king sent letters publicly disavowing his hand in the Massacre, blaming it on the Guises. He later, however, reversed this position, taking all the credit for the affair. 65. [Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, page 96. Taken from Lacretelle, Histoire des Guerres de Religion {Latin, History of the Wars of Religion], Volume II. Jean Charles Dominique de Lacretelle, (1766-1855), was a French historian and journalist.

66. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sully, pp. 35, 36. 67. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sully, p. 36.

300

Chapter Fourteen

It must also be mentioned that a number of the nobles were brave enough to refuse the king’s demands that the Protestants be exterminated in the provinces. “The Viscount d’Ortez, governor of Bayonne, had resolution enough to answer Charles, who had wrote him with his own hand,

‘That on this point he must not expect any obedience.’”®* Other such incidents are given in the Memoires. The effect of the massacre upon outsiders was varied. In Rome and Catholic Spain, it was cheered. But in the Protestant nations of England, Switzerland, and Germany, opinion was strongly against the French. The aftermath of the massacre was the almost total destruction of the Protestant party. “In all, there were, as Thaunus says, Thirty thousand massacred over France. . . . But Perefixe® says, that over all France, near an hundred thousand were butchered. And Veremundus says that besides those who were killed, an hundred thousand Persons were set a begging. . . Great numbers went out of the Kingdom. For when they had escaped the first rage of the Massacre, they clearly perceived the design of their Enemies, was to extirpate them Root and Branch.””° The best estimates have it that between fifty and one hundred thousand Protestants were killed in the Massacre beginning on St. Bartholomew’s Day, 1572. Rapid emigration and economic losses, which set people wandering and begging, also reduced to a great measure the influence of the Huguenots in France. However, the Protestants were still determined to

hold out, and with their stronghold in La Rochelle prepared for the ensuing civil war. Says Sully, “I even would, if it were possible, bury forever of a day for which the divine vengeance punished France, twenty successive years of disasters, carnage, and horror. One

themselves

the memory by six and cannot help judging after this manner, which he considers all that passed from that fatal moment till the peace of 1598.”7! He (the king, Nov. 3, 1572) declared he would Tollerate no Religion, but

the Roman Catholick in all his Dominions. Upon which the . . . Civil wars began.”

68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

[Lemkin’s footnote] Sully, p. 37. Paul Philippe Hardouin de Beaumont de Péréfixe (1606-1671). [Lemkin’s footnote] “A Relation... ,” pp. 35, 36. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sully, p. 31. [Lemkin’s footnote] “A Relation... ,” p. 39.

Huguenots

301

Here, as a final word and summary of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, we will present a section from a biography of Lord Acton,” a liberal dignitary of the Catholic Church. Again Acton did not go out of his way to find matter for controversy. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew happened, just then, to be the subject of a spate of volumes and articles by Catholics purporting to revise the conventional theory according to which the massacre of thousands of French Huguenots on St. Bartholomew’s Day 1572, had been premeditated and carried out by the Catholic party. In the Chronicle Acton had briefly reviewed a book on the Massacre, and in the North British Review he examined at

greater length the recent literature. He concluded that there was no evidence to absolve the Church of premeditated murder or the papal court of connivance. [t was not only indisputable historical fact that told against the papacy, but the whole body of casuistry which made it an act of duty and mercy to kill a heretic so that he might be removed from sin. The Inquisition had prepared the way for the massacre by hardening the heart and corrupting the conscience of the Catholic world. Only when Catholics could no longer rely on force and had to take their case before public opinion did they seek to explain away what had once been boastfully acknowledged. “The same motive which had justified the murder now prompted the life, and a swarm of facts were invented to absolve the papacy from this monstrous crime.” To Dollinger at about this time, Acton wrote: “The story is much more abominable than we all believed.” His private notes, even more than his published articles, express the bitterness and repugnance with which he looked upon the practice of religious murder: “S.B. (St. Bartholomew) is the greatest crime of modern times. It was committed on principles preferred by Rome. It was approved, sanctioned, praised by the papacy. The Holy See went out of its way to signify to the world, by permanent and solemn acts, how entirely it admired a king who slaughtered his subjects treacherously because they were Protestants. To proclaim forever that because a man is a Protestant it is a pious (holy) deed to cut his throat in the night.””

The Saint Bartholomew Massacre touched off the fourth civil war which lasted, with short intermissions, until 1598, when Henry IV (1553-

1610) put forth the famous Edict of Nantes. The Protestants, despite the 73. John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, Ist Baron Acton, (1834-1902) was an English historian,

the only son of Sir Ferdinand Dalberg-Acton, 7th Baronet and grandson of the Neapolitan admiral, Sir John Acton, 6th Baronet.

74. [Lemkin’s footnote] Himmelfarb, pp. 66. 67.

302

Chapter Fourteen

great losses suffered because of the Massacres, managed to rally. Their stronghold remained La Rochelle. Sully related another incident demonstrating the dissemblance of Catherine de Medici, the queen-mother. In 1576, Henry of Navarre, in command of a strong army, forced the queenmother to give a treaty to the Protestants, containing many benefits for the party. He then withdrew to La Rochelle. “The King of Navarre stayed but a short while in this city. Scarce did he open his mouth to demand the accomplishment of the treaty, till he became sensible of the greatness of his fault. Catherine denied she had promised anything to the Huguenots, who were obliged to take up arms again before the expiration of the year.”” La Rochelle was placed under a state of siege. It is interesting to note that the common bonds and persecutions of the Protestants, as well as their religion, served to keep them spiritually alive, profoundly affecting their psychological outlook. “During the siege the Rochellese had several times been offered liberty of conscience for themselves, but they declared they would never betray their cause by treaty alone.’ In 1598, Henry IV, or Henry the Great, proclaimed the Edict of Nantes, ending the persecution of the Huguenots. The Edict of Nantes was a milestone in religious freedom, and at the time of its publication, France was in the vanguard of religious tolerance. Despite its faults, the Protestants enjoyed considerable religious liberty under it, even though Cardinal Richelieu”’ attempted to destroy them as a political power. In 1610, Henry IV was assassinated. He was succeeded by Louis XIII (1601-1643), the “Boy King,” who was but nine years old when he ascended to the throne. The power of the state was in the hands of the Prime Minister, Cardinal Richelieu.

Under the Edict of Nantes, the Protestants were cities. The Saint Bartholomew Massacre was still of the Huguenots. It became the policy of Cardinal out as an armed political body. The civil war was

allowed to fortify their very real in the minds Richelieu to wipe them again begun. In 1629,

the war was ended, after a long siege of La Rochelle, with the defeat of the Protestants. Sixteen thousand people succumbed to pestilence and starvation during the siege. For a while the Protestants lived in relative safety. Every five years the first estate (the clergy) assembled to discuss affairs of the moment 75. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sully, p. 48. 76. [Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, p. 104. 77. Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu (1585-1642).

Huguenots

303

and to vote the crown a subsidy. In 1656 the clergy . . . demanded strict enforcement of the articles of the edict. Mazarin’® (the Prime Minister under Louis XIV) paid little heed to the matter, but in 1661 Louis XIV

responded favorably to a similar request, and from that date the spirit of religious toleration in France commences to wane. .. . The king’s willingness to “interpret” the edict meant success to the persecuting party. Every five years the crown was requested to concede the church certain new favors to the detriment of the Protestants. Always the letter of the edict was maintained while its intention was violated . .. by 1680 the Huguenots had been excluded from all grades of the civil service, and the special courts created to protect their interests had been suppressed, many hundreds of their churches had been leveled and most of their educational institutions destroyed.” The historian Browning describes some of the hardships of the Protestants. “From some years the attention of many eminent persons in the church and among the offices of Parliament, had been directed toward the most efficacious means for delivering France from the presence of heresy. Various measures were proposed for hastening the general conversion of the Huguenots; and the plan first adopted, corruption was attended with great success; however, the middle and lower classes could not be bribed

by such inducements.”®° A law was passed forbidding return to heresy after abjuration, with penalty of perpetual banishment. Protestant ministers could not attempt to reconvert these people on penalty of losing their churches and the dispersal of their flocks. “The pastor’s feelings naturally led him to revive, if possible, the penitent’s former sentiments; and most of the Protestant churches coming in this manner under the penalty of the law, their numbers were rapidly reduced in consequence.”*! In a pamphlet entitled “An Account of the Persecutions and Oppressions of the Protestants in France,” by Jean Claude (1619-1687), printed in 1686, various methods for undermining and destroying the Protestants may be found. “To take only notice of the chief of them, which were, First, Law Suits in Courts of Justice. Secondly, Deprivations from all kinds of Offices and Employs; and, in general, of all ways of subsistence. Thirdly,

78. Jules Mazarin (1602-1661), born Giulio Raimondo Mazarino or Mazarini.

79. [Lemkin’s footnote] O’Brien, pp. 5—6. 80. [Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, p. 238. 81. [Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, p. 239.

304

Chapter Fourteen

the infraction of Edicts, under the notion of Explications of them. Fourthly,

New Laws and Orders. Fifthly, Juggles and amusing Tricks. Sixthly, the animating of People, and inspiring them with hatred against us.”* Various laws were enacted which, although they did not expressly prohibit the reformed religion, made it impossible to be practiced. The penalties were whippings, public penances, banishment, and slavery in galleys, as well as death in many cases. “In 1680, the King issued out an Order which deprived them (Protestants) in general of all kinds of Offices and Employs, from the greatest to the smallest.”®? They would not suffer any Midwives of the Reformed Religion to do their office... 84 By repeated Edicts, the King forbade them (Protestants) to leave his Kingdom, on severe penalties.®

Edict followed edict, all to the detriment of the Huguenots. Synods were forbidden to censure parents or guardians who sent their children to Catholic schools. Protestants were excluded from most professions, and many minor laws were passed to harass them. Wherever an infraction occurred, the temple was usually suppressed. To add to the general discomfort of the Protestants, an edict was passed which forbade them to have seats in their temples!*° A pamphlet printed by A. Maxwell in 1668, and entitled “A Brief Relation of the Persecutions and Sufferings of the Reformed Churches of France,” gives the following account: The first and most considerable Mean, used by the Prelates to hasten our ruine, is that of commissions: for under pretext of Executing the Edict of Nantes, and the Decrees made in consequence thereof, and providing against the Breaches of the same, they have engaged the King to send Commissioners into all Provinces. . . . It is certain that, under this fair show they had hid most high and violent Injustice.®’

The account goes on to show how the Edict’of Nantes is flagrantly abused and persecution continues. 82. [Lemkin’s footnote] An Account of the Persecutions ... ,

83. [Lemkin’s footnote] 4n Account of the Persecutions ... 84. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., p. 7. 85. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., p. 8. 86. [Lemkin’s footnote] See Browning, pp. 239-242. 87. [Lemkin’s footnote] A Brief Relation ..., p. 1.

,

si)nw

Huguenots

305

There was a system of sharing of churches, but “if the business comes to sharing, it is even as good as lost.” The consequences of these Commissioners have been generally very fatal to the Reformed Churches within the kingdom: For it may be truly affirmed that the Acts made with the common consent of the Commissioners for executing the Decrees of Counsel, partly by these other Acts which they have made worse than the Decrees themselves, and partly by these sharings of Churches thus agreed upon among the Commissioners . . . we have lost well nigh three parts in four of all our Churches. The Province of Provence which had Fifteen or Sixteen Churches is now reduced to Four. The county of Gex, which had twenty three hath now but Two. In all Bretagne remains but Two. ... The Province but Poictou, which alone had sixty one indisputable Churches, by an Act of Aug. 6, 1665, is reduced to Thirteen. Thus these Provinces in themselves, all at once, fallen into extreme Desolation; Their Churches demolished, their Flocks scattered, and all that innumerable Multitude of Persons whereof the Congregations were composed, now neces-

sitated either to live without any publick Exercise of Religion; or, through infinite Dangers and Inconveniences, to wander about, and seek it Fifty or Sixty miles distant from their Habitation.®® These Cities where Protestants for number are most considerable seem to be the principal object of our Enemies fury . . . Montaubau being first deprived of their University and Common Council, hath endured a Garrison of five or six thousand Soldiers for four months together; hath seen her Inhabitants, some hanged, some burnt, some scourg’ d, some banished

. others compelled by beating, and all manner of violence, to go to Mass, and in end forced to accept an Act of Oblivion for an Imaginary Crime.*? But all this is nothing to what is done at Privas: In this Town, although the Reformed Religion had been established by Authority of the late King, and the Inhabitants maintained in that Establishment by several Decrees; yet after Thirty two, or Thirty three years peaceable possession, they are now banished the Town and Territories thereof, with such Inhumanity, as they have not exercised upon Barbarians. This poor people, to the number of Five or Six hundred Men, Women and Children, being spoiled of all their goods, and miserably hunted down from place to place, like very Beasts, are now wandering in the Woods.”

p. te 89. [Lemkin’s footnote] A Brief Relation .. ., p. 13) 90. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., p. 14. 88. [Lemkin’s footnote] A Brief Relation ...,

306

Chapter Fourteen

It was about this time, 1680 and 1681, that the notorious dragonnades

were begun. As abovementioned pamphlet, printed in 1668, or contemporary with this period of great persecution, gives a vivid and appalling account of the oppression. At first they (the Catholics) took this Measure, to quarter Soldiers in all their Provinces, almost at the same time, and chiefly Dragoons, which are the most Resolute Troop of the Kingdom. Terror and Dread marched before them ... and... all France was filled with this News, That the King would no longer suffer any Huguenots in his Kingdom; and that they must resolve to change their Religion, nothing being able to keep them from it. (A number of counties are here mentioned, where the Dragoons did their work.) The first thing the Intendants (Catholic “‘supervisors”) were ordered to do was to summon the Cities and Commanalties. They assembled the Inhabitants thereof, who profest the Reformed Religion and there told them twas the King’s Pleasure they should without delay become Catholics; and if they would not do it freely, they would make them do it by force. The Poor People, surprised with such a Proposal, answered They were ready to sacrifice their Estates and Lives to the King, but their Consciences, being Gods, they could not in that manner dispose of them. There needed no more to make them immediately bring the Dragoons, which were not far off. The Troops immediately seized on the Gates and Avenues of the Cities; they placed Guards in all the Passages, and often came with Swords in their Hand, crying “Kill, Kill, or else be Catholics.”

There now follows a very descriptive account of the methods of torture and violence which were used to force conversion upon the Huguenots. We would spare the reader from this gruesome episode, save that it is necessary to demonstrate the extreme sadism which motivated the people, and the true horrors of the genocide. There’s no Wickedness or Horror which they did not put in practice, to force them (Protestants) to change their Religion. Amidst a thousand hideous Cries, and a thousand Blasphemies, they hung Men on chimney hooks and smoakt them with wisps of wet Hay, till they were no longer able to bear it, and when they had taken them down, if they would not sing, they hung them up immediately again. They threw them into great fires, kindled on purpose, and pulled them out not till they were half Roasted. They tied

91. [Lemkin’s footnote] An Account... , pp. 18, 19.

Huguenots

307

Ropes under their Arms, and plunged them to and again into Wells, from whence they would not take them, till they had promised to change their Religion. . . . They tied them as they do Criminals, put to the question; and in this position, with a Funnel fill’d with Wine, poured it down their Throats, till the Fumes of it depriving them oftheir Reason, they made them say they would consent to be Catholics. They stript them naked, and after having offered them a 1000 infamous Indignities, they struck them with Pins from the top to the bottom. They cut them with Penknives, sometimes with red-hot Pincers took them by the Nose and dragged them about their Rooms, till they promised to become Catholics, or that the Cries of these poor wretches, that in this Condition call’d on God for their Assistance,

constrained them to let go. They beat them with Staves, and dragged them, all bruisec, to the Churches, where their bars forced Presence was accounted for an Abjuration.”

The historian Browning describes the dragonnade period. “The persecution, which lasted for several years subsequent to 1681, surpasses in

cold-blooded malignity that of the sixteenth century; for the undisguised hostility of the last kings of the house of Valois, although barbarous, was frank: their object was avowed, and the conflicting interests were openly hostile. But the Jesuits, who now swayed the royal council, were crafty: insidious enactments rendered it almost impossible to avoid contravention; and liberty of worship was in fact destroyed, even while the edict of Nantes was still in force.”” The following passage is from “Narrative of the Sufferings of a French Protestant Family,” by John Miguault, printed in 1824, and quoted in Browning: “We were not exposed to the fury of the storm until Tuesday the 22nd of August, 1681. In the morning, as we quitted the church where we had just offered up our accustomed prayers, we beheld a troop of cavalry, commanded by M. de la Brique, advance toward us at a gallop, take their station around the cemetery, and by their demonstrations strike terror into the stoutest hearts. I had scarcely entered my house, when the quartermaster appeared, holding in his hand a billet. Without dismounting, he demanded most peremptorily, if it was our intention to become Catholics. Such was the methods in which these convertisseurs were accustomed to

proceed.” 92. [Lemkin’s footnote] An Account ..., pp. 19, 20.

93. [Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, p. 242. 94. [Lemkin’s footnote] Migault, p. 29, quoted in Browning, p. 244.

308

Chapter Fourteen

The appearance of the dragoons in many cases sufficed to make an entire village embrace the Romish [Catholic] religion; but when the acquiescence was only partial, the burden was proportionately aggravated for the more steadfast Huguenots. The system was one of absolute plunder; for the soldiers levied contributions on their hosts, and if the amount demanded was

not punctually paid, their furniture, cattle, and even their apparel were sold to raise the money.” As fast as the Troop ravaged in this manner the Provinces, spreading terror and desolation in all parts; Orders were sent to all the Frontier Countries and Seaport Towns to guard well the passages and stop all such who pretended to escape from France: So that there was no hope of these poor wretches saving themselves by flight.”

This was the situation—the ruthless dragoons pillaging and plundering towns and cities, torturing and killing all who would not convert, performing all manners of outrageous actions and crimes against the Huguenots, whose only recourse, escape from France, had been cut off—when the crowning blow against the Protestants was loosed: the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes: “This Revocation Edict of Nantes was signed and pub-

lished on Thursday, being the 8th of October in the year 1685.”°’ The Edict of Revocation contains a Preface and twelve articles. It serves to completely outlaw the Reformed church, with severe penalties for disobeyers.

A summary of the articles follows:

I. “suppresses and repeals” the protestants, all churches to be demolished II. “forbids all sorts of Religious Assemblies” of the Huguenots III. forbids the exercise of the reformed religion to persons “of any Qual-

ity” IV. Banishes ministers, under penalty of galleys. V. and VI. “Recompenses and Advantages to the Ministers and their Widows” who convert VII. and VII. Children must be baptized and raised as Catholics. IX. All those departed from the kingdom must return to their property will be confiscated. X. Protestants may not leave the kingdom.

95. [Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, p. 244. Taken from Migualt, p. 27. 96. [Lemkin’s footnote] An Account... , p. 23. 97. [Lemkin’s footnote] An Account... , p. 24.

Huguenots

309

XI. “confirms the Declarations heretofore made against those that Relapse.” XU. Others may live peaceably, as long as they make no pretense of practicing their religion.°® Although the last clause in the Revocation would suggest leniency in forced conversions and persecution, it was, in fact, a dead letter and

completely disregarded. “The secretary of state, Seignelay,” took the business in hand. He collected in his hotel above a hundred Protestants of the mercantile class; and, having closed the gates, presented an act of abjuration for their signature, declaring, at the same time, that none should

leave until they signed it. This act set forth, not only their renunciation of heresy, but their return to the Catholic church; and, further, that they

signed it freely, and without being constrained. It was in vain that several exclaimed against the proceeding and appealed to the last clause of the edict of revocation: they were haughtily told that there was nothing to dispute upon for they must obey. In short, all signed the paper.”!” As to such that have escaped into Foreign Countreys, who are at least 150,000 persons, their Estates are Confiscated. . . .'°!

It is calculated that nearly half a million people left their native land for consciences’ sake. France lost most of her industry; her production was decreased by threefourths; she lost much of her best educated, most intelligent and most prosperous citizenry.'°

This is the history of the persecutions of the Huguenots: atrocities of such appalling horror as to almost stun the minds of most readers. The causes were bigotry, intolerance, greed, and shocking sadism. The results—hundreds of thousands dead, and always, a great cultural and economic and

economic loss to the [Editor’s Note: Page appears to be missing.] There were some very severe enactments to deter the preachers from attempting to return to France. (They were banished by the revocation.) The 98. 99. 100. Histoire 101. 102.

[Lemkin’s footnote] Taken from An Account .. . , quotes from p. 25. Jean-Baptiste Antoine Colbert, Marquis de Seignelay (1651-1690). [Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, p. 250. Taken from, not quoted, [ Henri Phillipe de] Limiers, de Louis XIV, Vol. 1V, pp. 180, 181. [Lemkin’s footnote] An Account... , p. 29. [Lemkin’s footnote] Purvis, p. 18.

310

Chapter Fourteen

penalty of death was awarded to any minister who should be found in the kingdom: all persons receiving or assisting them to be sent, the men to the galleys for life, the women to be shaved and imprisoned, with confiscation of property in either case. A reward of five thousand five hundred Jivres was promised to anyone giving information by which a minister could be arrested; and the penalty of death for anyone discovered preaching or exercising other worship than the Roman Catholic.'” The responsibility for the many heinous acts which were perpetrated over the period of time from 1681 to and later than the revocation in 1685 must be attributed to the officials of the church, and to Louis XIV, as well as his

advisers and ministers. “In 1651, bishop Choiseul (1613-1689) of Comminges well represented the temper of his colleagues in addressing these words to the youthful sovereign: ‘We do not ask that Your Majesty banish from the realm this unfortunate freedom of conscience which destroys the liberty of God’s children, but if it is impossible for you to extinguish heresy

at one strike, at least do it little by little.””!™ The attitude of [Pope] Innocent XI (1611—1689) to the revocation was favorable, though it is stressed by O’Brien that he had nothing to do with the initiation of the edict, and probably did not condone the persecution which followed. Still the idea of outlawing the Huguenots was not unfavorable to the Pope: When informed of the abrogating edict, the Holy Father addressed a brief to Louis [XIV], in which he said: “Our very dear son in Christ, greeting and apostolic blessing. In comparison with the other illustrious proofs which abundantly evidence the piety implanted in your Majesty, that extraordinary zeal, worthy of a Christian king, stands forth preeminently. This is it which inspired you to abrogate completely the regulations favoring the heretics of your realm and caused you to give heed splendidly to the propagation of the orthodox faith by very wise decrees which you have promulgated. All this had been set forth to us by our beloved son, the noble duc d’Estrees

(1573-1670), your ambassador before us. For this reason we have deemed it to be our duty to commend lavishly your glorious religious spirit by this distinguished and enduring evidence, our letter, and to congratulate you exceedingly on the crown of immortal praises which, through a signed deed of this kind, you have added to your hitherto nobly performed achievements.

103. [Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, p. 252. From a Declaration du Roy, dated July 1, 1686. Registered in Parliament July 12. 104. [Lemkin’s footnote] O’Brien, p. 4.

Huguenots

Sit

Assuredly the Catholic church in her annals will recount so great a deed displaying your devotion toward her, and will honor your name with undying laudation. Deservedly indeed will you be able to promise yourself particularly rich recompense from the Divine Goodness for that most excellent design; be persuaded that we shall not cease constantly to pour forth earnest prayers to the same Goodness for the attainment of this goal. The rest you will learn from our venerable Brother Angelo (Ranuzzi, 1626-1689), archbishop of Fano, while we most lovingly bestow upon Your Majesty our

apostolic benediction.”!” ... To obtain their (the clergy’s) Ends, they have made it their business to persuade the King that this work (the Revocation) would Crown him with Glory.'°°

The motivations of the persecution were varied. Certainly religious intolerance and hatred played a great part, and the sadism of the people, particularly the soldiers and dragoons. “A notion as ridiculous as it was tyrannical had been extensively adopted—‘ That it was essential for all the subjects of a sovereign to have the same creed.’”!”’ The Protestants were, in general, no less loyal to the king of France than the Catholics. “A letter from Louis (XIV) to the Duke of St. Aignan: ‘You have acted very prudently, in not precipitating anything, upon the information sent you respecting some inhabitants of Havre, of the pretended reformed religion. Those who profess it, being no Jess faithful to me than any other subjects, they must not be treated with less attention

and kindness.””’'°8 Over a few years the opinion of the king seems to have changed radically. “He (the king) has entered on the design to destroy the Protestant Party, in the very time wherein they have signaliz’d and distinguished themselves with great success for the interest of the Crown.”!” Then, too, the king was persuaded or believed that glory would be the reward for the atrocious deed. This incident, whch took place in the year 1621, will perhaps throw a light upon some of the causes of the murder and persecution.

105. [{Lemkin’s footnote] O’Brien, pp. 85, 86. Original document may be found in “Correspondence de Rome,” 297, f. 231. Date: November 13, 1685.

106. 107. 108. 109.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

An Account ..., p. 34. Browning, p. 238. Browning, p. 239. In Italics. An Account... , p. 33.

312

Chapter Fourteen

He (the king, Louis XIII) was however induced to hasten on to Tours, where a conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics had threatened to produce serious consequences. It originated with the funeral of a Protestant, name Martin Le Noir, an inn-keeper, whose character was not calculated to honor the religion he professed . . . (The procession was generally hooted, and children ran along singing a derisive couplet about the man.) on which some of the party turned, and striking them, caused two of the disturbers to fall into the grave. The consequence of this was an interference on the part of the populace; the Protestants were attacked with stones, and compelled to seek shelter. The ignorant people, ever ready to gratify their brutal feelings engendered by prejudice, and on this occasion urged by revenge, rushed to the cemetery, and took up the body of Martin Le Noir, with the intention of hanging and burning it. At the same time the houses and stores of the Protestants were broken into and devastated. The magistrates were unable to quell the tumult. The following day the mob set fire to the Protestant temple, and prevented the authorities from interfering to stop the conflagration. The sedition continued with short intermissions until the king’s arrival. ... A species of fury animated the mob, who renewed their attacks on fresh pretexts, each succeeding day.''°

The psychological reactions of the perpetrators of the deed seem to have been anything but pangs of conscience. “Whatever his motives for the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the praises of Louis resounded in

the pulpits of his churches. On the Sunday following, the celebrated Bossnet [?] said, in referring to it: ‘In this event we see the noblest exercise of authority, and the merits of the sovereign are recognized and revered. Let our hearts overflow with joy at the piety of Louis—let us raise our acclamations to the skies.’”!"' This is further proof of the responsibility of the cabinet of Louis for the promulgation of anti-Huguenot acts and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The victims of oppression continued in the face of the great and dangerous opposition to maintain their faith and practice their religion when possible. “Although it was declared a capital crime to worship the Almighty according to the Protestant form, numbers continued to assemble

in retired places, ready to submit to death rather than swerve from their

duty. On one occasion, the intendant of Poictou, having surprised an as110. [Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, p. 219. 111. [Lemkin’s footnote] Dyson, p. 282.

Huguenots

313

sembly at worship in a sequestered field, fiercely charged upon them with his dragoons. Many perished on the scaffold, for no other cause than their perseverance in following the dictates of conscience.”!!? The reaction of the people of France is surprising, indeed shocking. “The barbarities inflicted do not seem to have offended public opinion.” Madame de Sévigné,''? who was esteemed as one of the most charming and lovable women of the day, writes: We are not dull here. Hanging is our amusement just now. Today they have taken twenty or thirty of these Huguenots and are going to throw them off. My brother-in-law has just returned from a fatiguing journey to pursue these wretched fellows. They come forth from their holes and vanish like ghosts to avoid extermination.''*

The aftermath of the persecutions was the mass emigration of hundreds of thousands of French Protestants into neighboring countries, despite the restrictions upon leaving the kingdom.

[LEMKIN’S] BIBLIOGRAPHY AND NOTES Charles du Bois-Melly: Le Recit de Nicolas Muss, serviteur de Mr. L’ Amira Episode de la Saint-Barthelemy. Geneve et Bale, H. Geor, Libraire Editeur, Paris, G. Fischbacher, Rue de Seine, 1878. (This one I looked over as I thought we

could use it, but it is no good at all [R.L.].) Archives de l’hospital de Grenoble (H 638) M. R. Dareste, Revue Historique, 1876

Le Saint-Barthelemy et Geneve, etude historique par Henry Fazy, In -4 de 131 p., 1839 (refugees from Paris) Vatican Influence under Pius V and Gregory XIII, by C. F. Stewart, M.A. Trinity College, Cambridge, in-8 London, 1878 (correspondence on S-B of Pius with Vasari, Charles Ambassador to Vatican) Henriade, in which is included some poems or songs on S-B Memoires de H. Fazy, Geneve, la St.-B. etc. Memoires et Correspondence de Duplessie-Mornay, 12 vols in 8, Paris, Truettel and Wurtz, 1824.

Memoires de Montluc 112. [Lemkin’s footnote] Browning, p. 251. 113. Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de Sévigné (1626-1696).

114, [Lemkin’s footnote] Dyson, pp. 281, 282.

314

Chapter Fourteen

Correspondence de Frederic de Prieux, pub. By M. Kluckholm Memoires de Jacques Pape de Saint-Auban (a Huguenot in Coligny’s train) pub. by E. Maignien, Grenoble, 1900, in-4 Dubouchet, Preuves de |’Histoire de la Maison de Coligny (letters of Col’s son to his wife), Paris, in-fol., 1662 de Thou, Histoire Universelle (grand histoire, chaps. LI, LI, and Memoires year

1572) Lettres de Saint Pie V, sur les affaires religieuses de son temps en France Fr. Trans. by M. de Potter, Paris, 1826, Ponthieu, in-8 (have I used this, I think so

in the back catechism on the treatment of heretics I’m sure) Lettres de Catherine de Medicis, t. 1, 1V, in-4 de CCVIII, 381 p., Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1891 M. de la Ferriere

Sauval, historien des Antiquities de Paris, numbers of victims Memoires de la vie de sieur de Soubrise Le Saint-B. a Troyes, 1572, in-8 de 32 p. author unknown (this I may have seen in the documents collected in one book on the happenings outside Paris) Memoires de |’Estat de France sous Charles LX, 1576 (this I have used from a book of collected documents) Reflexions sur la Cruelle Persectuion qui souffre |’Eglise reformee de France by Hurien Henri de Rohan or The Huguenot Refugee, 1863, in-12 Arnold Delahaize or The Huguenot Pastor, 1865, in-12 Memoires Theologique or Politiques su sujet des manages clandestine des Protestants de France, by Mondas, and |’Abbe [unclear], 1755, in-8 bas

Histoire des Massacres et horribles cruates commises en la personne de Gaspar de Coligny, grand amiral de France, et autres seigneurs, etc., le 24 jour d’aoust, 1572, SL 1573, Ernest Varamond, 1681 Bibliotheque Nationale, fonds Colbert, 500, no. 1, p. 119 A Pattern of Popisti Peace, London, 1644

Memoires de Mergey, d’Achille Gamon, de Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne (depuis duc de Bouillion), de Tavannes (Gaspard de Saulx!), de Marguerite de Valois (I used the pertinent part from collection), de Jean Choisn de Pierre de lEstoile, de Sully

Requeil de depeches des ambassadeurs (I have used many important ones from collection) Messrs. Lazare freres, Dictionnaire administrative et historique de Paris Bibliotheque de Chartres Record Office, State Papers, France (this I think is like the Memoire de |’Estat

de France—in any case I have looked in the collection at the Paris records for those days)

Huguenots

315

XLIV (le serie) Collection des memoires relatifs a l'histoire de France, par M.

Petitot Theodore de Beze, Histoire Ecclesiastique des Eglises reformees, | 15, y. 3, p. 429, Anvers 1580 Varilles, La Vie de Charles IX, t. 1, p. 203 People referred to: Daniel Toussain, Buchez (contemporary of S-B), Boudri (Sorel’s successor to pastorship of Church of Paris, there during S-B), Michel de |’ Hospital, M. le Comte Lionel de Laubespin

UPDATED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baird, Henry Martyn. History of the Rise of the Huguenots. FQ Books, 2010. Two volumes. Butler, Jon. The Huguenots in America: A Refugee People in New World Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992. Currer-Briggs, Noel. Huguenot Ancestry. Gloucesteshire, UK: Phillimore & Co.,

2001. Diefendorf, Barbara B. The St. Batholomew’s Day Massacre: A Brief History with Documents. New Y ork: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008.

Doyle, Arthur Conan. The Refugees: A Tale of Huguenot Persecution. Tucson: Fireship Press, 2007. Kingston, William Henry Giles. Exiled for the Faith—A Tale of the Huguenot Persecution.

FQ Books, 2010.

Knecht, Robert. The French Religious Wars 1562-1598. Colchester, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2002. Martyn, William Carlos. A History of the Huguenots. General Books LLC, 2010. Mentzer, Raymond A., and Spicer, Andrew, eds. Society and Culture in the Huguenot World, 1559-1685. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Smiles, Samuel. The Huguenots in France. FQ Books, 2010.

Chapter Fifteen

The Case of Hungary

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND There is no absolute agreement on the ethnic origin of the Magyars of Hungary. Vambery claims they are of Turkish origin, and bases this contention on the similarity between Turkish and Magyar social structure. The majority of historians, with Hunfali (1810-1891) as their chief spokesman, believe the Magyars to be descended from the Finns, their language definitely of Finnish origin.' Be that as it may, the Magyars wrested the country, which later constituted the kingdom of Hungary, from the Bulgars and the Germans in 907.? Transylvania was probably conquered a century or more afterwards.’ In 975 the Magyar royal family was baptized in the Roman Catholic faith and Christianity was spreading slowly in Hungary. In 1001, Pope Sylvester II (946-1003) endowed the Magyar prince with a royal crown, thereby recognizing the country as a Separate nation. The church was consolidated and the Benedictines fostered colonization.* A system of counties was established whose counts stood in a semifeudal relation to the king. He was the administrative head of the country, but he was bound to follow the king in battle.

The non-Magyars, unless when granted special privileges, were ruled by royal governors as “subject races” and formed the bulk of the peasantry.°

The years 1046 and 1061 saw two pagan revolts, while from outside . [Lemkin’s . [Lemkin’s . [Lemkin’s . {Lemkin’s . [Lemkin’s aA — eWN

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Cambridge Medieval History, p. 194. Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 11, p. 903. Ibid. Ibid., p. 904. Ibid.

SHIT!

318

Chapter Fifteen

the country the heathen Kumans and Petchenegs invaded the realm. After some conflicts with Germany, Hungaria strengthened herself by a Papal alliance and began conquest of her own—Croatia and part of Dalmatia. In the twelfth century the intervention of Greece in Hungarian affairs increased the power of the nobility by land grants. It also weakened the Catholic Church at the expense of the Greek Orthodox,° which permitted a married clergy and did not ask a tithe (church tax). Bela III (1148-1196) established the hereditary principle for the crown, but his immediate successors undid his efforts of strengthening the monarchy by continuing the former lavish grants to the Magyar land magnates. In 1222 the Golden Bull was promulgated to again restore the power of the monarchy. However, while decreeing that the title and estates of the lords—lieutenants of the counties—should not be hereditary, the Bull confirmed the principle of exemption from taxation of the nobility, as well as its right to refuse military service abroad.

CONDITIONS

LEADING TO GENOCIDE

At the time of Batu’s’ invasion of Hungary, that kingdom extended from the Adriatic to the Black Sea and from the Carpathian mountains to the Balkans. King Bela IV (1206-1270) reigned over Hungary, while his brother Koleman ruled over Slavonia, Servia, Croatia, and Dalmatia un-

der Bela’s suzerainty.* Kumania and Betchnak, both populated by pagan nomads, were considered part of the Kingdom. Bela was related to various royal houses around Hungary and thus felt relatively safe; only Duke Ferdinand I of Austria (1211-1246) was his avowed enemy. Despite all these factors in Hungary’s favor, the Mongols were able to overrun the unfortunate country with lightning speed. While the military power of the Mongols was probably largely responsible, Hungary’s internal weakness contributed to its speedy fall. Thomas, archdeacon of Spalato, a foremost chronicler of the Mongol period in Hungary, bitterly blames the Hungarian nobility for their false sense of security, for their softness and degeneracy and love of luxury which was engendered by a surplus 6. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid. 7. Batu Khan (1205-1255). 8. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 276.

The Case of Hungary

319

of wealth,’ and their complete disregard and indifference to the Mongol threat. Only with difficulty was King Bela persuaded to barricade the mountain passes of the Carpathians. At the council which was called by him, the assembled lords could not come to any agreement with regard to what action, if any, to take against the mounting threat of invasion.'? Emperor Frederick II (1194-1250) judged the Hungarians in a similar vein. He blamed them for completely disregarding the devastation of Russia by the Mongols and relying merely on their natural protection, the Carpathian passes. Roger, another great chronicler of the period, complains about the internal rivalries. The magnates were full of hatred and jealousy for the king, five accusations against him being most frequently made: They accused him of giving asylum to the fugitive Kumans and thereby causing the destruction of much cultivated land by the nomad livestock, as well as exposing the wives and virgins of the peasants and even of the nobility to the sexual rapacity of the Kumans.'' The nobles hated the Kumans for enforcing royal power; on the other hand, it could not be denied that they did the damage mentioned.'? They further accused the king of insulting, harming, and defying the dignity of the nobles, to which the king’s followers answered that their impunity and threats and their efforts to wrest the crown from Bela called for it. Then they accused the king of failing to live up to traditions by refusing lavish gifts and land grants to the nobles, and of even reducing their incomes. Further they complained of being delayed in their requests at court and of being forced to conduct their business with the king through intermediaries.'’ Finally they accused the

king of introducing the Kumans merely in order to chastise the nobles, and of giving them greater consideration at court.'* Vincent of Beauvais (1190-1264), a contemporary of the Mongol invasion, related the story of Batu (1205-1255), when sacrificing to idols before the campaign, was told by one of the demons: “Advance with good hope; I will send three spirits before you which your enemies shall be unable to resist.” And these spirits were discord, suspicion, and terror.'°

9. f[Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 278. 10. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 278-9. 11. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 282.

12. 13. 14. 15.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Wolff, Wolff, Wolff, Wolff,

283. 285. 285. 287.

320

Chapter Fifteen

The people were so ignorant of the situation at hand that they made the following absurd accusation: the Kumans were in alliance with the Russians and had come to Hungary only to learn the language and lay of the land; then the Russians would invade Hungary with the help of the Kumans.'® In order to yield somewhat to the suspicions of the nobility, Bela had the Khan of the Kumans and his family put in protective custody in Pest, where they were murdered by a Pest mob. Before Bela, who himself believed in the protection of the mountain passes, could rally his forces, the Mongols had broken through the Carpathians and flooded the country with their armies threatening Pest.

The enmity against and persecution of the Kumans in Hungary embittered these nomads to such an extent that they joined the Mongols in their campaign or left the country devastating everything in their way."’

METHODS

OF GENOCIDE

Physical Genocide Massacre In March, 1241, the Mongols approached Pest, the capital of Hungary. A city near the capital, Waizen, was stormed; its inhabitants as well as the

great number of refugees from surrounding villages were burned to death in the cathedral into which they had fled.'* The bishop seat of Erlau was then taken and its inhabitants either burnt in buildings or put to the sword. When the Mongols finally took Pest which had been poorly fortified, they murdered there over one hundred thousand people (these city inhabitants which had not fled in time as well as innumerable refugees from the surrounding areas). The Danube [River] ran red with the blood of the victims. The monastery outside the city to which ten thousand people had fled was burnt and all inside were destroyed by the flames. A chronicle reports that large masses of skeletons testify to the scene of slaughter.!°

16. 17. 18. 19.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Wolff, 288. Vambery, 138. Wolff, 291. Ibid., 303.

The Case of Hungary

321

While this analysis does not concern itself with the almost equally tragic fate of the armies which rallied to meet the invader and were almost always defeated if not annihilated, the disastrous extermination of

the Hungarian army on the Sajo River deserves mention here as a case of genocide. After the Hungarian camp was stormed unawares, the troops

inside were thrown into utter confusion and panic. A hail of the deadly Mongol arrows and fire had greatly decimated their ranks, and the survivors made a dash for freedom. The Mongols allowed them to cut through their ranks, a frequently used ruse. Panicky and disorganized as the Hungarian soldiers were, they were followed by Mongol detachments; as they dropped down with fatigue or from wounds, they were mercilessly cut down, so that thousands of corpses lined the long road to Pest. The survivors of this butchery were driven toward a swamp from which there was no escape. Most of them, including a number of high prelates who had been with the army, died miserably in the morass; the rest were put to the sword miserably. As night fell, the few wretches who were still alive found no avenue of escape. Every path and road was blocked by heaps of dead and dying men. Nearly one hundred thousand men, that is almost the whole army, were annihilated (this is the estimate of two chroniclers; a third estimates sixty-five thousand as having been killed).?° Emperor Frederick II wrote in 1241 that this defeat was a unique tragedy in the history of Hungarian battles.) Roger, the archdeacon of Wardein who vividly recorded his experiences as a fugitive and temporary slave of the Mongols, says that one could travel two days over the blood-drenched soil which was everywhere covered with mutilated, decapitated corpses.” He also fears that because of the overpowering stench emanating from the countless bodies those wounded survivors which might have been saved, must have perished.”*> Many persons were burned in the villages and churches of the neighborhood to which they had not fled.” The city of Wardein, much esteemed in Hungary, was stormed by the Mongols after many noble ladies as well as women and children had gathered there for protection.** Men, women, and children of all classes

20. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 306.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s {Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Ibid. Ibid., 305. Ibid., 305-6. [bid. Ibid., 324.

322

Chapter Fifteen

were massacred in the houses, on the streets, and in the fields. Then the

Mongols retreated with all their loot; for a number of days, they remained at some distance from the fortress outside Wardein to which many fled. After a while, many soldiers and civilians deeming themselves safe of the

Mongols, returned to their homes outside the fortress and moved among one another unsuspectingly. Then one fatal day, the Mongols who had been quietly watching all the time from the distance, fell upon the defenseless people and butchered many before they could escape to the fortress. Then they stormed the fortress. The surviving soldiers, dignitaries and others [who] were taken captive had to turn over their weapons; the lords were tortured until they had turned over all [they] possessed.” The women of all classes and ages had sought refuge in the cathedral, which was burned by the Mongols, killing all within. Roger further reports that in the other churches of the fortress, women were tortured and ravaged in ways which had better remain untold.”’ The nobles, burghers, and others

were all butchered on the field before the city. Then the maltreated women

and remaining men were massacred in the churches. After everything had been devastated and killed, the Mongols left the scene of the butchery,

while the corpses of countless victims were poisoning the air with their stench. As the survivors who had fled to the surrounding forests returned to search for remnants of food amidst the ruins and corpses, Mongols who had been hiding in wait for any signs of life fell upon them sparing none. This wolflike rapacity went on for days, the Mongols leaving only after they felt sure that no creature was left alive.** Roger himself escaped to an island which had been hurriedly fortified against the invaders. The Mongols were already approaching it, so Roger fled again. Three days after the Mongols had vented their fury on the helpless island, straggling refugees from the surrounding woods returned to the island, driven on by hunger. Again, Mongols were lying in wait for them, falling upon any living beings they encountered. Roger himself, desperate with hunger and thirst, begged morsels from the miserable fugitives whom he had once given much when still archdeacon.” He could obtain nothing; therefore,

about two weeks after the sack of the island, Roger made his way to it at 26. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., 325. 27. {Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., 326. 28. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 326. [Phrase is underlined. j 29. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 328.

The Case of Hungary

323

night to dig among ruins and naked, horribly mutilated corpses for buried scraps of food. He tells us of the horror he felt on seeing the grueling misery’, finding the terrible stench of that island of death. He had to spy out caves, hollow trees, and ditches to escape the searching eyes of the Mongols who, for a month, searched everything for signs of life like famished

dogs.*? When the Mongols realized that they could not hunt out all the fugitives in the expanse of dense forest, they resorted to stratagems. They caught a few survivors and ordered them to call out to the woods that all those who would surrender were to be allowed to return to their homes. The wretches who were already dying of hunger decided to return. Thus great numbers of people slowly emerged from the thickets of the neighborhood so that the whole area became repopulated within three days’ journey distance.*' The Mongols really allowed them to return to their villages. They appointed Mongol and Kuman administrators (the Kumans were Turkish tribes subjected by the Mongols) which had to supply the Mongol army with necessities from the repopulated villages. As Roger says: “Thus we had peace and justice.”?? On one occasion the Mongols ordered all the inhabitants of certain villages to appear before them with presents. When they came they were robbed of their gifts and clothes and then mercilessly butchered.** Roger, now a slave in the Mongol camp, to escape starvation, noticed one day that Mongols were arriving at the camp from all directions with much loot and cattle. He then learned that during the night all remaining villages had been robbed and their inhabitants massacred. But the houses and crops were left unmolested.** Thus ended the last survivors of the area near Sarkad and Kemeny.” When the city of Pecska was taken by the Mongols, the population was

lined up before the town—soldiers and noble ladies on one side and peasants on the other. After systematic robbery and the selection of two girls for rape, all were murdered with axes and swords. The same fate befell those who had sought refuge in a nearby monastery. Roger concludes his account of Pecska with these words (ed. transl.): “Oh woe, the enormous brutality and ferocity of this inhuman people! One might well call this place a field 30. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 329. 31. f[Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 329. 32. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 329. 33. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 330.

34. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid. 35. [Lemkin’s footnote] See footnote, Wolff, 328.

324

Chapter Fifteen

of blood!’ A few days later the monastery of Egres surrendered to the besieging Mongols. However, they fared no better than their countrymen elsewhere. Except for a few monks who were allowed to leave, and some good-looking women, all were murdered. “What else should I say,” exclaims Roger. “If I should further describe the various battles, the hearts of the readers would be moved profoundly, and the ears of the hearers would echo with the terrible drone... . For . . . during this summer (1241), the Tatars have devastated everything up to the borders of Austria, Moravia, Bohemia, Poland, Silesia, and Kumania up to the Danube [River].’””’

TECHNIQUES OF MURDER Thomas

of Spolato, a bitter Hungarian

chronicler, describes

some

of

the more grueling details of massacre as practiced by the Mongols in his country. He tells how the Mongols were wont to drive old people, women, and children together in the cities and villages; how they made them sit down

in rows, undressed them carefully to save their clothes

from bloodstains and to facilitate the work of murder; and how they then shot arrows into them to kill. The Mongol women who accompanied the armies displayed even greater cruelty toward the captive women than their male companions. They would immediately kill the more good-looking women, while reserving others for slavery, cutting off their noses and defacing their countenances. They would have the young captive boys come forward and sit down in rows. Then they gave green wooden clubs to their children and bid them hit the young victims on the head. The Mongol women watched the whole procedure with glee, praising those of their children who did their work most effectively.** Torture to extract information about hidden treasures was not rare. In the city of Oran west of the Danube [River], the Mongols burned merchants over slow fires to make them confess where they had hid their possessions.*° The wealthy citizens of Wardein were torturéd for the same purpose.” The city of Alba (now Karlsburg) Roger found devoid of any sign of life. The site was covered 36. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 332. 37. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 332. 38. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 321. 39. [Lemkin’s footnote] Lamb, 164. 40. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 325.

The Case of Hungary

with skeletons and skulls, the ruins were drenched

325

in blood.*! On their

retreat from Hungary, the armies of Subugetai (1176-1248) and Guguk

which had invaded Hungary in the southeast, were ordered to seek out any living creature in forests, hideouts, so as to leave none alive.”

The city of Gran, international center of trade in central Hungary, where merchants from Lombardy, France, Greece, and Armenia did much

business, lies on the west side of the Danube [River].*? Roger described the siege and sack of this city in which extermination was so furious and thorough that only fifteen people survived of the large number of inhabitants, foreign merchants, and refugees from surrounding communities.“ Infuriated by the destruction of property on the part of the Graners, the Mongols enclosed the city with barricades to prevent anyone from escaping them. The unfortunate victims were not only murdered by the sword but also burned alive “like pigs.’*° Three hundred noble ladies who had sought refuge in one of the palaces put on their richest court garments and asked to be led before Baku to plead for mercy and be made slaves. They were led out of the city, and after hearing their pleas, Baku ordered them to be undressed and decapitated.*° The rich garments were carefully preserved.*’ King Bela notes in a document of June 1254 (at which time Gran’s privileges and deeds which were lost during the Mongol sack were renewed) (ed. transl.): “When, by the sudden invasion of the Tatars, our kingdom was strangled, they also broke into the city of Gran with mad fury, where they not only exterminated miserably with fire and sword the citizens of both sexes regardless of age and rank, but also innumerable

outsiders who had gathered here.” Approaching the fortified city of Spolato, the Mongols devastated and murdered everybody in the country around the town, as they were wont to do.” They did not spare women or children, aged or sick people. In fact, they seemed to enjoy killing lepers who in Europe were objects of pity.°°

41. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 367. 42. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 365. 43, [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 337.

44. fLemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 337. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Ibid. Ibid. Lamb, 164. Wolff, 338. Ibid., 356. Ibid.

326

Chapter Fifteen

DEPRIVATION OF LIVELIHOOD Systematic looting in every conquered town and village left the survivors of Mongo! butchery with little or nothing to live on. Those that hid in woods had to starve to death or risk being discovered by hidden Mongols when searching for food amidst the ruins of their communities. Roger tells us how onions and garlic which had somehow been left in the gardens of the peasants were offered to him, a wretched fugitive, as delicacies. His companions had to eat roots.*! At another place he came upon a large crowd of fugitives on a high mountain who amidst tears of sympathy offered him and his companions black bread made of flour and ground oak bark.*? The impact of hunger which must have griped most fugitives at some time is well illustrated by Roger’s own story (ed. transl.): “(After a while in Mongol captivity, we noticed that the Mongols no longer permitted) that, as been done so far, animals were slaughtered for the prisoners, but they gave them only the victuals, heads and feet of these.” He then decided to risk quick death by escape and tells how he and his one remaining servant hid in a ditch under leaves which prowling Mongols searched for cattle and prisoners around them. After two days they could no longer hear their hunger and crawled toward each other and wept together in their suffering. They mourned that it would have been better to die by the sword than slowly linger in starvation. Because of their hunger they could hardly see out of their eyes. Everywhere they went they met nothing but devastation.°* When the Mongols did save the crop, it was to feed their own armies as is well illustrated by the case of the repopulated villages where were annihilated after the harvest was in.™

SLAVERY AS PHYSICAL GENOCIDE A large number of captives which the Mongols made during the Hungarian conquest ended in miserable death at the hands of the invaders. Many able-bodied men of the various conquered countries, especially the Turk51. 52. 53. 54.

[Lemkin’s {Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Wolff, 367. Ibid. Wolff, 366. Wolff, 328.

The Case of Hungary

S27

ish Kumans, were forced into Mongol military service. Whenever any of these showed any signs of hesitation or retreat, they were cut down by the Mongols.» Roger also writes that captive Hungarians, Russians, and Kumans were put in the front ranks during the attack on the Hungarian city of Pecska, while the Mongols stood in the back, laughed at the slaughter between countrymen, and murdered most of the soldier captives who retreated.°° The Hungarians were put in the front lines, after they had failed the Russians and Kumans being pushed into the fight.>’ Captives which had accompanied the Mongol army beyond the borders of Hungary did not get any further. Batu ordered that it should be announced in his camp in Bulgaria that all prisoners could return to their native country. Large numbers of Hungarians and Slavs thus left the camp with hope in their hearts. After having gone a few miles, they were all butchered by pursuing Mongol troops.** The bloodcurdling systematic approach in such butchery is interesting. It is said that after a thousand victims had been piled into a heap, one of the corpses was placed head downward on top, probably to facilitate counting.°*? Kadan, general of the second Mongol army besides the one led by Batu, ordered all his prisoners from Hungaria, men, women, and children, to be herded into one spot and

then decapitated. The corpses remained heaped on the ground.”

BIOLOGICAL GENOCIDE

Separation of Families In the repopulated villages near Sarkad the people obtained livestock in exchange for beautiful girls which they handed over to the Mongol and Kuman administrators.°' Spolato tells us that large numbers of captives of all ages were enslaved by the Mongols and carefully guarded.” 55. [Lemkin’s 56. [Lemkin’s 57. [Lemkin’s the Chinese. 58. [Lemkin’s 59. [Lemkin’s

footnote] Spolato reports, Wolff, 334. footnote] Ibid., 331. footnote] According to D’Hoisson [?], Hungarian troops were used even against

footnote] Wolff, 368-9. footnote] Ibid., footnote.

60. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 354.

61. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 329-330. 62. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 332.

328

Chapter Fifteen

CULTURAL GENOCIDE

Desecration and Destruction of Cultural Symbols In the city of Wardein, the graves of saints were desecrated, the relics trampled under foot, sacred articles such as crosses,

incense burners,

and golden sacramental cups were smashed, while the horribly ravaged women and the men were slaughtered in the churches. The women had been ravaged in the churches before. In Waizen, the Mongols robbed

the church treasures before they burned the cathedral.® Spalato laments that the Mongols “stormed the monasteries, tore down the altars, threw

about sacred relics . . . and made belts out of holy vestments for their concubines.”

Destruction of Cultural Leadership Goldsmiths and artists were deported from Hungaria to Karakorum.®’ Spalato relates how the religious orders would approach the Mongol victors singing hymns and offering them presents to gain their sympathy; and how the Mongols inhumanly disregarded this homage and their faith, and decapitated them.”

Demoralization

Roger relates how the people in repopulated villages were forced to buy their lives by lending out their wives, daughters, and sisters to the Mongols. The Mongols found it particularly to their taste to violate these women in front of the eyes of their relatives.” In Pecksa and Egres some good-looking women were sorted out from the victims destined for slaughter for the purposes of rape.”

63. 64. 65. 66.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Wolff, Wolff, Wolff, Wolff,

326. Ibid. 291. 322.

67. [Lemkin’s footnote] Lamb, 162.

68. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 322. 69. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 329 70. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 332.

The Case of Hungary

329

Destruction of Cities and Monasteries

The city of Bolghar, capital of Greater Hungary in what today is Bulgaria, was destroyed by fire; only a small village called Bogary remains to remind of its site.”’ Pest was destroyed so completely that the ruins

and ashes covered the thousands of corpses.” The city of Czanad was destroyed.’”? The cathedral of the fortress of Wardein was burned.” As late as 1286 the Mongols devastated Hungary up to the Danube [River].” The cathedral and castles of Waizen were burned.”° In the city of Alba (now called Karlsburg) Roger found the ruins of churches and palaces still

covered with the blood of the victims.”’ Kadan destroyed the city of Ofen by fire as well as the suburbs of Stulweissenburg.”

THE GENOCIDISTS

Responsibility The chief general of the campaign and head of the army invading Central Hungary was Batu. The army entering from the north was headed by Kaihu [?] [Editor’s Note: handwriting unclear], while that which came

from the south was directed by Kadan, Subgetai, and Guguk.” Whatever genocide occurred may be assumed to have been carried out at their direction, or at least with their condonement. Occasionally, top direction is

mentioned explicitly, as for instance in the cases of the murdered prisoners as directed by Batu and Kadan.*° Intent

Altunian’s contention that the Mongols followed the tactics of demanding submission and treating their victims accordingly (1.e., destroying them 71. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 136. 72. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., 303. 73. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., 327.

74. [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s {Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Ibid., 326. Ibid., 412. Ibid., 291. Ibid., 367. [bid., 338. Prandin, 258, map. Wolff, 368, 354 respectively.

330

Chapter Fifteen

only when they refused to submit) is invalidated by the data on Hungary.*! The inmates of the Egres monastery, refugees from the surrounding country were butchered despite the fact that they surrendered after being promised protection.® As has been related elsewhere, many villages near [the] Transylvanian border were repopulated by fugitives who had emerged from hiding after being promised protection by the Mongols. They were allowed to live and work only for the Mongols and until the harvest was in, at which time they were all butchered. Roger himself attributes this procedure to a definite plan to save food for the Mongolian troops.*’ The systematic frequent hunting out of fugitives even weeks after the conquest of a particular city or area, testifies to the Mongol intent to commit genocide. Obviously these fugitives were the most defenseless and helpless creatures imaginable and thus could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered a military threat. The intent of the Mongol genocidist was then the utter depopulation and devastation (only occasionally conditioned by Mongol needs) of the victim nation. Batu sent a letter to the King of Hungaria which read as follows (ed. transl.): I, Sain, ambassador of the heavenly king (the Great Khan), whom he has given authority to elevate those that surrender to me and to degrade those that oppose me. I am surprised at you, little King of Hungaria, that you, despite the fact that I sent messengers to you thirty times, have never sent them back to me nor sent messengers or letters of your own. I know that you are a wealthy and powerful king who holds sway over many warriors, and who alone rules over a great kingdom; therefore you find it difficult to surrender to me voluntarily; and yet that would be the most beneficial step for you. I have learned, besides, that you have taken the Kumans, our peons, under your protection, I therefore request that you to no longer keep them with you and not to make me your enemy on their account. For it is easier for the Kumans to escape than for you, because they (live as nomads) . . . and can perhaps escape us; but you who live in houses, who has fortresses and cities, how can you escape my grasp?*4

King Bela escaped the hands of the Mongols but not before he had been chased by them through his kingdom. They intended to kill him. To 81. [Lemkin’s footnote] Altunian, 78-9, incl. footnotes.

82. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 322. 83. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 331. 84. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 274.

The Case of Hungary

331

the Mongols the pursuit of the head of a victim nation was of sufficient importance to temporarily neglect physical genocide. Kadan chased after Bela in such haste that he was unable to do much damage to the inhabitants of Slavonia and Croatia through which countries he was speeding.*° Spolato marveled at the speed of the pursuing Mongol troops who, thirsting after only royal blood seemed to, as it were, “fly through the air cut-

ting through hitherto impassable mountains.”*° With regard to Hungary as a whole, the Mongol long-range plan seems to have been to conquer the country, with the usual genocide methods, but to reconstruct it after conquest for the settlement of Mongols and their suzerainty over the Hungarians. Hungaria with its fertile plains seemed suitable country for the Mongol nomads; besides, the Hungarians as descendants of the Magyars were racially related to the Mongols.*’

Motivation

As elsewhere, a dominant motivation for genocide in Hungary was revenge or retaliation. The Mongols were so infuriated at the inhabitants of Gran who had themselves burned the suburbs including many articles of clothing etc., had buried their valuables and killed their horses, that the city suffered particular violence and cruelties.** This also suggests that another motive for genocide was enrichment by loot. The people of the repopulated villages were suffered to exist only until they could provide

Mongol armies with food for the winter. Wolff believes that many of the cases of Mongol genocide were motivated by the desire to weaken the victim nations and to prevent them from consuming the foodstuffs of the areas in which the Mongol armies were camping.”? This may well be believed notwithstanding the fact that on one occasion the Mongols

purportedly murdered Hungarian captives with their clothes on to demonstrate their lack of interest in loot.?' Simple sadism must have played its part in Mongol genocide. We might refer especially to the horrifying

85. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid. 86. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid. 87. [Lemkin’s footnote] Enc. Brit., “Mongol Campaigns,” 707. See also Lamb, 163. 88. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 337.

89. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 330. 90. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 354. 91. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid.

332

Chapter Fifteen

description of murder techniques by Thomas of Spolato;” to the evident glee in forcing captive soldiers to fight their countrymen or die by the genocidists’ hands; and finally the persistent policy to hunt out fugitives systematically for weeks from forests, caves, and other most inaccessible

hideouts. Such manhunts of course impeded the progress of the Mongol armies, but it seems that the satisfaction of exterminating all living creatures, no matter how miserable, was considered even more desirable than

blitzkrieg conquest. In the section of demoralization of the genocidist we will have more occasion to discuss sadism. Demoralization

The constant butchery must have gradually heightened Mongol sadism and insensitivity to suffering. Even for barbaric Mongol standards certain blood vespers and the alleged cannibalism (see sections on Silesia and Austria) seem to testify to a revolting degree of demoralization. Thus the Mongols left the murdered Hungarians captives lying in a stinking heap while they settled down around this scene of slaughter feasting, dancing, and laughing.”

PROPAGANDA

Sowing Discord Kadan, finding the water which separated the city of Spalato from the mainland too muddy for passage by his troops, decided to attempt the divide and rule tactics. He sent a messenger to Spalato who announced in Slavonic: “This ruler Kadan, prince of the invincible armies, is saying to you: Do you want to share the guilt of a race which is alien to yours? Hand over the enemies to us so that you will not be drawn into their punishment and be exterminated without cause.” (Spolato is in the province of Slavonia but was at the time full of fugitive Hungarians. The guards on the bridge had been ordered by King Bela to remain silent, and the 92. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 321. 93. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 354. 94. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 358.

The Case of Hungary

333

city did not hand over the Hungarians; nor was it taken by the Mongols.) Mention should be made here again of the letter which Batu sent to King Bela, in which he urges him to hand over the fugitive Kumans in order to save his country.”> The campaign to turn the Hungarians against the Kumans was not ineffective. Batu wrote his message in Uighur, the language of the Kiptchak Kumans, and the Hungarians began to suspect that Batu was sending secret messages to the Kiptchak Khan and that the latter were betraying the Hungarians against the Mongols.” The upshot of the mountain tension was a popular revolt in Pest which led to the murder of the Kiptchak Khan and his companions there.”

Deceit

The Mongols got hold of and misused the royal seal of King Bela in order to facilitate genocide. When they feared that the people would flee on hearing about the defeat of their army by the Mongols, the latter forced several clerics—left alive for the purpose—to compose letters in the name of King Bela which were sent to all the people of high and low rank. The letters read follows (ed. transl.): “You must not be afraid of the savagery and fury of those dogs; do not therefore take it upon yourselves to leave your home and to disappear. For, although we have left the military camp and our tents because a certain untoward event, we are attempting to reach them again gradually, with God’s help, while renewing the fight against the Tatars; therefore, pray so that God may guide us to smash the heads of our enemies.” Roger reporis that these letters sent by traitor Hungarians from the Mongol camp, “bought disaster to me and Hungaria.” He says that although daily things happened which testified to the contrary, he and other Hungarians did not want to believe them, and besides were unable to glean any accurate information on account of the confused military situation. “And when Hungary had been occupied everywhere by the enemy, there was no avenue of escape left.”!°° 95. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 274; also Lamb, 144.

96. 97. 98. 99. 100.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Lamb, 145. Wolff, 292. Wolff, 307. Ibid. Ibid., 307-8.

334

Chapter Fifteen

Intimidation

A revolting attempt at intimidation was made on the shores of the Danube [River] before the Mongols crossed that river to the west. Spalato relates how, in order to strike terror into the people on the west side of the Danube, the Mongols erected heaps of bodies of slain people on the bank of the river. The bodies of young boys were carried to the bank impaled on spears “like fish on a roasting spit.”'"'

RESPONSES OF VICTIMS

Panic and Flight As elsewhere, people would flee in masses when they learned of the approach of the Mongols, the woods, caves, and ditches, and wherever pos-

sible, fortified cities and their palaces and churches served as asylum for the fugitives. King Bela’s flight, perhaps more than any other in the history of his country, has received dramatic attention. It was the custom of the Mongols to kill the leader of the victim nation and Bela was pursued all through his country and beyond it, into Croatia.' Roger’s flight, of course, has been preserved by his own story. Of the many cities in which fugitives gathered—alas, only to find their end when the Mongols sacked their cities—Slavonic Spolato deserves special attention. Here innumerable people from the surrounding countryside, as well as many Hungarians, had gathered in fear of the Mongols. They were all well received by the citizens and cared for as best as possible. However, the number of refugees was so great that the houses could not shelter them all. Many had to settle and sleep on the streets and squares including many noble ladies used to the highest of comforts. This could not have been pleasant in the beginning of March during which time night frost was not rare. Some hid in dark cellars; others had to clear out dirt from ditches, others again were lucky enough to sleep under tents.' i

101. [Lemkin’s footnote} Wolff, 332. 102. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., 364. 103. [Lemkin’s footnote] Spalato reports, Wolff, 356.

The Case of Hungary

335

Disguise A most gruesome and tragic manner of “disguise” practiced often by the terror-stricken victims of Mongol genocide, in Asia as well as Europe, was to hide among the corpses of the newly killed as one of the dead. During the terrible carnage of the survivors of the Hungarian army, the very few who succeeded in escaping the Mongol sword did so by wallowing in the blood of the dead and thus hiding among the corpses.' When the Mongols mowed down the population of Pecska on a field outside the city, again only those survived (who knows for how long) who quickly threw themselves upon the bodies and hid covered by the blood of

their less fortunate fellows.'® Political Subordination

There were probably a number of Hungarians who went over to the camp of the Mongols and served under them either to save their lives or to enrich themselves with the victor. Thus Roger tells us that he became the slave of a “Mongolized” Hungarian who deemed it great charity that he condescended to make the former archdeacon his slave.'°° Elsewhere Roger mentions that the deceitful letters which Batu sent to King Bela were brought to Hungary by Hungarian traitors.'°’ Of course, it is impossible to ascertain the number of such renegades, particularly as the Mongol camp abounded with Hungarians who had been forcefully enslaved.

Resistance

The Hungarian armies including the Hungarian aristocracy and highest church dignitaries fought halfheartedly at the Battle on the Sajo River.'®

104. 105. 106. 107. 108.

[Lemkin’s {Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Roger tells in Wolff, 305. Ibid., 331-2. Wolff, 330. [bid., 307. Wolff, 296-302.

336

Chapter Fifteen

Demoralization

The crisis situation of genocide and the Mongol propaganda methods occasionally resulted in demoralized behavior. Thus the citizens of Gran (who had, however, always been known for their discords being of nationally mixed character) fought among themselves during the siege of their city,'°° instead of uniting against the invader. Before the Battle on the Sajo River (1241), the people of Pest, who were under the misapprehension that the Khan of the Kiptchaks betrayed the Hungarians, cried out: “He who caused the devastation of Hungary shall die!” At the same time they expressed their bitterness against the king who had proved himself unable to keep out the Mongols. Armed Hungarians and Germans stormed the palace in which Khan Kuten of the Kiptchaks was held captive, killed him and his companions, and threw their heads out of the window to the crowds below.''® This seems to have been a case of scapegoatism since the Khan appears to have been innocent with regard to the Hungarians, although as Wolff points out, he committed treason against the Russians during and after the Battle on the Kalka [River] (1223).''' The Kumans who answered [King] Bela’s call for resistance were pitilessly robbed and murdered by the infuriated rural population everywhere, for the Hungarians still believed in Kuman treachery. The Kumans retaliated by committing genocide in the Mongol manner.'!*

Terror

Terror was widespread in Hungary as elsewhere, perhaps more so as the Mongols wrought such devastation in that country. Roger describes the horror which gripped the people on the island, to which he had fled from Wardein, when they learned that the Mongols had invaded a German village not far away: “Paralyzing terror gripped all at these tidings, and I saw human beings before me who were half dead with overpowering fear.”!"3 Terror led the people of Gran to forget their defense against the Mongols 109. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 336.

110. L11. 112. 113.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Wolff, Wolff, Wolff, Wolff,

292. 293. 294. 327-8.

The Case of Hungary

337

and turn against each other during the siege.''* The Hungarians who had fled to Spalato in Slavonia were so terrorized by the sudden appearance of the Mongols outside the gates that they quickly ran to the churches to take the sacrament, threw themselves into the arms of their wives and children, and cried out: “Oh, woe us miserable wretches! What did it benefit us to

wear ourselves with the hardships of flight? What good did it do us to have sped through such great distances as we were not to escape the sword of the enemy but only have our end postponed miserably?!

Beliefs regarding Genocidists and Their Crimes As everywhere in Europe, the people of Hungary believed that the Mongols were the wrath of God sent to extirpate them for their sins. Spalato reports that a monk, who had deeply desired to understand the cause of the Mongol invasion and the misery that came to his country, learned through a vision that God’s wrath was due to the godless sensuality of three bishops.''®

RESPONSES OF OUTSIDE GROUPS Indifference

Daniel of Halicz, Russian prince, waged war against Hungary together with the dukes of Krakow and Uppeln in 1253. King Bela complained that he did not receive the assistance he desired from Bishop Stephen of Waizen, nor from the cardinals of Pope Innocence IV (1195-1254), but

that all he got were empty promises and regrets.''’ Thus wrote [Pope] Alexander IV (1199-1261) urging [King] Bela to consider the difficult situation of the Pope who had found himself in great conflict with [King] Frederick II (1194—1250).!!8

114. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., 336. 115.-[Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 356. 116. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 332, footnote. Wolff, 279: This belief was expressed on several occasions.

117. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 392-3. 118. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 393.

338

Chapter Fifteen

Demoralization

The Duke of Austria, upon hearing of [King] Bela’s arrival on the Austrian shore of the Danube [River], received him with feigned friendliness. The Duke then urged [King] Bela to cross the Danube [River] and visit him in his castle near Presburg, so that he could be treated as befit his honorable station. As soon as the Duke had [King] Bela in his power, he extorted a sum of money which he claimed the king owed him. Part of this money had to be rendered in cash, the rest in gold and silverware, in jewels, and in land.''? Roger says that the jewels were estimated by the duke at much below their real value. Most historians estimate the whole sum thus paid at ten thousand marks.'”° He seems to have desired the destruction of [King] Bela in order that he might get the Hungarian crown for himself, according to the chronicler.'*! To add to this injury, the Duke of Austria sent a sizable army into Hungary which devastated the country in the south just as the Mongols in the east and north.'?* The Hungarians wrested the fortress of Raab from the Austrians, killing all Germans inside by setting it on fire. The Austrian Duke, infuriated by this, ruthlessly exploited all Hungarian and German refugees from the Mongols by extorting large sums from them for their settlement in fortresses and cities, thus reducing formerly wealthy people to utter destitution until they were again chased away naked and poor.'” Roger reports that during his escape from the Mongols he reached a German village, Thomasbrueck (in Transylvania). The Germans refused to let the refugees cross the bridge to the village and required that they help them defend their well-fortified community. Roger was then displeased by this lack of charity and turned back from the village.'” Pope Innocent IV requested in a Breve (German, letter) of July 22, 1243, that certain Christians who, during the Mongol siege of Hungary, made military operations against that prostrate country themselves should be investigated by the Church. He wrote (ed. transl.): “The great and beautiful realm of Hungary has been so greatly-ravaged by the horrible 119, [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 312. 120. [Lemkin’s footnote} Ibid. 121. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 313. 122. [Lemkin’s footnote] Spalato writes, Wolff, 318. 123. [Lemkin’s footnote] Roger, Wolff, 319.

124. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 326.

The Case of Hungary

339

cruelty of the Tartars, that this should be an object of tears to the society of the faithful; and yet certain persons have, as we have learned with surorise, attacked that country during the presence and after the retreat of the Tartars, and, not without evident insult to the Crucified One [Jesus Christ], have put many inhabitants of its border provinces to the sword after destroying their property by fire.” The Pope then ordered the church dignitaries to whom he addressed his Breve to investigate the “certain persons.” It seems that no other than Frederick of Austria was meant here.'”°

AFTERMATH Extent of Genocide

The extent of genocide in Hungary is only a matter of conjecture. One may gain some insight into the desolation caused by widespread depopulation from Roger’s account. Wandering toward the border of Transylvania as a fugitive, Roger climbed a high tree to survey the desolated and devastated countryside. When he continued his march, church steeples had to mark his way as the roads were almost completely overgrown with grass and weeds.'*° On their retreat from Hungary, the armies of Subugetai and Guguk, with whom Roger had served as slave, devastated everything that had escaped their conquest, leaving the country behind them desolate and

in ruins.'*’? The great commercial city of Gran was reduced so much by destruction and massacre that the few survivors were settled on the fortress grounds alone. King Bela issued a charter to this effect in 1249.'8 Another account of the desolation that met the eyes of [King] Bela when he returned from his flight laments: Here and there a tower, half burnt and blackened by smoke and rearing its head towards the sky, like a mourning flag over a funeral monument, indicated the direction in which they were to advance. The highways were overgrown with grass, the fields white with bleaching bones, and not a living soul came out to meet them. And the deeper they penetrated into the 125. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 320. 126. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., 366. 127. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid. 128. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 338.

340

Chapter Fifteen

land, the more terrible the sights they saw. When at last those who survived crept forth from their hiding places, half of them fell victims to wild animals, starvation, and pestilence. The stores laid up by the tillers of the soil the year before had been carried away by the Mongols, and the little grain they could sow after the departure of the enemy had hardly sprung up when it was devoured by locusts. The famine assumed such frightful proportions that starving people, in their frenzy, killed each other, and it happened that men would bring to market flesh for sale. Since the birth of Christ no country had been overwhelmed by such misery.!”°

Population Changes Far-reaching population changes resulted from the Mongol invasion of the Kiptchak country on the lower Volga [River]. In 1238-1239 the Kumans

were beaten there by the Mongols. The survivors under the leadership of their Khan Kotyan or Kuthen fled across the Don [River], and, at the beginning of 1240, begged King Bela to be granted asylum in Hungary. According to [Michael] Prawdin (1894-1970), the number of Kumans who were baptized by King Bela (they were granted admission under the condition of conversion) was two hundred thousand.'*° Being nomads in a civilized and agricultural country, their adjustment in Hungary was painful. The chroniclers complained that “the Kumans violated the wives of the peasants while the Hungarians found the Kuman women little to their

taste.”'*! They committed many outrages on the Hungarian population and thus made themselves hated,'* the resulting tensions contributing to the success of the Mongol invasion. After the Mongol retreat, King Bela invited the Kumans to return to their former habitations in Hungary in his efforts to repopulate Hungary. He also invited German artisans, miners, and traders to settle in Hungarian towns.'*? The Kumans, however, were

gradually driven into the Balkan mountains or into the steppes under the Golden Horde, as were the nomad[ic] Bulgars.'** They did not intermingle much less intermarry with the Hungarians.

129. [Lemkin’s footnote] Vambery, 142. 130. [Lemkin’s footnote| Prawdin, 253.

131. 132. 133. 134.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Ibid., 253. Vambery, 135. Vambery, 142. Lamb, 171.

The Case of Hungary

34]

Reconstruction

King Bela also made considerable and successful efforts to rehabilitate his broken country economically. He had seed and cattle imported from neighboring countries; he founded new cities, among them Buda, which

now forms part of the capital, and he bestowed privileges on the old ones. After five years of his efforts, the country had already recuperated to such an extent that it no longer feared the threatened new Mongol attack and waged successful war against its western neighbors.'® Genocide

In April and mid-May 1241, northern Transylvania was overrun by Kadan’s army. The genocide committed there was of such dimensions that even in 1297 King Vladislav IV stated in an official document that

several Transylvanian counties had been left devoid of almost all inhabitants. The monastery of Gyoromonostor on the Samosh River lay in ruins even in 1275.'*° Subugetai’s army invaded southern Transylvania almost at the same time, destroying everything in his path and killing all who could not escape to the woods or mountains.'*” In 1285 the Mongols destroyed all unfortified towns and villages, also the city of Bistrits, a Saxonian castle, [and] the monastery Sarvar.'**

Aftermath

King Bela sent a person to Transylvania to gather the survivors and restore order, according to a document dating from January 27, 1243.'° Another document dated January 5, 1251, orders him to restore the castle Zeth Leleuth which had been destroyed by the Mongols.'*° [King] Bela stated further that in the city of Weissenburg (Alba Julia) bishopric, as well as several counties there, only a few inhabitants were left.'*' He therefore of-

fered the whole province of Zeiden south of the Alt to the Order of Knights 135. 136. 137. 138.

-[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s -[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Vambery, 142-3. Wolff, 323. Wolff, 323. Wolff, 412.

139. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 323. 140. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid., 324. 141. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid.

342

Chapter Fifteen

(Johanniterritern) for repopulation. For similar purposes, [King] Bela offered a Count Vincentius [?] the thoroughly depopulated and devastated province of Zeh (German) north of Kronstadt.’ King Stephen III says in 1264 that the estates of Kerz were so desolate as a result of Mongol fury that he offered them to another county.'*° The city of Cattaro in Serbia was devastated by the Mongol army under Kadan on their retreat from Hungary. In Albania the cities of Doivac (Suagium) and Drivasto were completely destroyed,'** not a soul in them being left alive. * KK OK OK

EDITOR’S NOTE No bibliography supplied. See chapter 7, on Mongols, for updated bibliography.

142. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid. 143. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid. The documents concerning repopulation in Transylvania can be

found in: Teutsch 1, c. p. 65, Doc. 61; p. 69, p. 66: Doc. 68, p. 68, p. 70, p. 82—see Wolff, 324. The

first German colonization of Transylvania occurred during the Crusades of the twelfth century—see Wolff, 281 footnote. 144. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, 365.

Chapter Nineteen

The Persecution of the Catholics

in Japan in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries

The rise and fall of Catholicism in Japan falls between the deaths of August 15, 1549, when Jesuit Franz Xavier came to Kagoshima and August 4, 1649, that is ninety years later, when the last Portuguese shops left Nagasaki never to return. From 1549 on, every year new members of the Society of Jesus arrived to undertake missionary work. They came from India. After 1593 other missionaries of the Franciscan, Dominican, and Augustine orders followed—mainly coming from the Philippines. These men devoted their lives to winning souls for the Kirishitan [Christian] faith, to teach in schools, to care for the incurably sick, and to look after the neglected old and young. In the beginning, they were so successful that it looked as if Japan would become a Christian country within a short time—although even in those early times they had some trouble from the Buddhist bonzes [monks]. The sixteenth century had been one of civil war. Not one territory was free of rivalry between barons and lords of the church. Neither emperor nor shogun (a sort of military dictator, much more powerful than the emperor, had power over the feudal lords). The first great shogun who established a little order was Oda Nobunaga (1534-1582) who reigned from 1551 to 1582. He hated the bonzes and was kindly disposed toward the Kirishitans. When he died in 1582 there were two hundred thousand faithful and 250 churches. The number seems great, but does not indicate

that every convert was a real Christian. 343

344

Chapter Nineteen

There was some confusion because the missionaries spoke the language badly and Catholicism was taken by some to be a kind of Buddhism. Nobunaga and some of the feudal lords (mostly in the Kyushu region) hoped to gain by trading with the Portuguese, and when they saw them treat the religious with reverence, they became curious and impressed, sometimes ordered all their subjects to convert en masse to the new religion. Nobunaga, who received the first missionaries personally in 1568, like to invite them to dinner and to discuss with them not only religious subjects but foreign countries as well. His successor Hideyoshi (1537-1598) was at first also very friendly disposed. But then he became suspicious because the Jesuits had made converts of a number of barons and he was afraid that they might band together against him. Without a warning he published an edict of banishment in 1587, but was careful to point out that the Portuguese traders could continue. The edict was not very rigorously enforced. The missionaries went into hiding and continued to convert people. By 1597 there were three hundred thousand faithful and 134 missionaries in Japan. In 1593, there Spanish Franciscans were well received as emissaries of the King of Spain. It became a fashion to wear rosaries and crucifixes and to recite a Latin prayer and to wear foreign clothes—even by people who had not converted, yes, by Hideyoshi himself. But slowly he became suspicious and he began to believe that missionaries might only be the forerunners of a foreign invasion troop. The persecutions began. Lists of Japanese Christians were drawn up, and on February 5, 1597, six Spanish Franciscans, three Jesuits, and seventeen Japanese converts were crucified in Nagasaki who died courageously—singing and preaching to the end. In those last years of the sixteenth and in the early years of the seventeenth centuries many Christians were driven from the South to the North. In some instances even men of high rank were forced to settle in Tohoku and their peasants and retainers become converts. Hideyoshi died in 1598 and was followed by [Togukawa] Ieyasu (1543-1616). For about fifteen years the Kirishitans were more or less left in peace. At the time the Portuguese traders were the only intermediaries in Japan’s trade with China. Ieyasu was quite aware of the economic advantages of foreign trade. He encouraged the growth of a Japanese merchant marine and tried to have commerce with Lucgon and Mexico.

He used Franciscan missionaries to get in touch with the governor at

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

345

Lucon. But the first boat from Manila came not before 1608 and the trade

with Mexico made no progress, so the old suspicion was revived that the missionaries were simply sent from Spain to prepare the invasion. They may not have been wrong at that. A letter to the King of Spain on May 3, 1610, by Don Rodrigo de Vivero (1564-1636), former governor of Lucon

who had once been forced to land in Japan due to shipwreck and who had traveled through part of the country, contains a glowing description of this rich and powerful country and mentions very frankly what advantages such a country could offer to the crown of Spain.' The Dutch began to arrive since about 1650. Their first boat carried Will Adams (1620-1654), an Englishman who became an advisor to Ieyasu on matters of trade and navigation. He also told him about the attitude of the Protestants against the Catholics which made Ieyasu think that he might possibly have the advantage of trade with the English and Dutch without having to put up with missionaries. He heard of the fights among the various orders and the various nations, of the ambitions of European kings, the pride of Rome, the existence of Spanish warships in Manila. He thought—quite reasonably—that missionaries might plot for his overthrow in order to get a shogun favorable to their religion. He began to publish bans—in 1606, in 1607, and 1611. On December 27, 1613, an order was given to make a list of foreign and Japanese Catholics. The princes were asked to send all religious to Nagasaki and to destroy the churches after their departure and to force the converts to recant. Relatives and friends used to beg their Kirishitan friends to give in at least in appearance. Often, they were chased out of their houses by their landlords and had to live in the woods. During thirty days the names of 40,000 [persons] were taken down, but the viceroy, afraid to make the emperor angry, confessed to only 1,600. But in reality there were 7,000 alone in Meaco. Another edict followed in 1614. There

were prison terms and instances of killings and torture, but still nothing that could be compared to what went on in Europe during that time. In 1613 Date Masamune (1567-1636), the most powerful man in Tohoku, sent envoys to Rome bearing gifts. They traveled through Mexico and Spain, guided by a Franciscan friar named Sotelo,” and they reached

1, [Lemkin’s footnote] Kirishito-Ki (Monumenta Nipponica Monographs), 1940, pg. 3. 2. Luis Sotelo (1574-1624).

346

Chapter Nineteen

Rome in early 1615. They were cordially welcomed by the Pope. But when Date’s envoy returned from Europe, he had somehow received a very bad impression and persuaded Date to turn against the Kirishitans. And since Date had had a bad reputation for being friendly to the Catholic faith, he became an especially fierce persecutor. Sotelo was later burned at the stake (in 1624). The first foreign priest was executed in 1717, but the native converts began to suffer already in 1612. The real horror began when Hidetada (1579-1632), Ieyasu’s son, came to power in 1616. He feared invasion and conquest, and since he knew that the Portuguese had Macao, the Spanish the Philippines, the Dutch Formosa, and the English Malaysia, he eyed all foreigners on his soil with great suspicion. For years, thousands perished most cruelly, and at last this had an effect on the number of Christians. The edict of 1614 was renewed in 1616, the year Hidetada came into power. Exile was proscribed for all religious, and the Japanese were threatened to be burned alive and to lose all their goods if they had anything to do with priests. This threat included wives, children, and neighbors— unless they turned informers. No prince was allowed to keep any Kirishitans in his service. A new edict was issued against all religions in 1618. In Nagasaki thirty bars of silver were put on show in the main square, bearing the sign “This sum shall be given to whoever helps discover a thief (considered a most infamous crime in Japan) or a religious.”? Another edict forbade to have books concerning the Catholic faith in the house or even to discuss the subject. The towns were full of spies who infiltrated into suspect houses by pretending to be Catholics. The persecution was at first especially violent in and around Yendo, which had become the capital of the empire. But other princes followed, and soon the persecution encompassed the whole country. But there were still thirty-three Jesuits, seven Dominicans, nine Franciscans and Augustans, and seven secular priests. Many of them lived hidden in the moun-

tains or were working in the mines. At first, Hidetada tried not to kill his victims but to render them in-

valid and useless through torture. The Government also thought that the edicts had stopped the coming of new missionaries. But they kept 3. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, pg. 399.

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

347

coming secretly. More than twenty came, and when this was found out, there were searches from door to door, passports were required, prizes for informers were published, and a secret service was installed,

whose members were usually former Catholics. A law of solidarity was passed which held a group of from five to ten households collectively responsible for the existence of Catholics and the hiding of refugees. Anesaki lists thirteen martyrs for the year 1615, twelve in 1616, and then a gradual increase until what is known as the “Great Martyrdom” of 1622.* On September 2, 1622, fifty-two were executed at Nagasaki, twenty-seven being decapitated and the others burned. “Since the year 1613 when the persecution had begun violently in Japan, never has it been so rigorous and cruel as in 1622 when more than one hundred died a glorious martyr’s death.’ In the following years the persecution became ever fiercer and the refinement of torture was unparalleled. An edict of 1624 ordered all Spaniards deported and forbade foreign travel to all Japanese Christians. Their Japanese wives and daughters were ordered to stay in Japan. Even Indians in European dress were asked to leave since they might be disguised missionaries. Another edict of the same year ordered all boats coming into Japanese harbors to register their passengers and held the captain and officers responsible under death of penalty for hidden missionaries. No Japanese were allowed to go to the Philippines since one might bring back priests or fall under their influence. After 1630, it was forbidden to import foreign books. Japan not only did away with all commercial relations with other countries, but also with intellectual intercourse. An order for Chinese boats includes “Whoever secretly introduces Christian writings or objects into Japan will be uncon-

ditionally executed.” The edicts’ against Christians were written in ink on wooden tablets and posted throughout the land where they could be found until 1873. For centuries their existence in the most remote villages reminded of the fight against the Kirishitans. 4. [Lemkin’s footnote] Anesaki, Concordance, pgs. 34 ff. 5, [Lemkin’s footnote] Letter by Bartolome Gutierrez [martyred in Japan in 1632 and beatified in 1867] to the Provincial of the Augustans in the Phillippines written on February 24, 1623, quoted in Pagés, Annex, pg. 253. 6. [Lemkin’s footnote] Kirishto-Ki, pg. 11. 7. See the appendix at the end of this chapter—SLJ.

348

Chapter Nineteen

In 1632, a new Shogun To-Chogounsama (1632-1651), who was a leper, of vicious character and an intense hater of Catholics, exterminated

the last missionaries. Under his reign, thirty-three Jesuits, six Augustans, six Dominicans, two Franciscans, and two secular priests were martyred. In 1634 the commerce with Spain was forbidden, and in 1635 no Japanese boats were allowed to go into foreign harbors. Japanese living abroad were forbidden to return home. In 1637, in the province of Arima, thirty-seven thousand Kirishitans,

driven to extremity by the religious persecution and by the high taxes and generally terrible economic conditions, revolted. They shut themselves up in the fortress of Shimabara where they held out for two months. On their banners were inscribed Jesus, Maria, St. lago [James], and other saints.

All but one hundred five were massacred which marked more or less the end of Christianity in Japan. In 1639 all commercial relations with Portugal were broken. They had existed for one century. But missionaries kept coming secretly and so the suspicions against Kirishitans were kept alive. In 1640 four Portuguese ambassadors went from Macao to Nagasaki and when they refused to recant their faith they were put to death without further trial. Thirteen of their followers were sent back to Macao with these words: “While the sun warms the earth, let no Christian be so bold

as to venture into Japan. Let this be known to all men, though it were the King of Spain in person or the God of the Christians or the great Shaka himself (Buddha) whosever shall disobey this prohibition will pay for it with his head.”® The only persons to get special treatment were the Protestants. The Dutch were given the right in 1638 to live on the island of Deshima in the bay of Nagasaki from where they could have certain very limited commercial relations with Japan. They were allowed into Japan proper only once a year, and they were forbidden to have anything to do with the Catholic religion or treaty with Catholic countries. Moreover, they were forced to inform the Japanese about anything they might hear concerning Catholic activities in the country. 8. [Lemkin’s footnote] watch posts were installed Especially the two to four boats and thus smuggled twenty-three such stations

Catholic Encyclopedia, pg. 307. After the Shimabara Revolt [1637-1638] all along the coast of Kyushu to watch the arrival and departure of boats. watchmen were to see whether Japanese fishermen went close to Chinese missionaries or Christian books into the country. The Kirishito-Ki lists on page 44.

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

349

An office of inquisition was instituted in 1640 by the order of the Shogun to start a unified drive against Kirishitans all over Japan. The Shogu, out for complete destruction, often took part personally in the trials between 1643 and 1646.? The driving power though was Inoue Chikugono-kami, the first inquisitor. He was a close follower of the Shogun, had

once been a Catholic, then renounced his faith and became the furious enemy of all Kirishitans. He was a very clever man and he knew that force alone cannot stamp out religion. So he tried very clever arguments, often discussed questions of faith for days with his victims, and he could rightfully boast of many successful debates. He was inquisitor for nearly twenty years.

In 1642, five Jesuits came secretly into the country. They were caught, tortured, and died. There were other attempts with similar results in 1643

and 1647. In 1657, six hundred eight Kirishitans were discovered in Omura. This seemed incredible since that region, which once had been a Kirishitan stronghold, had been the scene of terrible persecution ever since its lord, Don Sanche, had recanted his faith in the beginning of the seventeenth century. The existence of so many faithful was discovered through a farmer from Kori who had visited relatives at Nagasaki. The story was told to the governor of Nagasaki who arrested the farmer and sent a report to Omura on November 16, 1659. A few days later over [one] hundred were arrested in and around Kori. It turned out that the central figure was an old woman who had hid a picture of the “evil religion” in a cave and organized groups of Catholics. She predicted that her grandson would be the savior of the world. Within two months nearly six hundred women, children, and men were arrested, which brought the total number of ar-

rested to six hundred eight. Some of these recanted; seventy-eight died in prison. But the majority, four hundred eleven in all, were executed. Most of these were decapitated; some were killed in the pit. Twenty received life prison terms, and ninety-nine were released. Of those who were im-

prisoned—mostly women and children—one boy of five died in jail forty years later, and one girl, [age] eleven, died in jail sixty-five years later. This incident was a scandal for the inquisitor Inoue who resigned on May 31, 1658. A much younger and energetic man, Hojo Awa-no-kami, 9. [Lemkin’s footnote] Monumenta Napponica: Studies in Japanese Culture Past and Present (Tokyo: Sophia University, 1938) pgs. 296 ff.

350

Chapter Nineteen

took his place. This Hojo was charged, in addition to his inquisitor’s job, to supervise all public works like streets, bridges, fortifications, which shows how in the mind of the persecutors the religious question was bound up with the political. The fierce attitude toward Catholicism softened somewhat only after 1720. In all those years people were asked to spy on their neighbors, and informers were offered great prizes. It is not known how many still ventured to get secretly into the country. One Abbé Sidotti (1668-1713) landed alone in 1708 on the coast, but was caught and condemned to perpetual imprisonment in Yedo where he proceeded to convert his two jailers and died after five years. Thus, Japan stayed closed for two hundred years. Very little is known about this period, but reliable sources indicated that during this time Japanese Catholics died every year on the cross. The outside world had given up hopes of continuing to fight in Japan, and surprise was intense when Catholics could enter the country again following the treaty between Japan and France in 1859, and [it was] discovered on March

17, 1865,

in a new church in Nagasaki fifteen people who revealed themselves as Catholics. They claimed that there were about fifty thousand of them in the empire. Two years later [1867] the persecutions started again, and forty thousand were exiled to various provinces. But there was no more bloodshed, and after 1875 the persecutions ceased.'°

2 At first, Kirishitans were simply destroyed. But when the officials realized that they gloried in the crucifixion, the most inhuman tortures were

devised. Always it was tried to add insult and degradation to the execution. Father Boero describes how first the noses were cut off, how the

condemned were then put on carts and paraded through the town which was deemed the greatest degradation and was usually reserved to the most infamous criminals. A large sign was carried in front of the announcing their condemnation. 10, [Lemkin’s footnote] A History of the Lives and Martyrdom of Paul Michi, James Chisai, and John Soan de Goto, 1862. A friend of mine told me that there was intense persecution of the Catholics on the southern part of Japan during the war [World War II]. Today Catholicism gains a lot of ground in Japan.

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

35]

The Japanese crosses, along with the upper traverse beam for the arms, have also a lower one to which the legs are fastened, not overlapping each other or drawn downwards perpendicularly, but stretched wide apart, and right in the center of the shaft they were furnished with a projecting bracket, on which the condemned is supported (just as on horseback) after the cross has been raised up and set firm in the ground. We need hardly tell our readers that the object of this latter contrivance is to protract the life of the condemned in great torment and agony. In this most barbarous capital punishment, instead of nails they use four rings, or manacles, fastened to the cross, two above for

the wrists, and two below for the instep of the foot. The neck is supported by an iron collar, and they sometimes fasten the waist of the criminal to the

gibbet either by an iron hoop or a stout cord. The arms are secured in the like manne. . . . The Japanese leave their criminals on the cross long after they are killed—till, in a word, decomposition sets in, and they fall bone by bone to the ground. . . . The condemned are extended on the cross while it is yet laying flat on the ground, but when it is raised up and secured in the socket, they either leave them to drag out a few days of the most intolerable life, or dispatch them on the instant. In the latter case, they usually give the unhappy wretch one or two thrusts of a spear... . The instruments employed ... are long, broad-bladed, and very sharp . . . sometimes (the executioners) take special pleasure in cutting the arteries of his throat.'!

Often they were burned (three hundred sixty alone in 1622 and 1623) and also then methods were devised to prolong the torture, but building the fire far away so that they would be consumed slowly over a long period of time. After 1627, the torture of the crater of Onsen was devised. The dreary surroundings and the heat of these waters—in one case over two hundred degrees—caused them to be called “Jigoku’—which is the Buddhist name for Hell. They were dipped several times into these waters until they died. Or the sulphur water was thrown over them until all their skin was corroded. Then they were left and the procedure was repeated the next day. Then they were left again until worms began to swarm in their ulcers. This treatment proved so “successful” in making people recant that artificial sulphur springs were constructed in other parts of the country by mixing hot water with salt, sulphur, saltpeter, and yellow earth. This spared the long and painful ascent to the volcanic crater. 11. [Lemkin’s footnote] Father Boero, pgs. 144 ff.

we)nmto

Chapter Nineteen

Pater Francisco de Jesus said of these waters: “These waters are of such a nature that, when one throws it over a Christian, his bones appear naked within an instant and when the burning floods are poured out again, even the bones dissolve—completely consumed." This torture was followed by a new devise in 1633, the so-called hanging in the pit. The bodies were tightly tied with ropes to slow up the circulation of the blood. Then a deep hole was dug and they were hung inside by their feet and the hole was covered so that only the feet could be seen. Soon blood was spurted out of their mouths, noses, and ears. From time to time they were bled at the temples so that they would not die so quickly and the torture could be prolonged to last two, three, even up to six days. The case of one Catholic named Adami is on record who was hung in a pit filled with offal.'* Eight hundred forty-three executed in the pit in the last five months of 1633; fourteen in 1634; and twenty-six in 1637.'* Others were buried so that only their heads protruded and [were] left for five or six days until they either died or recanted. This was done to make them look ridiculous should they begin preaching and praying as many Were wont to do. Those whose heads were cut off were later cut into thousands of pieces and the parts thrown into rivers and woods. Usually the faithful tried to retrieve parts of their bodies to keep as relics. Pagés tells of instances when the corpses were thrown at night before the doors of missionaries to make people believe that they ate human flesh.'> Often men and women were exposed naked or hung up publicly in rice bags. Pagés described the martyrdom of one Jean Fioyemon who together with his wife were hung up naked in a rice bag on a bridge. Two months later he was walked naked through the streets with [his] hands tied behind his back and a sign carried in front of him. “This man is tortured this way because he has become again Christian against the imperial edict after he had already recanted.” He had to sit six days naked in the boiling sun without any food at all. His only consolation wasa little rain. Then he was

12, [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, Annexe, pg. 96, 13. [Lemkin’s footnote] See The Japanese Martyrs by A. F. Thomas (Catholic World, 1935), pg.

732. 14. [Lemkin’s footnote] Masaharu Anesaki (1936), “Psychological Observations on The Persecu-

tion of The Catholics in Japan in The Seventeenth Century,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 1(1), pgs. 23 ff. 15. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, pg. 121.

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

353

kept for months in prison and finally had his head cut off.'®° But he managed to convert his guards. The description of prisons equals the worst that went on at the time in Europe. The prison at Yendo was low and narrow. “Almost all became sick, the stench was unbearable, and there were no sanitary provisions whatsoever. Quite often the prisoners killed each other by wringing their necks. They were given a spoonful of water morning and night. They dead were left seven or eight days and they began to decompose within seven hours in the great heat. Everyone who came into the prison of Yendo developed horrible ulcers. His knees, feet and hands became tumefied [i.e., swollen] and

sometimes dropped off.”'’ The Omoura prison resembled a birdcage made of bamboo sticks which were about two fingers apart. It had only one opening where the new prisoners were squeezed in. Otherwise it was always kept closed. At night nobody could stretch out. This food consisted in a little rice, some bitter herbs, and sometimes some spoiled fish—just so that they would not die of famine. The rain beat down on them, the sun, [and] the snow. They were badly dressed and sometimes were left like that for years.'* Often a week passed before the corpses were taken out, which were already decomposed and had great lakes of putrid water around them." Those prisons are narrow and low, not with walls but with wooden barriers, like animal cages. . . . Second barrier outside prevents that anyone can approach. The prisoners are exposed to the weather and the outrages of the people who pass outside at some distance. The great number of prisoners shut in each cage prevents them from lying down for sleep. Canzouyedono (Prince of Fingo, 1562-1611), cruel by nature, increased the martyrdom of the converts by not allowing them, as was commonly done, to cover the ground during the winter with mats nor to open the enclosures in the summer, nor to clean the place. He wished to exhaust the energy of the prisoners, and above all he did not want them to die gloriously by the sword or on the cross.”°

Very often, the wife, children, and servants suffered the same fate—yes sometimes even the neighbors. 16. [Lemkin’s 17. [Lemkin’s 18. [Lemkin’s 19. [Lemkin’s pg. 129. 20. {Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Pagés, Pagés, Pagés, Letter

pg. 299. pg. 299. pg. 399. of Father Diego de San Francisco to Father Sotelo Pagés, Annexe,

footnote] Pagés, pg. 116.

354

Chapter Nineteen

A favorite torture was to cut off the fingers and toes, not once but inch by inch, until they were cut off at the root. “One cut successively the fingers and the toes and the noses, cut through the nerve of the hollow of the knee and burned the sign of the cross into the forehead. The wounds of these converts healed but they no longer looked human and without any possessions, incapable of earning their substance, they roamed miserably.”?! Sometimes they went to live with the lepers. When the lists of Christians were drawn up they often came of their free will to give their names. In 1614 in Arima, thousands of soldiers surrounded the place to which the Christians came. They were caught in the hair and ears with enormous iron hooks, dragged, beaten, undressed, tied,

and kicked in the face with straw shoes impregnated with offal. They say while this happened to them [Editor’s note: The rest of this sentence is unclear.]. The next day, their legs were broken between wooden blocks and pressed until they broke. At the same time they were threatened to have their wives nakedly exposed and their children crushed. Finally, all but seventeen gave in who were decapitated on November 22, 1614. Those whose legs were broken dragged themselves on their knees to the place of execution. Three more were killed the next day. Their bodies were cut

into pieces and thrown on a pile.” The soldiers did not like this kind ofa job and sometimes went secretly to the villages to warn Christians to flee

into the woods. There were various ways of decapitating people, either by cutting the head off, or by splitting it down the middle—this was often done to children—or by lifting them by the feet and hacking them into pieces. Sixteen of the thirty-seven killed in 1623 were children who were either killed that way or crucified. During the “great martyr” of Omoura in September 1622, thirty-three were killed on a big square. Some were loosely attached to a stake, from which they could easily tear loose. But none of them did, and they were all slowly consumed by fire—priests, women, children. Others were decapitated and the onlookers saw how the children put down their heads. They were cut off and then put side by side on a long table in front of the 21. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, pg. 340. 22. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, pg. 285.

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

359

religious who were burned at the end—sometimes roasting slowly during three hours. It is said that thirty thousand Christians came to watch this and that all the surrounding hills as far as the eye could see were covered with them. They had hourglasses to measure the time the martyrs lasted. Afterwards the place was guarded for three days; then all the remnants, the bits of charred wood, the bodies, the rosaries, the chopped off heads were

thrown together with pieces of wood into a big ditch and burned for two days. Then the ashes and the earth which was impregnated with blood was filled into bags and taken out to sea and drowned. Afterwards, the bags, the ships, and the men who had taken part were scrupulously cleaned.” A priest and several companions were martyred at the end of 1624 by having to stand in the freezing river until they were all dead.* Three years later a new torture was invented. An iron which had been heated in the fire was applied to the forehead and two cheeks to print the words Kiri shi tan. Or people were hung for long stretches of time by different parts of their bodies. Or they were nailed into their houses so that they died. One old man was placed over glowing coals then held by head and feet and slowly turned so that he roasted from all sides.” The same was done to his son until smoke came out of their mouths. Then they were tied to a stake, their ears cut off, the letters Kirishitan burned into their faces and left ly-

ing on the ground. Children were tortured in front of their parents, roasted in the fire, or told to hold glowing coals in their hands. The father would be asked which finger should be cut off his child. Sometimes people were first mutilated, then almost drowned, then taken out of the water to revive

them, and this [was] repeated many times until death released them. Ouneme, a prince famous for his cruelty, had women swear that even their unborn children would not be Catholics. If they refused, their stomachs were opened and the embryo torn out. In 1629, a new torture was invented. A rope was fastened to each corner of a room and to the feet and hands of the victim who was then turned and stretched intolerably and then released so that he would spin rigidly back, only to have the cruel game repeated. In March 1630, near Nagasaki, seven people were so skillfully sewn through the middle that three

23. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, pg. 527. 24. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, pg. 574. 25. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, pg. 651.

356

Chapter Nineteen

lived for four days and one seven days. Three recanted on the fifth day. In the same year, on May 19, 1630, two hundred eighty were taken to the house of the bonze and tortured so that only fifty remained faithful. Their flesh was cut with fine cables. Bamboo sticks filled with sulphur and fetid water were stuck into the noses. Then glowing coals were placed into the other end of the bamboo. The faces became covered with ulcers and the people fainted. To revive them they were pierced with sharpened bamboo sticks. Lighted wicks were attached to different parts of their bodies; they were hung up by feet and hands and violently beaten. Others had to stand in the middle of a circle traced on the floor, holding their arms out like a cross, and hold a heavy stick five to six hands long between their teeth. When they fainted, they were revived and had to start over again. One mother was beaten with the head of her baby; one girl of thirteen had her hands and ears pierced with bamboo sticks. Those fifty who remained steadfast were taken to Chimabara on May 23 and sewn into pieces. First iron saws were used, then the work was continued with wooden saws and

finally indented bamboos were used to prolong the torture for days. In between, salt was put into the wounds. Most of them gave in after some days ofthis. Pagés describes another instance in which three religious were filled with water. Four hundred quarts were poured through a funnel into the mouth. A board was placed on them and their tormentors stepped on them so that the water mixed with blood came out of the ears, eyes, and all openings of the body. This was repeated all day long. On the following day, their arms were crossed, tied, and copper needles inserted under their nails so that they stuck there. Then they were almost drowned, revived, drowned, and revived. And this went on for days until they died. In 1624, a Jesuit, Father Diego de Carvalho, was put to death with the great-

est cruelty. It was February and bitterly cold weather when he and his companions were led to a small pool in which stakes were placed. They were stripped of all their clothing, then tied to the stakes and kept in the icy water for three hours. Next they were taken out and thrown on the frozen ground. Under this terrible treatment, two of them died, and their bodies were cut to

bits and thrown into the river. Four days later, the others were led back to the pool, where they were alternately to stand and kneel in the water. A biting cold wind was blowing at the time and it soon began to snow, the storm later becoming a blizzard. Towards evening, the pond froze over, adding to

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

357

the terrible sufferings of the unfortunates. One by one they become unconscious and died. Father Carvalho was the last to perish.”°

But not only death and torture awaited the faithful. They lost their possessions, their homes, and often went to work in the mines in order to

escape detection or lived among the lepers. Father Francisco describes his escape in a letter written at Nagasaki on March 26, 1626: “not being able to flee toward the mountains with the others, I used a narrow ditch dug into the house itself for just such a contingency. I stayed there five days without hardly seeing any light... . Afterwards in a very dark night, clad in the clothes of a woman, I succeeded in getting away.”?’

Often the Kirishitans would escape to the woods or fields and live there miserably while nobody dared to go near them. Sometimes a member of the family—a wife, a child, a parent—were taken as hostages and kept until the convert recanted his faith. During the whole period of persecution a determined destruction went on of all documents concerning the Catholic religion. The churches were burnt or torn down and objects of devotion destroyed. The Kirishitans sometimes used little statues representing Kwannon, the Oriental goddess of children, as a symbol for Madonna and the child. Or they secretly engraved holy symbols on everyday kitchen utensils. Today one can still find in museums copperplates which show scenes of crucifixion. Catholics or those who were suspects were asked to trample upon them. The plates were first executed in wood, but got used up so quickly that a metalworker in Nagasaki was asked in 1632 to make them in metal so that they can stand the abuse of [a] “million heels.” The enemies of the Christian church thought that the ceremony of trampling on holy pictures was a good means to get people to either recant their faith or declare it. It was introduced around 1629. Later on it became part of the Shumon-Aratame. These were rules on record how this was undertaken for Omoura in the year 1658. Apparently every New Year’s Day government clerics traveled all over the country to register all inhabitants. They would compare the old and new registers which were kept in the temples of the families and calculate from the inscription of 26. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, pg. 823. The Japanese Martyrs by A. F. Thomas (Catholic World, 1935), pg. 734. 27. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, Annexe, pg. 316.

358

Chapter Nineteen

deaths, births, and travel the present status. Then all people were asked to trample on the holy picture. This habit was kept up until late into the nineteenth century.”

Catholicism came to Japan at a time when it had been revitalized through the forces of counter-reformation in Europe. It found a country near collapse, torn by feudal strife and religious wars. The Christians were welcomed partly out of curiosity toward something strange and new, partly by the poor because they felt consolation and hope for another eternal life in the gospel, partly by local chiefs who were trying to get greater power and to rule over larger territories. So Christianity profited by the dissatisfaction which people felt with the existing order. From the beginning the Jesuits had great difficulties with the Buddhist bonzes. “It has sometimes been said that at the close of the fifteenth century the Buddhist church came near to gaining the secular empire of Japan, but there is not sufficient ground for such a high estimate of its power. .. . Though there is very little record of persecution in Japan on grounds of doctrine alone, the whole of her medieval history shows that her feudal statesmen would never permit interference by religious institutions in major political issues. . . . Ecclesiastics . . . were promptly suppressed when their activities clashed with feudal interests.”’° But, as the Catholics learned to their dismay, the bonzes had considerable power to turn the rulers against them.*® They kept insisting that the national gods would revenge themselves on the emperor. Why should foreigners have the right to fight the old gods? Did the converts not sacrifice all to these missionaries of foreign powers? The missionaries tried very hard from the beginning to win over those in power because it was the rule in Japan that subjects must always follow their rulers. It was a great victory for the Kirishitans when three daimyos (feudal lords) in Arima, Omoura, and Takayama became Christians and undertook to fight the Buddhists and to order all their subjects to convert 28. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sayo. Yoroku, pg. 160 ff. 29. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sansom, pg. 398. 30. [Lemkin’s footnote] Reyr Gysbertz, pg. 48.

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

359

to the Catholic faith. Later when they recanted, they again ordered everyone in their territory to follow suit. The Shogun who was just trying to strengthen the central power became afraid that the new faith might turn the feudal princes against him. The daimyos who became Christians often destroyed the shrines and temples in their territories [and] burned Buddha statues. Hideyoshi (1536/37—1598) especially after his many military victories against the Chinese and the Koreans insisted on an intense hero worship and wished to be venerated after his death. Catholicism clashed with these views. Also he began to be worried by so much love for foreigners, and he began to suspect foreign political designs behind religious missions. In 1596, for instance, Hideyoshi confiscated the cargo of the Spanish boat San Felipe which got into trouble at sea and had to enter the harbor Urado in Tosa. He seized a Franciscan missionary on board and condemned him and other Franciscans in the country to death since he began to consider them as forerunners of a Spanish invasion fleet. The Portuguese traders became unruly and overconfident in their attitude toward the Japanese.*’ The Jesuits really went too far in their zeal and they made enemies by insisting that every unbeliever would be certain to burn in hell. Inoue, the inquisitor, wrote a memorandum October 20, 1643, in which he said:

about the Kirishitans on

1. The pope, the head of the Christian religion, lives in Rome, a city in the country of Italy. He sends his padres into all countries and when they have spread Christianism and the countries follow the pope, he finally sends governors who take over the administration. Mexico, Lucon and many other countries he has thus got into his power. Since Japan is hard to conquer in war, he sends his padres so that they may preach the Christian religion in view of the future life. When Christianism

is well spread, they will band

together and fight the other Japanese religions and will encounter the plan to subjugate everything under the pope. 2. In Christianity there is a sect which is called Campanhia [?] and another which is Franciscans. .. . 3. The padres have been coming to Japan for many years. The costs are all registered in a book by the different sects. And should many hundred years pass, as soon as Japan is subjugated by the pope, those expenses will be

31. [Lemkin’s footnote] Reyr Gysbertz, pg. 48.

360

Chapter Nineteen

reimbursed. As long as the world exists, they have decided firmly to send the padres in order to spread Christianism and to conquer Japan.”

For a long time the missionaries were protected by the eagerness of the Japanese to trade with the Portuguese and Spanish. This heid back the persecution for a long time. But when the Dutch and English arrived on the scene in the seventeenth century, the Japanese felt that they could get along without them. The very fact that the Catholics were attacked in other countries encouraged the Japanese persecutors. The Dutch and English actually helped enforce the anti-Catholic laws. A letter of the bishop of Japan, written on October 22, 16[?]2, throws light on the motives: “If it is true that this prince has shown desire to have Father F. Jerome of the Franciscan order and some of his companions stay in Japan, this has evidentally only been motivated by the hope for commerce with the New Spain. . . . Daifousama has long believed that he would have great advantages.” Then the bishop goes on to speak about the disappointment of Daifousama: “Daifousama, and in general all heathen Japanese princes . . . have the same opinion and the same suspicions that Taicosama, the predecessor of Daifu had, namely that the Spanish of Lugon and of the New Spain are a conquering race, always with weapons in their hands and that their main object in these parts is . . . to get possession of these foreign states and that the preaching of the bible is an artifice of conquest. . . . They are certain that the manner in which the Spaniards have acted to conquer so many empires in the New World has been to send first religious to preach the bible and to make Christians out of the inhabitants so that these inhabitants will later unite with the Spaniards against their own masters, revolt against them and put the Spaniards in possession of the empire . . . Taicosama four or five years ago wrote to Manila that they crucified the religious of the Franciscan order because they came as spies.” And in the same letter: “Daifosama . . . repeated often that the coming of the religious to Japan was nothing but an artifice to conquer his land. Therefore one had often heard Japanese seigneurs repeat in the presence of the Daifousama that the preaching of the bible is only a means of conquest. At those occasions Daifousama has been heard to say that he 32. [Lemkin’s footnote] Sayo. Yoroku, pg. 189.

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

36]

would no longer tolerate any religious, not even those of the Society of Jesus. Sometimes he has said that he did not wish that any Japanese became Christian, another time he would only allow it to those of the lowest order. . . . At these conversations was usually present an eminent bonze ... friend of Daifousama who seldom left his ear. This bonze, by the name of Taichoro, great enemy of our holy religion, profiting one day by the circumstances, accused the fathers of the Society of Jesus in speaking to Daifousama. .. . Daifousama afterwards expressed himself most unfavorably.” From other letters, we hear how the Catholics feared the Dutch. On Oc-

tober 10, 1609, the Bishop of Japan writes to the King of Spain: “I wish to communicate to your majesty the calamities and ordeals which the Dutch cause us. They are a real pest and have not penetrated to this far part of the world. . . . They are everywhere in these seas and they will not rest until they have destroyed the commerce between the Portuguese and the Japanese, and consequently Christianism in this empire.” He goes on to tell how commerce has already suffered, how well the Dutch were received by the emperor and how they were given permission to build a factory at Firando. He worries what is going to happen to the Catholic religion: “Christianism in this empire will greatly suffer because part of the necessary subsidy to the religious ministers is brought by boat from Macao and .. . that the Spanish ships maintain and strengthen the church, and one must fear that the great distance will render this protection less efficacious.” In another letter to Philippe III (1578-1621) the bishop says on November 15, 1612: “Another cause of the indignation of the sovereign against us is a political one. The Spanish captain of a small boat which came last year from New Spain sent by the Viceroy of that province had in his company a religious of the Franciscan order, called Luis Sotelo (1574-1624). This captain measured all the depths . . . in all the harbors for the navigational interests of New Spain. . . . Although the sovereign had given his assent, nevertheless when a certain Dutch told him that this was a task of war and conquest, this prince pronounced the hard words. ... This confirmed an opinion conceived in 1596 when the pilot of the ship San Felipe arrived in the province of Taicosama and was asked .. . how the faraway King of Spain had become master of so great a kingdom and of so many provinces and who had answered very imprudently that

362

Chapter Nineteen

the Catholic king sent first the ministers of the Bible to convert the inhabitants who later would unite with the captain of his Majesty and thus render conquest easy.” The bishop tells in the same letter that an English pilot had shown a map of the world to the sovereign and demonstrated how the Catholics were driven out of many parts, whereupon the sovereign answered: “Therefore if I chase them myself that would be nothing new.” [Father] Valentin Carvalho [expelled Jesuit Provincial of Japan] wrote in a report of February 8, 1615, that the Dutch started a big trade and that they had taught the Japanese how to make artillery. He calls them “the main cause of the persecution of the Christians . . . independently of other causes.a. + In 1613 and in 1616 the English were given a special charter for shipping privileges. From all this it is clear that the reason for the persecution was not religious fanaticism. Most of the causes were political: fear of invasion, [and]

fear of the central power to loose hold over feudal lords in the provinces. A good deal was economic: the trade with the Portuguese and Spanish had not grown according to expectations and when the Dutch and English came along offering trade without missions, they were gladly received. A third reason was jealousy of rulers who wanted veneration, egged on by bonzes who feared the competition of the Catholic churches. The effect on the Kirishitans was the usual one: the more violent their suffering, the more they gloried in martyrdom. Most of the books published by the Jesuits in Japanese and Latin were about martyrdom. Torture and death inspired only greater devotion and the faraway provinces of exile in the East and North became the centers of numerous conversions. Letters of condemned usually exalt the joy of being martyred. Michel Fecoyemon wrote to his [Jesuit] Superior on January 11, 1609: “I have been told that today without a doubt I shall be put to death. I cannot express the immensity of my joy.” And Jean Fioyemon writes to his wife: “to be crowned by the martyrdom is such a sublime fate and so much beyond my merits . . . may it please our Lord to accord me the grace to have

my fingers cut off for the love of him like the converts of Sourounga.’”*4 33. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, Annexe, pg. 165. 34. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, pg. 120.

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

363

On November 16, 1614, a proclamation was published in Shimagara: “The Christians desire death so they may be venerated as martyrs. Here we do not want to kill them, but prolong their life with cruel sufferings and irresistible ordeals. What they would feel the most would be to reduce the women to serfdom and to send the most beautiful ones to Meaco for the seraglios and places of debauch. . . . Should the population renounce the Christian religion, they will not have to pay taxes and ships will be sent into their harbors for trade and for the enrichment of the country. But the Christians only answered ‘the slower the death, the more merits are accumulated by the Christians and the worthier they become of eternal reward. As to their wives and daughters, they would not lose their honor, but sparkle brighter because of their ordeal.’”*° On October 7, 1619, fifty-two victims were tied on carts in Meaco and

led through the streets. First came the men, old and young, and then the women and children—some so small that they were at their mother’s breast. They were preceded by a crier who shouted: “The Shogun . . . orders all persons to be burned alive because they are Christians” whereupon the martyrs shouted, “Yes, it is true, we die for Jesus. May Jesus live!”*° There is no one on record who left the country to escape the persecution. The missionaries printed and distributed a great number of pamphlets glorifying martyrdom, as for instance the “Admonition to Martyrdom,” published in 1614. In it, as in the others, the strong ones are promised eternal joy in heaven, while burning hell will await those who falter. Whoever cannot support the short torture will have to endure the eternal torture of hell. Confraternities were formed among the Catholics for mutual encouragement and preparation for martyrdom. From time to time, they showed passive resistance, as for instance dur-

ing a demonstration in 1614 in Nagasaki, Franciscans had been brought there in the spring from central Japan and were going to be sent into exile. It is said that for two months the streets were flooded with faithful who demonstrated. The government was clever enough not to be interfere and the excitement died out. After an execution the Kirishitans tried always to retrieve part of the bodies of the martyrs to hide and venerate. 35. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, pg. 284. 36. [Lemkin’s footnote] Pagés, pg. 413.

364

Chapter Nineteen

During the Great Martyrdom of 1622, when fifty-five were executed together, they sang and preached on the cross, and beyond the bamboo fences the crowd sang with them. The women wore the white veils of mourning. It seems that one of those spontaneous demonstrators was later persecuted. | The martyrdom of a certain Jeronymo de Angelis, SJ, is on record who was burnt alive in Edo in 1623 with fifty others. While he was carried on horseback through the streets, he preached in a loud voice and kept it up until he expired amidst the smoke and flames. The spectacle so moved one of the onlookers that he burst into the enclosure and declared his conversion.’ We also know of a mother and her seven-year-old son who were crucified together and prayed in a loud voice until they were pierced by lances. The people who watched tried to catch the blood which spurted from the wounds.*® In 1613, when it became known in Nagasaki that three missionaries were going to die, four people went of their free will to the judges and revealed themselves as Christians. They made an inventory of their goods to give them to the fiscal authorities and begged for the grace to be thrown into prison and to die.*® The most amazing was the behavior of the children. M. Thévenot wrote in 1663: “The children of six and seven spoke of nothing but martyrdom. Their parents instructed them in it and told them often that their fate would be the cross, the strokes of the lances, and decapitation, that their

heads would be nailed on a board and that they would suffer other infi-

nitely painful ordeals.””° Often during tortures the children were asked to hold glowing coals, which they did without flinching. One description of an execution on October 7, 1613, tells of a mother and child. The mother called to the child

to give him courage: “Look up to heaven.” The child went through the flames to his mother and put his arms around her and they died together. During the same execution, one woman was seen picking up the glowing embers with her hands and put them on her head.*! 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Pagés, Pagés, Pagés, Pagés, Pagés,

pg. pg. pg. pg. pg.

27. 88. 245. 118. 246.

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

365

4.

Although Catholicism was apparently wiped out after the debacle of Shimabara, the records show that during the second part of the seventeenth century, five hundred forty were questioned, of which eighty were executed, one hundred forty-one died in prison, one hundred nine were released, while two hundred ten remained in prison.” The repercussions abroad are hard to determine. Rome, of course, was

concerned and encouraged the various endeavors of the Jesuits, Franciscans, and other orders to get secretly into the country. The Spanish and Portuguese were loath to renounce the trade with Japan. The Portuguese were even Said at one point to keep missionaries from using their boats to get into the country for fear of antagonizing the Japanese. On the whole, the persecution can be said to have been successful— except for the astonishing discovery of Christians in the nineteenth century. But the price which Japan paid was tremendous: complete exclusion from the rest of the world for two centuries! [Editor’s Note: There is solid evidence—an undated letter—that this particular chapter was written by one of Lemkin’s researchers with the first name Margaret. In that letter, she writes:] Incidentally—the history of Japan is very confusing. In the period I have studied there is always a Shogun—a sort of military dictator—besides the emperor. The Shogun is much more powerful. Besides there are numerous feudal princes, who at times are quite independent from the central power. Which makes it difficult to answer the question “Who is guilty?” One can answer “The Government.” Because decidedly there is no violent feeling among the people against the Christians—until it is engendered by the laws. Even then, people seem to have denounced the Christians rather for the rewards than for religious reasons. But what is the Government? Edicts were passed by the Shogun and if the feudal princes felt like it they published similar ones in their provinces. In the time I studied, the power of the Shogun increased and so the national policy was finally followed throughout the land. But it makes it hard to establish exact dates on which laws were passed. 42, [Lemkin’s footnote] Masaharu Anesaki (1873-1949), “The Extermination of the Japanese Catholics” (Proceedings, Volume 2, pg. 95).

366

Chapter Nineteen

Also—it is very difficult to get an estimate of the number of victims. One can say no more than that they went well into the several thousands!

[LEMKIN’S] BIBLIOGRAPHY Japan, a short cultural history. George B. Sansom. 1936 Catholic Encyclopedia Histoire de la Religion Chrétianne au Japan. Léon Pagés. 1869. A Concordance to the History of Kirishitan Missions. Masaharu Anesaki. 1930. Kirishito-ki und Sayo-yoroku, Japanische Dokuments zur Missionsgeschichte des 17. Jahrunderts. 1940. A History of the Lives and Martyrdom of Pual Michi, James Chisai, and John Soan de Goto, by Father Boero, 1862. “The Japanese Martyrs” (The Catholic World, 1935, pgs. 732 ff). A. F. Thomas. Relation de divers voyages curieux. M. Thévenot. 1663. Recit de la persecution des Chrétiens due Japon. Reyr Gysbertz. 1629.

“Exaggerations in the Japanese Accounts of the Kirishitan Progaganda,” Masaharu Anesaki (Proceedings of the Imperial Academy, Volume 4, pgs. 85 ff.) “The Kori Debacle, the last stage of the Persecution of Kirisihitans in Omura,” by Masaharu Anesaki and E. Talamuro (Proceedings, Volume 4, pgs. 319 ff.) “Writings on Martyrdom in Kirishitan Literature,” by Masaharu Anesaki (Proceedings, Volume 7). “The Fates of Some of the Leading Kirishitans who signed the Barberini Documents of 1620-21,” by Masaharu Anesaki (Proceedings, Volume 3, pgs. 247 ff.). “Some Confirmatory Light from Japanese Sources upon the Record of Kirishitan Missions,” by Masaharu Anesaki (Proceedings, Volume 3, pgs. 637 ff.). “The Extermination of the Japanese Catholics in the Last Half of the Seventeenth Century and their survivals,” by Masaharu Anesaki (Proceedings, Volume 2, pgs. 95 ff). “Some more documents on the Kirishitans prosecuted in the last half of the 17th century,” by Masaharu Anesaki (Proceedings, Volume 2, pgs. 193 ff.). “Exile and Mission: Some instances of their connection under a régime of persecution,” by Masaharu Anesaki (Proceedings, Volume 2, pgs. 299 ff.). Reliquien aus der Zeit der friiheren Japanischen Christenverfolgung Ostasiatische Rundschau, 1928, pgs. 519 ff. “Psychological observations on the persecution of the Catholics in Japan in the 17th century,” by Masaharu Anesaki (Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Cambridge, Volume 1, April 1936, pgs. 13 ff.) [pgs. 13-27]

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

367

“The ‘Failure’ of St. Francis Xavier,” by Alsan Goodier (The Month, December 1928, pgs. 481 ff.).

UPDATED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blussé, Leonard (2003). “The Grand Inquisitor Inoue Chikugono Kami Masashige, Spin Doctor of the Tokugawa Bakufu,” Bulletin ofPortuguese/Japanese Studies, Volume 7, 23-43.

Kitagawa, Kay (1950). “The Map of Hokkaido of G. de Angelis, ca. 1621.” Imago Mundi, Volume 7, 110-114.

Schiitte, Joseph (1952). “Map of Japan by Father Girolamo de Angelis.” /mago Mundi, Volume 9, 73-78.

APPENDIX The text on these plates was similar to one put up in Nagasaki in 1652:

Proclamation

1. It is forbidden to keep padres, lay brothers and other Christians hidden. 2. It is forbidden to hide Japanese who have lived abroad and have returned. 3. Commerce with humans is forbidden. Contracts of employment must not last longer than 10 years. 4, It is forbidden to sell a house or rent an apartment to persons unable to

produce security. It is forbidden to receive persons who have misbehaved towards their master. 5. All members of the samurais are forbidden to buy things directly from foreigners. 6. No things must be bought from street vendors without showing them to both neighbors. 7. Base silver must not be manufactured, nor must base silver or crude

silver be used. 8. Weights and scales—except those of Goto (name of certain family) must not be used.

368

Chapter Nineteen

9. All quarrels and disputes are forbidden. 10. All games of hazard are forbidden. Whoever counteracts these rules will be severely punished. Kiuemon Yohei * KK

KK

EDICT . Whoever denounces a pater [Father, priest] will be given 200 to 300 pieces of silver, according to the importance of the denunciation. denounces a lay brother, a catechist or other Christians i). Whoever will get a number of silver pieces according to the importance of the denunciation. But should paters, brothers or catechist be the ones to denounce, their debt will be dispensed with and they will get a reward. . If someone confesses that he has transmitted objects from foreign [Editor’s Note: remainder of sentence unclear. | * KK OK K

A PROCLAMATION

FROM JUNE 3, 1658*

. Since Christianism is very harmful and corrupting, nobody is allowed anymore into the country. Therefore, from now on, should foreigners be smuggled in on Chinese boats, all persons of the ship are to be executed without exception. But should someone from the same ship make a denunciation, his debut will be dispensed with and he will receive a reward. . It is forbidden to bring Christian letters or objects into the country. Should someone offend against this, he must be denounced. If it is kept secret, the offense is to be punished as above.

43. [Lemkin’s footnote] Kirishito-ki, pg. 48.

The Persecution of the Catholics in Japan

369

3: If Christians get in through bribery on Chinese boats, this must be at once denounced. If it is denounced, the debt is to be dispensed with and the double sum of the bribe is to be given as reward. These rules have to be kept and are herewith made public. KKK OK *

TO ALL CHINESE SEAMEN . It is a heavy crime to belong to Christianity. When a Christian is on board, the whole crew will be executed. It has long been forbidden that people from Macao arrive on their own boats. From now on, should they arrive on Chinese boats, they will at once be executed. Also the

crew will be executed. But should someone on the same ship make a denunciation, he will be free of punishment and receive a reward. i). Whoever introduces Christian writings or objects secretly into Japan will be unconditionally executed. Offenders are to be reported at once. Whoever keeps it secret will suffer the same punishment as above. . Whoever takes a bribe to bring Christians hidden in the interior of the boat must report this at once. Then he will not be punished and will receive a reward, twice as high as the bribe. . Such are the rules. All merchants and passengers of Chinese boats must hold to these rules. In no case must they act against them. Forbidden is:

. The immigration of paters into Japan. . The export of Japanese weapons when leaving. . The travel into foreign countries by Japanese. Whoever counteracts these rules will be severely punished. KR

KKK

Another edict which was published in all provinces:

370

Chapter Nineteen

PROCLAMATION Although the Christian religion has been forbidden for years, it has not been completely exterminated. Therefore it is publicly ordered to undertake the Aratama (special religious examination). Suspect persons must be at once denounced. Formerly those who denounced a pater received 200 pieces of silver; those who denounced a brother, 100 pieces. From now on, one receives:

whoever denounces a pater, 300 pieces of silver whoever denounces a brother, 200 pieces of silver whoever denounces a catechist or Christian, according to the circumstances, 30 to 50 pieces of silver. These sums will be paid as reward. Should no denunciation follow and the incident becomes known, then the goningumi™ will be considered guilty. This edict is herewith, following an order, made public for the whole district. September 1658 Another rule was that a criminal whatever his crime would not get capital punishment if he denounced a Christian.*

44. [Lemkin’s footnote] Five families were considered as a unit and each member was responsible for all the rest. 45. [Lemkin’s footnote] Kirishito-ki, pg. 54.

Chapter Twenty

The Case of Poland

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND There are few if any data on the early history of Poland. The earliest event definitely acknowledged as fact is the conquest of the province of Chorbacyja from the huge but decaying Moravian empire by Prince Ziemovit at the end of the tenth century. Christianity was first preached at that time by Greek Orthodox monks. Germans were continuously attacking and driving the Slavs eastward from the Elbe [River]. Boleslaus I (992-1025) attempted [to] solidify Poland against German aggression by establishing an independent Polish church and thus forging an independent Polish state. He created a Metropolitan See in Poland and was the first prince there to bear the royal title. By conquest he united a vast kingdom. Under his successors, much of his usurped territory was lost again, but Christianization in Poland continued. During the first part of the twelfth century the fatal era of partition began which was to last until 1306. At first Poland was partitioned into four principalities and eventually into eight. It was this atomization of the country which was primarily responsible for Poland’s impotence in the face of the Mongol invasion.!' Silesia will be discussed as part of Poland; it was at the time one of the initially independent principalities which had belonged to the Polish kingdom, and only after the Mongol invasions left the Polish cultural orbit to become completely Germanized.

1. [Lemkin’s footnote] Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 16, pg. 134.

371

$72

Chapter Twenty

CONDITIONS

LEADING TO GENOCIDE

At the beginning of 1241 Poland was at peace internationally, but sadly disunited and constantly in the throes of internecine warfare.” At the time,

nime separate princes had grouped themselves into two hostile factions, one group being considerably more powerful than the other.* Hardly had the Mongols withdrawn from Poland, turning toward Silesia and Hungary, when the Polish princes resumed their old feuds and rivalries* In 1253 a campaign against Moravia staged by Prince Daniel of

Haliez (1201-1264) and the Dukes of Cracow and Oppeln indirectly facilitated the renewed Mongol onslaught on Poland in the following year. . For Daniel was denied’/promised assistance by Rome when the Mongols invaded Poland. The Pope, Innocent IV (1196-1254), who had violently eriticized such warfare, was deposed and his successor, Alexander IV (1183-1261), did not pay attention to matters in Eastern Europe because of his political troubles in Italy.° At the time of the invasion in 1259, the princes of Cujavia and Greater Poland were locked in conflict.’

In 1260 after repeated Mongol invasions, the Polish princes begged the Pope to appoint one of the Electors of Brandenburg, either John I or Otto Ul (1215-1267) to be the chief army commander against the Mongols.® They did this because they were unable to reach an agreement among themselves, being deeply jealous and suspicious of each other.

METHODS

OF GENOCIDE

Physical

In Poland the Mongols ravaged as elsewhere. After storming the fortress of Sendomir in February, 1241, the Mongols massacred the inhabitants ty {Lemkin’s fhomote}] Wolff, pe. 15°

[Lemkin’s Romo} Red [Lemkin's Shomoze] Roepell, pg. 471

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s w [Lemkin’s

ee ee

fhomore} fhomote) omote}] Domore]

Wolff, Wolff, Wolff, Wolfk

pgs. 391-2. pe. 391. pg. 397 pg. 399

The Case of Poland

373

there.? The large number of people, among them many clerics, who had sought refuge in a monastery nearby, were also killed mercilessly.!° After the Battle of Leignitz, 1241, the Mongols overran Silesia and ravaged it terribly. Silesia had never been thickly populated; however, the far-reaching depopulation as a result of Mongol genocide can be gleaned, according to Wolff, from the fact that rigorous colonization measures date from that period."! In 1254 a Mongol army invaded the provinces of Lublin, Sendomir, and Cracow destroying and murdering.'? In the summer of 1259 another Mongol army laid siege to the fortress of Sendomir to which large numbers of people had fled with their belongings; Mongols slew all men, women, and children that emerged, despite their promise not to do so. Others were chased into the Weichsel (Vistula River), which they drowned miserably," coloring the river crimson with their blood. Toward the end of 1286 Mongol armies overran the provinces of Cracow and Masovia, murdering everywhere." This Mongol invasion was the most destructive in Poland; Sendomir and Little Poland principalities were ravaged for three months systemati-

cally.'°

Biological Genocide Separation of Families — Slavery From the monastery near Sendomir only a few young people escaped

massacre by being dragged off as slaves.'® After the storming of the fortress of Sendomir in 1258, the attractive women and young men were made slaves.'’ Thousands were forced into slavery on that occasion.'* In

9. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, pg. 162. 10. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid. 11. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, pg. 193. For wild condition of Silesia before and during Mongol invasions, see Wolff, pg. 191.

12. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, pg. 392. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Wolff, pg. 397. Wolff, pg. 413. Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 18, pg. 135. Wolff, pg. 162. Wolff, pg. 397. Wolff, pg. 398.

374

Chapter Twenty

1286, thirty thousand young men and girls who had been enslaved in Poland were distributed in Vladimir among the Mongols."

Destruction of Cultural Centers In the first invasion of Poland by the Mongols (Batu’s armies) in 1241, Lublin was burned including the surrounding towns and villages.” Cracow, which had been deserted by all its inhabitants, was also reduced to

ashes.?! The towns and villages around Sendomir were devastated.” In 1254 Sendomir and Cracow as well as much of Halicz [were destroyed]. Pope Alexander IV (1185-1261) wrote to the Bishop of Cracow in 1256 that the Cracow diocese was completely destroyed in 1254.” In 1259, the fortress of Sendomir was burned; Cracow was destroyed, and the land

beyond it devastated.* The nunneries of Zawichost and Lyssen were burned.” In 1286, the Mongols made their last onslaught on Poland, devastating the duchies of Cracow and Masovia, destroying churches and monasteries.”° In Silesia”’ every town and village between Leignitz and the Neisse [River] through which the Mongols passed was destroyed in 1241. The destruction of the monastery of Heinrichau caused widespread confusion with regard to land property and title because many valuable documents were burnt with the building.** The extent of the destruction in Silesia is illustrated by the habit of Silesians to speak of antepagonos and postpaganos (before and after the heathens).” Then they devastated everything until they reached the Moravian border, passing through Troppau and Jaegerndorf.*° 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Wolff, pg. 413. Wolff, pg. 162. Op. cit., pg. 165. Wolff, pg. 162. Wolff, pg. 392, footnote.

24. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, pg. 397. 25. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid. 26. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, pg. 413.

27. [Lemkin’s footnote] Breslau seems to have been destroyed by its citizens before the Mongols reached it. (Wolff, pgs. 169-70). The Mongols may have completed its destruction, for Roger mentions destruction of the capital by them. ([bid.) 28. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, pg. 192. 29. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid. 30. [Lemkin’s footnote] Gruenhagen, pg. 72.

The Case of Poland

Die

THE GENOCIDISTS The invasion of Poland in Spring 1241 was led by Kaidu and Kadan.?! The

onslaught of 1254 was head by Kartak and Alibuga.” Intent

As everywhere, the data on Mongol genocide in Poland testify to Mongol intent at complete destruction and extermination, rather than merely at victorious campaigns. Where the Mongols promised the Polish [people] amnesty on surrender and free unmolested removal of all inhabitants, they broke their word and massacred all those that emerged (from the fortress of Sendomir).** Lamb holds that the Mongols had intended complete destruction of Poland and Silesia in order to create a sterile corridor through which no army could march and sustain itself to attack the Mongols in

Hungary.** Motivation

The prime motivation for the Polish invasion of 1241 supposedly was punishment or retaliation. Prince Conrad of Masovia (1187-1247) had given asylum to the fugitive Russian princes Mikhail of Kiev and Daniel of Halicz which, according to Genghiz’s code, called for the severest

retaliation.» Demoralization

Count Raspe of Thuringia (1204—1247) in one of his letters to the Duke of Brabant (Germ.) writes of the Mongols: (ed. transl): “They eat, or better 31. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, pg. 159.: Kadan was the son of the second Great Khan of the Mongols Ogedei and a concubine. He was the grandson of Genghis Khan and the brother of Giiyiik Khan. During the Mongol invasion of Europe, Kadan, along with Baidar (son of Chagatai Khan) and Orda Khan (the eldest brother of Batu Khan and khan of the White Horde), led the Mongol force that

attacked Poland, 32. [Lemkin’s 33. [Lemkin’s 34. [Lemkin’s 35. [Lemkin’s

while the footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

main Mongol force struck the Kingdom of Hungary. Op. cit., pg. 392. Wolff, pg. 397. Lamb, pg. 163. Wolff, pg. 161.

376

Chapter Twenty

devour, human beings, eat frogs and snakes. . . . They have bloody teeth and are always ready to devour human flesh and drunk human blood.”*°

Resistance

The Battle of Liegnitz (1241) at which the Duke of Silesia made history,

both by his heroism and that of his army and by the fatal consequences of the defeat, was an epic example of European desperate resistance to the Mongol genocidist{[s].°° Nobles and commons from Greater Poland and Silesia had gathered for this battle. It is recorded that after the thorough defeat of the European forces, the Mongols cut off one ear of each enemy corpse, threw it into a bag of which several large ones were carried to Mongol headquarters as a rough census of the casualties.*

BELIEFS REGARDING

GENOCIDISTS

The Poles could not comprehend that a campaign as devastating and genocidal as that of the Mongols could be conducted merely out of political or strategic considerations.** They therefore manufactured their own interpretations of the disaster. The famous legend regarding the Mongol invasion which has been handed down as the legend of St. Hedwig (11741243) runs as follows: the wife of Batu was curious about strange peoples and their customs and embarked on a journey to Silesia with many riches and a large following. In the town of Neumarkt near Breslau, she and her companions were slain by the citizens who desired her wealth. Only two young maidens escaped to bring the sad tidings to Batu.*° (It seems that certain facts bear a small resemblance to this story: Prince Mikhail of Kiev and Chernigoff (1185-1246) fled from the Mongols to Poland, finally settling in Neumarkt where his following and his granddaughter were murdered and his many treasures stolen.)*' -

. [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s om) . [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s de dm bad tad — ad {Lemkin’s 1D

footnote} footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Wolff, pg. 172. Wolff, pgs, 186-192. Wolff, pg. 190. Wolff, pg. 161. Wolff, pg. 161. Palacky, Finfall der Mongolen, Prague, 1842, pg. 404; Wolff, pg. 161.

The Case of Poland

Sil

RESPONSES OF OUTSIDE GROUPS Poppo of Osterna (d. 1257), leader of the Prussian Order of Knights (Knights of the Cross), was a personal friend of Duke Henry of Silesia’

He participated in the Battle of Liegnitz as well as several crusades (according to Miechow, DeSarmatia L.1., c. 3 in Grinasi, Orcis novus, pgs. 451-453; see Wolff, pg. 185).

AFTERMATH In Poland, especially in Silesia, vast repopulation programs were started after the Mongol invasion. A Germanic middle class was introduced into Polish society to reconstruct the cities, maintain order in a disorganized country, to fill the deep gaps left by Mongol massacres, and to help

the country again toward economic revival.” The German middle class became a counterpoise to the nobility and helped develop the country’s resources.** The Duke Leszek wrote in 1287 (ed. transl.): “Since, furthermore, our land has been depopulated by the sword of the enemy because of our sins, since it has been soiled with innocent blood, and left

untouched by the plow and uncultivated, we desire to colonize and reconstruct it with other inhabitants and farmers.”*° In Silesia the repopulation policy was pursued particularly vigorously. Breslau was refounded as a German town in 1250.*° Bishop Bruno supervised German colonization of the province between the years 1245 and 1281.4’ While German colonization in Silesia had begun before the advent of the Mongols and was also due to the general desolation of the country as well as to the hatred of Poland and the desire of the Silesians to become Germanized,* it had been greatly fostered by the conditions which resulted from the Mongol

invasion.” 42. [Lemkin’s footnote] Wolff, pg. 184. 43. [Lemkin’s footnote] Grohe, pg. 29.

44, [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid. 45. [Lemkin’s 46. [Lemkin’s 47. [Lemkin’s Bruenn, 1860. 48. [Lemkin’s 49. [Lemkin’s

footnote] Wolff, pg. 413, footnote. footnote] Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 20, pg. 652. footnote] Wolff, pg. 193. From Brnadl, Hadnb. D. maehrischen Vaterlandskunde, footnote] Grohe, pg. 39. footnote] Wolff, pg. i193.

378

Chapter Twenty

kK

KK

EDITOR’S NOTE No bibliography has been found for this apparently all-too-brief summary and/or incomplete chapter.

Chapter Twenty-Eight

The Case of the Spanish in the Peru of the Incas

BACKGROUND Inca Civilization

The Pan-Peruvian culture which found its last flowering in the empire of the Incas dates from several centuries before Christ.' In the orbit of this culture belonged not only what we know as Peru today but also parts of Argentina and Chile, as well as Ecuador and Bolivia. The Inca stage of this culture comprised only the last three hundred years before the advent of the Spaniards.’ Inca culture is one of the most remarkable in history, both for artistic

as well as sociopolitical achievements. The cities of Peru aroused the admiration of the Spanish for their beautiful layout and imposing stone structures. Five paving, straight streets, canals, rich greenery were a mere backdrop for the luxurious and artistic stonemasonry and generous gold plating of the temples, public buildings, palaces, and residences.’ The chief native animal, the llama, provided the Peruvians with choice meat

and unparalleled wool which they fashioned into soft and delicate fabrics beautifully painted. Gold was so abundant that it was used for very everyday utensils and the roofs of buildings. Gold and silver ornaments frequently set with gorgeous jewels abounded everywhere. Thus, Peru was a veritable E] Dorado. Even more interesting, however, were the social and administrative arts of the Incas. The economy

1. [Lemkin’s footnote] Collier, pg. 45. 2. [Lemkin’s footnote] Op. cit., 44. 3. [Lemkin’s footnote] See, for instance, Prescott, pgs. 314-315.

379

was strictly agricultural,

380

Chapter Twenty-Eight

in contrast to that of the Aztecs which relied heavily on commerce. The land was owned communally, and a sort of communist absolutism existed

which placed all social life into a rigid and static pattern. Power converged in the Inca monarch who was revered like a god. He was surrounded by the social elite—the Incas—who were all descendants of monarchs or tribal chiefs of the newly conquered peoples. As the Inca monarchs had many hundreds of wives, this class soon assumed large proportions.* The Incas were the intellectual as well as the political rulers. Only they could be educated. Again in this respect there is a contrast to the Aztecs who had evolved some measure of social equality. However, the Inca ruler was a benevolent autocrat. There was no poverty, no insecurity in his vast empire. Every subject was required to work,° devoting an allotted period to his own tenanted land and another period to the land which belonged to the emperor.’ Whether he worked in the mines, at the crafts or on the land, no Peruvian was suffered to overwork himself or to strain his resources. By a wise system of rotation every fit person did the most strenuous work for only a short period.’ When a Peruvian fell sick or became victim to an emergency, the emperor was there to give him quick and effective aid without the stigma of relief. Just as human resources were thus conserved and preserved, natural resources were similarly treated. The Incas never exploited the soil.? Peruvian administration was intricate but efficient; justice was carried out well as the emperor punished erring judges severely. In the absence of writing, the Peruvians had invented an intricate and ingenious system of records—the “quipus.”!° This instrument consisted of chords of various lengths, sequences, and colors into which knots were made to denote numbers; by means of it the Peruvian administrator could keep the vital statistics of all Inca communities as well as other important information. In view of the lack of writing or picture writing, of money, of beasts of burden, and of the wheel, the organization and effectiveness of Inca society seems all the more admirable. Of course the apparent strength of this culture was its greatest weakness under the impact of a foreign culture. As soon as the Inca emperor was . [Lemkin’s footnote] Collier, pg. 56. . [Lemkin’s footnote} Ibid. . [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 32. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pgs. 29-30. . [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, 34. . [Lemkin’s footnote] Collier, pg. 71. jtSOMIDMAL . [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pgs. 71-3.

The Case of the Spanish in the Peru of the Incas

381

humiliated and executed by the Spanish, as the idols were violated and destroyed, without apparent divine retaliation, the whole structure had to collapse. For the base and the apex of this society was religion, and the emperor was the Child of the Sun which was worshipped as the supreme

deity.'!

The Expedition On March 10, 1526, two Spanish explorers, Francisco Pizarro (1471/76?— 1541) and [Diego de] Almagro (1475-1538), who had before made an unsuccessful expedition in search for the fabulous kingdom of Peru, and Lugue [?], an ecclesiastic who represented a person who had contributed liberally to the expedition costs,'? made a contract to divide the country to be yet discovered—the empire of the Incas—among them.'? Then the explorers under the leadership of Pizarro made their way from Panama along the coast of Peru. They suffered many hardships on their explorations inland, and many soldiers were at the point of mutiny because of the apparent hostility of some of the native communities as well as the lack of men and provisions.'* A letter of dissatisfied soldiers was smuggled to Panama and roused consternation and resentment against Pizarro for exposing his men to such certain death.'? However, with return letters Pizarro received promises of early assistance from Lugue and Almagro who had returned to Panama.'® This was enough to spur up his courage, and in the traditional manner of Spanish bravery and recklessness, he said to his men: “Friends and comrades: On that side are toil, hunger, naked-

ness, the drenching storm, desertion, and death; on this side, ease and

pleasure. There lies Peru with its riches; here, Panama and its poverty. Choose, each man, what best becomes a brave Castilian. For my part, I go to the south.” And then he stepped across the line he had drawn."” Thirteen of the most faithful chose to share their fate with the commander.'® After 11. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pgs. 32-70. 12. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 145. 13. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 143. 14. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pgs. 155-56. 15. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 157. 16. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 158. 17. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 159; from Montesinos (d. 1545), Annales, Ms., anno 1527 {Antonio de Montesinos was a Dominican friar on the island of Hispaniola (now the Dominican

Republic and Haiti) who was the first member of the clergy to publicly denounce all forms of enslavement and oppression of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. | 18. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid.

382

Chapter Twenty-Eight

long months of extreme hardship in a desolated island succor finally arrived from the obstinate party and they proceeded southwards.”

Conditions Leading to Genocide The conditions leading to genocide in Peru were essentially those which existed in the Spanish conquests elsewhere in the New World. Because of the many hardships of the expedition and the unsurpassed riches which were eventually found, the conquest of Peru perhaps shows the factors in magnified form. As elsewhere, he regarded the territory on which he set foot as his rightful domain under the sovereignty of the Spanish monarch and the Roman church. As elsewhere, it became a matter of honor as well

as necessity to hold out despite almost unsurpassable difficulties. And this necessity contributed all the more to the rapacity and ruthlessness against kindly natives which the conquerors exhibited once they felt themselves within reach of what they had striven for. As Hernando Pizarro [dates unclear], the commander’s brother, expressed it on storming the temple of Pachacamac: he had come too far to be held back by the arm of Indian priests.” The character of Pizarro, whose thirst for glory far outweighed his religious zeal, did much to determine the forms of genocide committed in Peru.”! The Peruvians, on their part, prepared their own ruin unwittingly by giving the strangers a kind and generous reception wherever they went and by innocently displaying their military might and fabulous wealth. Gratefulness was conspicuous for its absence among the Spaniards; but the sight of Inca power imbued them with suspicion while the sight of wealth filled them with envy. The Peruvians were not as militant as the Aztecs; in fact, they were gentle and naively trusting people, gay and generous—all these characteristics were probably the result of centuries of benevolent despotism, and material abundance. Besides, they were convinced of the

supernatural powers of the Spanish just as the Aztecs had been, although no legend was here needed: the strange floating castles, the shining steel armor (iron was unknown in Peru), the thundering arquebuses [an early muzzle-loaded firearm used in the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries], and

19. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 163. 20. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 271. 21. [Lemkin’s footnote] Op. cit., pg. 436.

The Case of the Spanish in the Peru of the Incas

383

the strange countenance of the Spanish were enough to inspire awe.”? Later this awe increased to stupefied subjection when the violation of the idols anc the emperor’s person did not bring down the wrath of the gods.

METHODS

OF GENOCIDE

Massacre

In November, 1532, the Spanish conquerors entered the city of Caxamalca in full force. They were received by the Inca Atahuallpa (1497-1533) who had recently made himself monarch of Peru by a brutal coup.?? “When the monarch and his retinue came to welcome the Spanish, preparations for the crime had already been made. At Pizarro’s signal, the fatal gun was fired from the fortress. Then springing into the square, the Spanish captain and his followers shouted the old war-cry ‘St. Jago’ at them! It was answered by the battle-cry of every Spaniard in the city, as rushing from the avenues of the great halls in which they were concealed, they poured into the plaza, horse and foot, each in his own dark column, and threw themselves into the midst of the Indian crowd. The latter, taken by surprise, stunned by the report of the artillery and muskets, the echoes of which reverberated like thunder from the surrounding buildings . . . were seized with panic. . . Nobles and commoners—all were trampled down under the fierce charge of the cavalry who dealt their blows right and left, without sparing. ... They made no resistance as, indeed, they had no weapons with which to make it. Every avenue of escape was closed, for the entrance to the square was choked up with the dead bodies of men who had perished in vain efforts to flee; and such was the agony of the survivors under the terrible pressure of their assailants, that a large body of Indians, by their convulsive struggles, burst through the wall of stone and dried clay which formed part of the boundary of the plaza! . . . His faithful nobles (the Inca’s) rallying about him, threw themselves in the way of the assailants, and strove by tearing them from their saddles, or, at least, by

offering their own bosoms as a mark for their vengeance, to shield their beloved master.” At length, Atahualpa was taken captive. Pizarro’s sec-

22. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pgs. 157-58. 23. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 211. 24. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pgs. 253-54.

384

Chapter Twenty-Eight

retary estimated the number of dead at two thousand. A descendant of the

Incas holds the number to have been ten thousand.” And all this hideous work had been done in the space of one half hour.”° Massacres of defenseless Indians did not stop with the completion of the conquest. During the bloody days of Spanish colonial rule, Spaniards used to amuse themselves by hunting down the natives with bloodhounds for sport or to train their dogs for game.”’ The Inca emperor was executed some time after the debacle in his capital—on mostly fictitious charges (see cult. genocide).

Deprivation of Livelihood Two typical Inca institutions were adopted and distorted by the conquerors for exploitative purposes. The “Mita” used to be a system of staterequired work which had been humanely rotated among the subjects of Peru to avoid fatique. The Spanish adopted the name and changed this system of public service into one of the most brutal and genocidal slavery. Collier calls it “homicidal enslavement.’ The Inca institution of “Yanacona” used to be a guild of skilled workers who were exempt from taxation and were held in high esteem for doing honorific artisan work for the emperor and his courts. The Spanish applied this name to a “horde of landless Indians who were driven from place to place and used without pay for all kinds of personal services.””’ The Inca rulers had required work from each subject, but had apportioned it according to strength and capacity, had protected all subjects against abuse and fatigue, against accident and disease, and had cared for them in case of need. The Spanish taxed the

strength of the Indians to the utmost and beyond, and they did not afford them any protection whatsoever.*° If an Indian fell sick under the strain, if he suffered an accident, he was left to die miserably. As Prescott says: “The poor Indian, without food, without the warm fleece which furnished

him a defense against the cold, now wandered half-starved and naked over the plateau. .. . Many an Inca noble roamed a mendicant over the lands

25. 26. 27. cosas 28. 29, 30.

[Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 256. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 257. {Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 465; from “Relacion que dio el Provisor Morales sobre las que conveian provarse en el Peru,” MS. [Lemkin’s footnote] Collier, pg. 60. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 465.

The Case of the Spanish in the Peru of the Incas

385

where once he held rule; and if driven, perchance, by his necessities, to purloin something from the superfluity of his conquerors, he expatiated it

by a miserable death.”!

Biological Genocide As Prescott puts it, “the young maiden was torn without remorse from the arms of her family to gratify the passions of her brutal conquerors.”°? Between this forceful removal ofIndian girls and the undermining of the health of the male slave, the biological continuity of the Peruvian people must have been greatly jeopardized.

Cultural Genocide Destruction of Cultural Symbols The Spanish destroyed the famous and invaluable quipi libraries.*? They even did not shy from invading the sacred convents of the Virgins of the Sun, choice young maidens who led a secluded and holy life until their marriage to the emperor. By this supreme outrage, the Spaniards invoked the deepest hatred of the usually so gentle populace.** In the capital of Peru, Cuzco, the Spanish soldiers stripped off the rich ornaments of the royal mummies in the temple of Coricancha. They even violated the sepulchers and deprived them of their dead and their wealth.*°

Destruction of Leadership The Inca monarch of Peru was a sovereign in more than one sense. He received an obedience which concerned not only matters of public behavior but the private lives and the very thoughts of his devoted subjects. He was regarded as a god, all-knowing, all-powerful.*° Pizarro realized this when he wrote: “Such was the awe in which the Inca was held that it was only necessary for him to intimate his commands to that effect, and

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Prescott, pg. 466. Prescott, pg. 465. Collier, pg. 60. Prescott, pg. 277. Prescott, pg. 316. Ibid.

386

Chapter Twenty-Eight

a Peruvian would at once jump down a precipice, hang himself, or put an end to his life in any way that was prescribed.” *’ Pizarro knew the emperor’s influence over his subjects and therefore decided to destroy him. Atahualpa was “the point to which all its institutions converged at a common centre—the keystone of the political fabric which must fall by its own weight when that was withdrawn.’*’ The emperor’s death revealed to the people that a power stronger than that of the Incas now had control of their country, and that the dynasty of the Children of the Sun with all its cultural and religious implications had now passed away forever.*® The monarch was imprisoned during the massacre at Caxamalca. His imprisonment already had a welcome effect to the Spanish in that it stopped the slight resistance that had been offered by the Indians. At first the monarch was held captive with due consideration for his rank, his nobles being allowed to visit and attend him in the palace-prison. After the huge ransom for the king’s liberty had come in, rumors were being spread that he had inspired the plot for a supposed Peruvian uprising against the Spanish. On the advice of some followers, including the friar, Pizarro decided to try and execute the Inca ruler. The trial was a mere farce (see section on rationalization). He was publicly executed after, in the last moment, embracing the Catholic faith.*°

Destruction of Cultural Centers At Cuzco, the Spanish soldiers despoiled the great Temple of the Sun by having the gold places ripped from the walls by the dismayed and offended Indians.*! From other buildings and lesser temples the gold was stripped also. Seven hundred plates of gold were torn from the large temple alone. A cornice of pure gold which encircled that building luckily withstood the efforts of the Spanish [to remove it]. The Spanish friar of the expedition, Father Valverde, began his career as Bishop of Cuzco by erecting a monastery on the ruins of the House of the Sun, the great temple. The walls were constructed of the old stones

and the altar rose on the spot where the Peruvian deity had shone.”? The 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Prescott, Ibid. Op. cit., Prescott, Prescott, Prescott,

pg. 301, footnote. pg. 302. pg. 294. pg. 276. pg. 321.

The Case ofthe Spanish in the Peru of the Incas

387

former House of the Virgins of the Sun was transformed into a Catholic nunnery. This process occurred all over the city, churches and monasteries rising from the ruins of temples and palaces.” Loot

The loot obtained in Peru by the general rapacity of the Spanish soldiery and by the huge ransom gathered for the liberation of the captive emperor defies all description. As Prescott has it: “history affords no parallel of such a booty . . . having fallen to the lot of a little band of military adverturers, like the Conquerors of Peru.”** The total amount of gold gathered for the ransom was calculated at the equivalent of fifteen and one-half million dollars. This does not include the silver and minor metals. During his captivity the Inca emperor had promised to fill one room with gold and a small one with silver, and for months his subjects labored to gather in the treasure from all corners of the empire.*° The Indian goldsmiths were required to melt down all the precious and bejeweled articles of gold that poured into Spanish headquarters. The gold was reduced to bars of uniform size which were then carefully weighed.*’ Later Pizarro distributed all this fabulous wealth among his companions and men, at his discretion, while the usual fifth was reserved for the Spanish king.** In the capital city Cuzco, general looting went on unchecked. Beautifully adorned vases, golden llamas, many life-size statues of women in pure gold and in silver aroused the admiration of the despoilers. One of them said that merely to see these statues was a truly great satisfaction.” The Spanish had such a lust for gold that they entirely ignored the grain and other foods stored in the magazines and took only the golden fabrics, slippers, and other articles they found there.*° Pizarro had begun the thoughtless slaughter of the Ilamas, the precious animal of Peru which gave the Indians both delicious meat and delicate wool. Many Jlamas were destroyed merely for the sake of the brains, 43. 44, 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

a much-coveted morsel.?' Within four years after

Ibid. Prescott, Prescott, Op. cit., Ibid. Prescott, Prescott, 50. [Lemkin’s footnote] Op. cit., 51. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott,

pg. 283. pg. 282. pgs. 262-3. pg. 284. 316. pg. 317. pg. 465.

388

Chapter Twenty-Eight

the conquest, more llamas had perished than during four hundred years under Inca rule. Hernando

Pizarro, the brother of Francisco Pizarro, the commander

of the expedition and governor of Peru, approached the famous temple in Pachacamac. He mounted the temple, disregarding the efforts of the guardians, until he came to the sanctuary of the deity. Here again he brushed off the guards and entered the chapel in which he found not a treasure house but a place of sacrifice, dark and odorous. In the back, he

found the deity which had held Peruvians in obeisance with its famed oracles. The Spaniards dragged the wooden idol outside and smashed it “into a hundred fragments.”°> A cross was planted on the spot where the

idol had stood after the temple had been cleansed.**

THE GENOCIDISTS

Responsibility For the gruesome massacres at Caxamalca, Cortes as the commander of the expedition bears prime responsibility. He had decided on and prepared the general slaughter and he gave the fatal signal. The friar of the expedition, Father Valverde, also bears responsibility of an initiator. He warned

Pizarro not to hesitate in giving the decisive signal, saying after the emperor had thrown the Bible on the ground, “Set on at once! I absolve

you.” The war council of Pizarro’s officers, at which the deadly decision was made, shares the responsibility. Of course, it was the soldiery which carried out the massacre. The cultural genocide committed in Cuzco seems to have been largely against the orders of Pizarro. On entering the city, the commander had issued an order forbidding every soldier to violate buildings of the people. However, the greed of the soldiery could not have been restrained. The immense booty extracted from the emperor as ransom for his personal liberty (which he never obtained) was brought together and later divided under supervision of the commander. Even the loot obtained by independent soldier action in Cuzco was at least sanctioned after its collection, for

52. [Lemkin’s footnote] Op. cit., pg. 466. 53. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 272. 54. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid.

The Case of the Spanish in the Peru of the Incas

389

Pizarro personally supervised its division among the men just as he had supervised its division in Caxamalca. Guilt for the execution of the Inca monarch seems to have been borne by most of the Spanish leadership. Initiative, however, did not come directly from Pizarro. Rather, Almagro and his following who had not witnessed the capture of the Inca urged the deed on Pizarro and his men. Pizarro’s treasurer, Riquelme, and the other royal officers who had been

left behind at San Miguel on the coast, chimed in. Father Valverde supported the plan by giving his signature for the sentence and judgment, declaring that “the Inca, at all events, deserved death.”

It was Father Valverde who committed cultural genocide even at the moment of the Inca’s impending execution by a kind of forced conversion. After vainly trying to persuade the martyred monarch to embrace Christianity, the padre assured him that, if he were baptized before death, his manner of execution would be modified from burning alive to the “garrote,” a manner of execution used for Spanish criminals. The monarch, now Juan de Atahualpa, consented and was baptized and strangled. The destruction of the idol at Pachacamac was perpetrated by Hernando Pizarro and his party. He was the brother of the commander. While it seems from the evidence that certain of the most scandalous acts of genocide were not immediately traceable to Pizarro’s initiative, the commander of the Peruvian expedition has received the blame, which of course is his due by virtue of his position. As Southey”’ wrote: For a Column at Truxillo Pizarro here was born: a greater name The list of glory boasts not. Toil and pain, Famine and hostile elements, and hosts Embattled, failed to check him in his course, Not to be wearied, not to be deterred, Not to be overcome. A mighty realm He overran, and with relentless arm

Slew or enslaved its unoffending sons, And wealth and power and fame were his regards. There is another world beyond the grave, According to their deeds where men are judged. O reader! If thy daily bread be earned

55. Robert Southey (1774-1843).

390

Chapter Twenty-Eight

By daily labour — yea, however low, However wretched, be thy lot assigned,

Thank thou, with deepest gratitude, the God Who made thee, that thou art not such as he.

Intent

When Atahualpa went to meet Pizarro in Caxamalca on the day for which the massacre and his capture were planned, Father Valverde for-

mally disclosed to the Peruvian monarch that the empire of Peru was the domain of the King of Spain and that the Spaniards had come to take possession of it as their lawful territory and to convert the Peruvians to the true faith. The Caxamalca massacre was a thoroughly planned and premeditated act of genocide. A general debacle and slaughter was what was intended. The genocidal colonist intended merely to enrich himself; what happned to the native population was simply of no concern to him. However, the cultural genocide of the conquest was a mixture of willful destruction of Indian culture and indifference towards it.

Motivation

Just as in all cases of Spanish colonial genocide, we might correlate certain motives with certain intent. When the intent was willful destruction of the group or the culture as in the Caxamalca massacre or the destruction of the emperor, expediency (as in these two cases) or religious fanaticism are often the motives involved. When, however, the intent was merely

self-gratification with complete disregard for the group or culture thus victimized, as in the slaughter of the llamas and the widespread loot, greed or the desire for power is often the main motive. One dominant emotion of the small band of conquerors in Peru before the massacre was fear. They felt themselves ensnared in a trap when they entered a city and surrounded by an inscrutable enemy everywhere else. Hernando Pizarro, the brother of the commander, had returned with Soto

[?] and some other Spaniards from an interview with the Inca which had inspired them with rather morbid predilections and a deep feeling of awe at the sight of Inca power and opulence. “Their comrades in the camp (at Caxamalca) soon caught the infectious spirit of despondency, which had

The Case of the Spanish in the Peru of the Incas

391

not lessened as night came on and they beheld the watch-fires of the Peruvians . . . glittering in the darkness as thick . . . as the stars of heaven.” It was then that Pizarro planned the massacre for the following day, in order to forestall any uprising on the part of the Peruvians and to bring the country to submission by capturing the Inca. Prescott intimates that Pizarro may well have had Cortes’ similar action in Mexico in mind when he made his decision. Padre Valverde who urged the commander not to dally in giving the signal for the massacre gave reasons for expediency: “Do you not see that while we stand here wasting our breath in talking with this dog, full of pride as he is, the fields are filling with Indians!” But he said this after

the Inca had indignantly flung the Bible offered him to the ground; thus religious sentiments and the desire to punish the sacrilegious infidel, probably played its part. It was perhaps one of the very few cases of Spanish colonial genocide where religious fanaticism motivated massacre. Fear also motivated the execution of the Inca ruler. Almagro who had joined Pizarro’s expedition at a later date urged it because the Inca’s death seemed necessary for the safety of the army. Rumors of an insurrection had been rampant, nourished by suspicious and fearful minds. As the Spanish became more agitated, Pizarro also yielded to fear of failure and consented to the Inca’s trial and execution. While Cortes was largely motivated by religious zeal in his conquest of Mexico, Pizarro, according to Prescott, was motivated by avarice and ambition. Indeed, we do not hear of the smashing of idols, except for

plunder, and of the supplantation of the cross on each and every native temple. Rather, the craze for gold which hypnotized the Spanish adventurers more or less everywhere in the Americas where they found it was a consuming motive in Peruvian genocide. As Prescott has it “this was the real stimulus to their toil, the price of perfidy, the true guerdon [reward] of their victories (436).” Yes, religious fanaticism most likely played its small part, at least in the Caxamalca massacre. Before the slaughter, mass was performed at the

Spanish camp: “the God of battles was invoked to spread his shield over the soldiers who were fighting to extend the empire of the Cross; and all joined with enthusiasm in the chant ‘Exsurge Domine’ [“Arise, O Lord”] (247).” “With feelings thus kindled to a flame of religious ardour, the soldiers of Pizarro looked forward with renovated spirits to the coming conflict (Ibid.).”

392

Chapter Twenty-Eight

Demoralization

The men of Pizarro’s expedition were largely adventurers. Thus their increasing rapacity and contempt for the Peruvians with increasing loot and success; their dramatically sudden transformation from bedraggled, isolated, and miserable explorers to the discoverers of the most fabulously rich empire of America and the owners of mountains of gold and treasures went to their heads. Hence probably their scandalous violation of the sanctity of the Virgins of the Sun, their general contempt for the Indians who had treated them so kindly, and their insatiable thirst for gold. Long after the conquest, demoralization not only persisted but became part of the conqueror’s and colonist’s behavior. In his eyes, what he did had probably ceased to be anything dishonorable. Only in that way can we comprehend the bloodthirstiness of the Spaniards who amused themselves by hunting Indians with dogs, or their licentiousness as they collected harems of Indian girls “making it seem that the crescent would have been a much more fitting symbol for his banner than the immaculate cross.” Even ecclesiastics yielded to the general atmosphere of demoralization. The religious foundations and fraternities, according to Prescott, were often more interested in their exploitation of the Indians than their conversion. Attitude toward Victims

The Spanish conqueror, when he did not fear the Peruvian, felt only contempt for him—despite the occasional admiration for his culture. Thus when the Inca approached Caxamalca in stately procession to meet Pizarro, the songs of triumph sung by the royal attendants who cleaned the path before the royal sedan sounded “like the songs of hell” to the Span-

iards. Pizarro’s mission to the capital of Peru had become sufficiently inflated by their generous reception everywhere that they had taken all gifts for granted, complained of not getting all, and of the lack of enthusiasm the Indians displayed in destroying their treasurer. They had treated even the Indian nobles insolently, regarding the Indians as a race as greatly beneath the European. Interestingly, after the Inca’s execution, the leading Spaniards went into mourning and solemn funeral services were held for the converted

Inca monarch who was now treated like any Christian Spaniard.

The Case of the Spanish in the Peru of the Incas

393

Guilt Feelings Perhaps it was guilt feelings or perhaps just moral cowardice which made the various officers, [Father] Valverde, and Pizarro accuse one another of guilt in executing the Incas, “the parties were heard by bystanders to give one another the lie!” After being challenged by the returned de Soto (1496/97-1542),

Pizarro had been “affected” by the desperate pleas of

the Inca for his life, and de Soto found him “exhibiting all the shows of sorrow.”

Opposition from Within When Hernando de Soto returned from an expedition of the countryside to native plots, he found the Inca dead. Dismayed, he exclaimed to Pizarro: “You have acted rashly. There was no enemy at Guamachucho; no rising among the natives. | have met with nothing on the road but demonstrations of goodwill, and all is quiet. If it was necessary to bring the Inca to trial, he should have been taken to Castile and judged by the Emperor. | would have pledged myself to see him safe on board the vessel.” According to Prescott, some of the officers present at the Inca’s trial were also against his execution. They found the evidence insufficient and doubted the [judgment].

PROPAGANDA

OF GENOCIDISTS

Rationalization

The trial of the Inca ruler and the charges brought against him were merely a farce. Pizarro had determined with his associates what the fate of the emperor was to be before they set down to the proceedings. The charges could clearly serve no other purpose that to exculpate the criminals and, as such, they were too threadbare to fool anyone. There were twelve charges. The most important was that of the usurpation of the Peruvian crown and assassination of the royal brother, Huascar (1503-1532). This was perfectly true, yet obviously of no concern to the invader. The second charge was the waste of public revenue since the conquest of the Spanish; this was obviously ridiculous in view of the fact that it was the Spanish who ruthlessly pillaged whatever royal and other riches they could reach.

394

Chapter Twenty-Eight

The emperor was also accused of idolatry and adulterous practices which charges were equally ridiculous since it meant accusing the emperor of living according to the customs of his own country. Finally, he was

charged with attempting to incite an insurrection against the Spanish.” This last charge was the only one which a Spanish tribunal could have legitimately made; it proved, however, to be completely fabricated.”’ Prescott holds that the mere fact that so many fictitious charges were enumerated proves the weakness of the last and most weighty charge.** The Inca was accused by the Spanish of having been cruel in war and bloody in revenge, both of which seem to have been quite correct. Pizarro’s private secretary, [Francisco] Xerez (1497-1565), wrote of the emperor after his execution: “Thus he paid the penalty of his errors and cruelties, for he was the greatest butcher, as all agree, that the world ever saw; making nothing of razing a whole town to the ground for the most trifling offense, and massacring a thousand persons for the fault of one!”°? Yet, even the cruelties of the Inca seem to have been grossly exaggerated (see Prescott’s analysis of Atahualpa’s massacre of the Incas; pp. 211—213).

Intimidation

The execution of the emperor was primarily a measure of intimidation. The instatement of the new Inca who became a mere puppet of the Spanish was nothing less; the Peruvian circumscribed ceremonies for coronations were all meticulously performed by the Spaniards, and the new monarch was given the state though not the power of a ruling Inca. Even the choice of the royal candidate was made with an eye to popular preference.

Deceit

One of the grossest deceits committed by the conquerors under Pizarro was the ransom of the Inca. The Spanish had pledged his liberty on the arrival of a huge ransom.®'

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Prescott, Op. cit.. Op. cit., Prescott, Prescott, Prescott,

However, at the time when most of it had

pg. 291. pg. 297. pg. 291. pg. 295; from Xerez, Cong. del Peru, ap. Bartta tom. Iii, pg. 234. pg. 319. pg. 262.

The Case of the Spanish in the Peru of the Incas

395

arrived, it seemed expedient not only to deny liberty to the Inca but to murder him. A more cruel deceit on the emperor and his people was committed in connection with the notorious massacre of Caxamalca. Pizarro had invited the Inca to the city to sup with him and pleaded not to tarry until the next morning as he had made all the preparations to receive him.” Anticipating no treachery, the Inca changed his previous plan and came the same night with but a small escort, leaving his army outside the city. “The troops (of the Spanish) had been under arms since daylight, the cavalry mounted, and the infantry at their post, waiting in silence the coming of the Inca. A profound stillness reigned throughout the town.”® It is difficult for a modern mind to completely understand the workings of the fifteenth century one. Thus we might explain Father Valverde’s action as scandalously shamelessly hypocrisy, as naive and zealous religiosity, or perhaps as a desperate effort to save the monarch from the impending doom. We believe that it probably was the second and therefore so difficult to comprehend today. For the friar approached the Inca in the public square which had been deserted of all Spaniards who lay in wait for the signal to massacre. He carried, according to some chronicler, a Bible in one hand and a crucifix in the other. He began to expound Christian doctrine for which purpose, as he said, the Spaniards had come the great distance. He then beseeched the emperor to receive them kindly and to abjure his faith in favor of Christianity, and to acknowledge the suzerainty

of the Spanish monarch.”

RESPONSES TO VICTIMS (BY OTHERS) Submission

When Hernando Pizarro had the great idol of the temple at Pachacamac smashed, the Peruvians there did not offer any resistance. Gradually they came to offer their homage to the invaders whom they regarded with superstitious awe for being able to do such violence to their great deity.” 62. 63. 64. 65.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Prescott, pg. 249. Ibid. Prsescott, pg. 252; see also footnote. Prescott, pg. 272.

396

Chapter Twenty-Eight

The Inca, on being told of his death sentence, was overwhelmed and

exclaimed to Pizarro with tears in his eyes: “What have I done, or my children, that I should meet such a fate? And from your hands, too, you

have met with friendship and kindness from my people, with whom I have shared my treasures, who have received nothing but benefits from my hands!” He pleaded desperately for his life, promising to double the ransom already paid and any guarantee from the Spanish.°° When the inca realized that his pleas were to no avail, he resumed his customary composure and resigned himself to his fate, “with the courage of an Inca warrior.””’ So far, Atahualpa had not shown himself willing to adjure the faith of his people for Christianity, though he had patiently listened to the discourse of Valverde in his captivity.°’ However, when the Inca was now bound to the stake, the padre held up the cross and promised him a milder death on conversion. When Pizarro confirmed this, the Inca decided to

swallow his pride and receive baptism. Then he implored Pizarro to have

mercy on his children and submitted to his death.” When the Peruvian child Chalchuchima was burned alive by the Spanish after a perfunctory trial (the evidence used is not known),” he refused Valverde’s request for baptism claiming that he “did not understand the religion of the white man.”’' There seems not to have been an offer of mitigated punishment as in the Inca’s case. Thus he died valiantly in the flames, showing “the characteristic courage of the American Indian, whose power of endurance triumphs over the power of persecution in his authority of the court in convicting the monarch.” The earliest chroniclers have defended the act of murder as expedient and dwelt on the tyrannical reign of the victim. Later ones unreservedly condemned the genocide as an irreparable injustice which has left a scan-

dalous stain on the whole record of the Spanish in the New World.” To them heaven showed its indignation by causing all the perpetrators to

come to an untimely end.” 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Prescott, Ibid. Prescott, Ibid. Prescott, Prescott, Prescott, Prescott, Ibid.; see

pg. 293; from Pedro Pizarro, Descub. Y Conq. MS. pg. 294.

pg. 310 pg. 311. pg. 292. pgs. 300-301. footnotes for Spanish quotations.

The Case of the Spanish in the Peru of the Incas

397

As elsewhere when discussing Spanish genocide on the people of the New World, we should mention Las Casas” as an untiring opponent of all such crimes against humanity. In the Code of Ordinances promulgated by the Spanish government from the inspiration and research of this humane religious, and sanctioned by the Emperor Charles V (1500-1558) in 1543, the following provisions were made: The Indians were declared true and loyal vassals of the Crown; Their freedom was recognized; those still lawfully possessing slaves might retain them but, at their death, these slaves were to revert to the crown.

Those who have shown themselves unworthy slave-holders, all public functionaries and ecclesiastics, religious corporations and all those who had a criminal part in the feuds between Almagro and Pizarro (which raged in Peru after the execution of Atalhuallpa), were not allowed to hold slaves. The Indians were to be moderately taxed and not to be compelled to labor where they did not wish to; in cases where this could not be avoided, they were to receive fair compensation. Excessive “repartimientos” (land holdings) were to be reduced and notorious abusers of slaves were to forfeit their lands altogether.

An interesting incident, which perhaps testifies more to the devotion of the Peruvians to their monarch than to intended resistance to Spanish genocide, should be mentioned. When the Spanish officers held Christian funeral services for the Inca, the church doors were suddenly burst open and a number of Indian women, wives and sisters of the deceased, rushed

up to the body wailing and crying. They protested that this was not the way to bury an Inca, and that they must sacrifice themselves on his tomb to accompany him to the land of the spirits. The Spanish were shocked by this behavior and told the women that Atahualpa had died a Christian and that the Christian God abhorred such action. They pushed the women out of the church; several of them killed themselves in their own quarters.’° On his way to Cuzco, natives attacked Pizarro and his men and during the skirmish, some damage was done to the invader before he could shake them off and proceed from the sierra into open country.” 75. Bartolomé de las Casas O.P. (1484-1566). 76. {Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 296.; from Relacion del Primer, Descub, MS. [For a more contemporary source, see Lawrence A. Clayton, Bartolome de las Casas and the Conquest of the Americas (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008).] 77. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 329.

398

Chapter Twenty-Eight

So far, incidents of resistance are meager and few enough. In fact it was not until two years after the execution of the Inca that a concerted insurrection took place. Up to that time “the Peruvians had shown only a tame and submissive temper that inspired their conquerors with too much contempt to leave room for apprehension . . . with the exception of an occasional skirmish in the mountain passes, not a blow had been struck in defense of their rights. Yet this was a warlike nation which had spread its conquests over so large a part of the continent!” However, the new puppet Inca found a pretext to leave Cuzco and organize a revolt. Presently the pursuing Spanish troops met a large native army and a fierce battle ensued.” Pizarro eventually carried the day because of his horses which disorganized and trampled the Peruvian warriors. But the Indians fought well not leaving a field until the evening.*° And, marvels upon marvels, not only had the Indians fought valiantly in Peru for the first time since the beginning of the conquest and inflicted considerable damage, but they mustered up enough courage to repeat the performance the following day. To their surprise, the Spaniards found the countryside swarming with Peruvian warriors next morning.*' By the second night, his men were wearied as there seemed no hope of peace. Then a summons came from Juan’s brother in the capital that the Spanish were besieged by the Peruvians. Juan Pizarro (1505-1537) quickly marched back to the city followed by the victorious natives who sang and yelled in triumph.” As the siege dragged on, the Indians hurled weapons into the city of which the flaming arrows and smoldering stones ignited the roofs of buildings.® One half of the city was consumed by the flames which raged for several days.** The Spanish were protected by the large square in which they were encamped. On their frequent sallies into the besiegers’ lines, the Spanish lost many men and horses. In the meantime, news came that the revolt was a general one throughout the country. Spaniards on isolated plantations had been massacred and the principal other cities besieged. The enemy had possessed himself of the passes cutting off all relief which might have come from the coast.*° A number of heads were rolled into the 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Prescott, Prescott, Prescott, Ibid. Prescott, Prescott, Prescott, Prescott,

pg. 340. pg. 344. pg. 345. pg. 346. pg. 347. pgs. 348-9. pg. 351.

The Case of the Spanish in the Peru of the Incas

599

plaza which had once belonged to Spanish planters, thus convincing the besieged of general resistance.*° However, the encounters with the Spanisn proved destructive to the Peruvians, despite the fact that some of them had adopted Spanish weapons and armor and even rode captured horses.*’ As two fortresses were taken by the Spanish from Cuzco, the valor of one

Inca noble stands out especially. He single-handedly overpowered anyone approaching the terrace of his fortress, running from place to place as the scaling ladders were set on. Finally, when the fortress was taken from several places at once, he saw the impending defeat and threw himself from the battlement.®* After several months, the besiegers disbanded in an orderly fashion to harvest the grain.® This enabled the Spanish garrison in Cuzco to gather in cattle for food. Hernando, however, wanted to end the

war and decided on surprising the Inca monarch in his fortress to which he had retreated at harvesttime. The carefully planned attack was, however,

repulsed, the Spanish retreating under losses and manifold dangers.” As Prescott writes: “It meant the last triumph of the Inca.””!

Demoralization

The execution of Atahullpa brought in its wake social and cultural anarchy. Excesses occurred everywhere; villages were burned by the Indians, temples and palaces plundered, and the gold stolen. That metal had by that time acquired a new significance for the Peruvian who had seen the

rapacity of the Spaniards.” The Indians now began to hoard and bury it in great quantities.”?

ATTITUDE TOWARD

GENOCIDISTS

Until the great resurrection, the attitude of the Peruvians toward the conquerors was one of awe and submission, mixed with kind hospitality. The Spanish mission to Cuzco which had been sent out to gather the ransom 86. [Lemkin’s footnote] Ibid.

87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Prescott, Prescott, Prescott, Prescott, Prescott, Prescott, Ibid.

pg. 353. pg. 356. pg. 359. pgs. 361-2. pg. 362. pg. 302.

400

Chapter Twenty-Light

was perceived like royalty. Everywhere they had been carried on the shoulders of the Peruvians in the sedans used for the Incas. In the capital, they were welcomed with festivities and luxurious lodgings.”

Resistance

During the massacre, resistance was impossible because the people were pounced upon unawares and had no weapons.” However, even without weapons the Inca nobles put up a heroic resistance against the assailants who tried to capture the emperor. The nobles tore the Spanish from their saddles; when that was not possible, they threw themselves before the em-

peror’s person to shield him with their own bodies. “They still continued to force back the cavaliers, clinging to their horses with dying gasp, and, as one was cut down, another taking the place of his fallen comrade with a loyalty truly affecting.”’° The nobles held out until the end; those that supported the royal sedan did not leave their precious burden until they too had been slaughtered.*’ When the Spanish violated the Virgins of the Sun, the people of Cuzco became so exasperated that they would have done violence had they not known that the generally revered Inca had authorized the Spanish to come

to Cuzco to gather in the ransom.”

AFTERMATH According to Prescott, the Peruvians, with their rich civilization and gen-

tle ways and religion, were ready for a culture such as Christianity had to

offer.” “But far from introducing this, Pizarro delivered up the conquered races to his brutal soldiery; the sacred cloisters were abandoned to their

lust; the towns and villages were given up to pillage; the wretched natives were parceled out like slaves, to toil for their conquerors in the mines; the flocks were scattered and wantonly destroyed; the granaries were dissipated; the beautiful contrivances for the more perfect culture of the soil 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.

[Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s [Lemkin’s

footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote] footnote]

Prescott, Prescott, Prescott, Ibid. Prescott, Prescott,

pg. 276. pg. 254. pg. 255. pg. 277. pg. 435.

The Case of the Spanish in the Peru ofthe Incas

40]

were suffered to fall into decay; the paradise was converted into a desert.

Instead of profiting by the ancient forms of civilization, Pizarro preferred to efface every vestige of them from the land, as on their ruin to erect the institutions of his own country. Yet these institutions did little for the poor Indian, held in iron bondage. It was little to him that the shores of

the Pacific [Ocean] were studded with rising communities and cities (such as Lima), the marts of a flourishing commerce.

He had no share in the

goodly heritage. He was an alien in the land of his fathers.””!°°

INCAS— [LEMKIN’S] BIBLIOGRAPHY William H. Prescott. History of the Conquest of Peru. London and New York, 1916. (chief source) John Collier. The Indians of the Americas. W. W. Norton, New York, 1947.

SPANISH COLONIAL GENOCIDE— [LEMKIN’S] BIBLIOGRAPHY Marcel

Brion. Bartolome

de las Casas,

“Father of the Indians.” New

York,

1929. (chief source) Francis Augustus MacNutt. Bartolomew de las Casas; his life, his apostolate, and his writings. Cleveland, 1909. Halkett, John. Historical Notes respecting the Indians of North America. London, 1825. Almon Wheeler Lauber. Studies in History, Economics and Public Law. “Indian Slavery in Colonial Times.” [New York:] Columbia University, 1913.

UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Bassette, Hugh E. /ncas and the Aztecs: Story of Genocide. LIB, 2000. Hemming, John. The Conquest of the Incas: A Compelling, Authoritative, and Entirely New Narrative Account Based on Original Research and Hitherto Unknown Sources of the Tragic Conflict and Genocide Four Centuries Ago. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1970.

100. [Lemkin’s footnote] Prescott, pg. 436.

=

NM

Index

Abaga Khan (1265-1281), 256, 258 Abu-Talib (549-619), 247n78

anxiety, 30 Arendt, Otto (1854-1936), 269

Acton, John Emerich (1834-1902),

Arians, 59

301n73 ad-Din, Rashid (1247-1318), 148

Armenian Genocide, v, 31n26

arquebuse, 382 Asen Dynasty (1187-1280), 224

Admonitions to Martyrdom (1614),

363

Ashur (god), 87, 90, 92-93

Akkadians, 84

Ashurbanipal (685-627 BCE), 92, 94,

Akwa peoples, 201 al-Athir, Ali ibn (1160-1233), 133, 140, 144, 149, 252

96-99 Ashur-natsir-pal II (reigned 883-859 BCE), 90

Albigensian Genocide, 59-81

askaris (Arabic, soldiers), 213-215

Alexander IV (Pope, 1185-1261), 123, 256, 331, 3172, 374 Alexander VI (Pope, 1431-1503), 23 Alexander III (Pope, 1100/1105— 1181), 65 al Furat, Ibn (1334-1405), 247 Al-Kami, Ibn (1195-1258), 242, 245, 255 al Musta’sim (1213-1258), 247 Amalfric, Arnauld (d. 1225), 66-67 Anesaki, Masaharu (1183-1949), 365n42 Anquetil (Bishop, 1750-1826), 284,

assimilation, 174

associations, 35

Assyrian Advisory Settlement Commission, 227

Assyrian Massacre (Stafford Report), 234—40 Assyrians (genocidists), 83—100 Assyrians, Hakkiyari, 224, 226 Assyrians in Iraq (Christians), 223-60 Atahuallpa (1497-1533), 383, 386, 390, 396-97, 399 Attila (406-453), 153 Audience Fanatique, 28-29 Augustans, 346, 348 auto-de-fe (“act of faith’), 171

286 anthropology, 39-40 antiquity, genocide in, 6 403

404

Index

Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944), V, Vii, ix, 4n3, 6—7 Aztecs, 380, 382 Bahais, 232 barbarism, vii, 8 Barbarossa, Hayreddin (1478-1546),

178 Battle of the Kalka River (1223), 336 Battle of Liegnitz (1241), 122, 373, 376-77 Battle of the Sajo River (1241), 336 Battle of Waterberg (August 10-12, 1904), 270 Batu (Baku, Baidu) Khan 91207—

1255), 108-9, 240, 257, 318-19, 325, 3217329,333930% 3146316 Bebel, August (1840-1913), 201-3, 207, 209, 268n5, 275, 276n18 Bela III (King of Hungary, 1148— 1196), 316 Bela IV (King of Hungary, 1206— 1270), 125, 318 Bell, Rudolph (1873-1914), 211 Berke Khan (d. 1266), 258 Bleda, Jaime (1550-1622), 160-61,

183 Bledae Defensio Fidei, 161 blitzkrieg, 332 Benedict of Poland (1200-1280), 116, 12) Benedict, Ruth (1887-1948), 39n36 Bentham, Jeremy (1746/1748—1832),

23 Bezwodene, Poland, vi

biological genocide, 110—12, 144, 173,327; 315448) Birago, Renato (1506-1583), 291 blood libel, 15

Boas, Franz (1858-1942), 39n36

Bogomil, 61, 68 Boleslaus I (992—1025), 371 Bonaparte, Louis-Napolean (1808— 1873), 24 Bonaparte, Napolean (1769-1821), 135252202 Bondelswarts, 190, 270 Boniface VIII (Pope, 1235-1303), 223 Bonn, Moritz Julius (1873-1965), 21,215 bonzes (Japanese, “monks”), 343, 356, 358, 361 Bosnian Genocide (1992-1995), v Bulgars, 340 Bull Ad Extirpanda, 76 Burghley, Lord (William Cecil, 1521— 1598), 179 Bushiri Rebellion (1888-1889), 190 Caliphate, 240-41, 246, 249-51,

257-58 Calvin, John (1509-1564), 279, 287 Cameroons, 201, 215—17

Canzouyedono (1562-1611), 353 Cathari (Catharists), 59-60, 63, 65, 68, 77 Catholicism, 343-44, 358-59, 365

Catholics in Japan, 343-70 Chaldeans, 232 Charlemagne (742-814), 152 Charles (Cardinal of Lorraine, 1524— 1574), 288, 298 Charles V (1500-1588), 159, 162 Charles IX (1550-1574), 288-89, 293, 295, 298-99 Charny, Israel (b. 1930), vi, 39n35 Chernigoff (1185-1246), 376 Child(ren) of the Sun, 381, 386 Chios, 261-66

Index

Choiseul (Bishop of Comminges, 1613-1689), 310 Christians. See Kirishitans Church, Roman Catholic, 69-71, 161,

279, 287, 301, 311, 382 Ch’un, Ch’ang (1148-1227), 134-35 Ch’u-ts’ai, Yeh-liu (1189-1243), 107 Cicero (106-43 BCE), 23 Cistercians, 67 Clement IV (Pope, 1195-1268), 123

Clement VII (Pope, 1478-1534), 161 Code of Ordinances (1543), 397

colonialism, 5

Community of Nations, 51 Complaints of the Akwa Chiefs, 202

Conrad (Bishop of Porto, 1170-1227),

68 Conrad of Masovia (1187-1247), 275 Consolamentum, 63-64, 68, 78

Cortés, Hernan (1485-1547), 388, 391 Council of Albi (1254), 71 Council of Narbonne (1233), 71

Council of Rheims (1049), 65 Council of Verona (1248), 71 Credentes, 63-64

criminology, 17n17 cultural genocide, 41, 74, 111-12,

144, 153, 170, 328, 385, 388-90 culture, 12, 27, 40 daimyo (Japanese, “feudal lord”),

358-59 Daniel of Halicz (1201-1264), 337, 392,395 Darfur Genocide (2003-present), v da Romano, Ezzelino (1194-1259), 121, 126 Dasbach, Georg Friedrich (1846—

1907), 197

405

de Almagro, Diego (1475-1538), 381, 389, 391, 397

de Angelis, Jeronymo (1567-1623), 364 de Bergin, Louis (1490-1529), 279 de Béthune, Maximillian (Duc de Sully, 1560-1641), 289 de Bourbon, Louis (1530-1569), 288 de Castelnau, Peter (d. 1208), 66 deceit, 149, 252, 333, 394 de Cervantes, Miguel (1540-1616), 159

de Coligny, Gaspard (1519-1572), 288, 290, 292, 294, 297-98 de Compomanes, Pedro Rodriquez (1723-1803), 183 de Cordova, Don Hernando (Aben

Humeya, 1520-1569), 172-73 de Cosse, Charles (1505-1563), 289 defamation, 73 de Foix, Esclarmonde (1151-1215), 68

de Gryman, Dominic (Domingo de Guzman, 1170-1221), 74-75 de Lacretelle, Jean Charles (1766— 1855), 299n65 de las Casas, Bartolome (1484-1566),

10 de Medici, Catherine (1519-1589), 288, 290, 293, 296-98, 302 demography, 10, 17n17 de Montfort, Simon (1160—1217), 67, 75-76 de Monteil, Francois (Comte de Grignan, 1632-1714), 285-86 de Montmorency, Anne (1493-1567),

288 demoralization, 174, 328, 332, 336,

338, 375, 392, 399 de Navarrete, Martin Fernandez (1765-1844), 168n2

406

Index

denunciation, 79 de Péréfixe, Paul Phillilpe (1606— 1671), 300 de Piano Carpini, Giovanni (1180— 1252), 116, 118, 121, 124 de Ribera, Juan (1532-1611), 161, 163, 168, 173

Duala peoples, 201, 211-12 Duc de Estrees (1553-1670), 310 Duke University Law School

Dernburg, Bernhard (1865-1937),

economics, 11, 17n17, 42

de

de

189n2, 193, 199, 216n57, 221, 276n21 San Francisco, Diego (d. 1654), 353n19 Seignelay, Jean-Baptiste (1651-— 1690), 309 Sévigné, Marie (1626-1696), 313 Sismondi, Jean Charles (1773— 1842), 282

(Durham, NC), vi

duplicity, 73 Eastman, George (1854-1932), 24

Edward I (1239-1307), 256 ego, 29 Elam, 94-100

Elizabeth I (1553-1603), 179 emigration, 149, 170 Endura, 64

de Soto, Hernando (1496-1542), 393

Erzberger, Matthias (1875-1921), 194-95, 209, 216, 276n19 Esarhaddon (reigned 681—669 BCE), 92

de Thou, Jacques (Thuanus, 1553-—

escape, 148, 154, 170, 252

1617), 293 de Toledo y Pimentel, Alvarez (1507— 1582), 160 de Torquemada, Tomas (1420-1498), 160 de Tournon, Francois (1489-1562), 285 Deutsche Koloniale Zeitung (German

ethics, 17n17

de de

Colonial Gazette), 192 de Vivero, Don Rodrigo (1564-1636), 345 disguise, 148 dislocation, 78

Dittman, Wilhelm (1874-1954), 216-17 Dobell, C. M. (1869-1954), 211 D’Ohsson, Abraham (1740-1807), 111 Dominicans, 346, 348

Dragut (Targut Reis, 1485-1565), 178

ethnocentrism, 37 Faber, Jacobus (1455—1536), 279

Fein, Helen (b. 1934), vi Ferdinand (King of Spain, 1452— 1516), 157, 163, 168, 170-71, 177, 181 Ferdinand II (Duke of Austria, 1211— 1246), 318 First Crusade (1096-1099), 71 First World War, 21 Fish, Hamilton (1808-1893), 50 flogging, 196, 202, 210 forced labor, 192, 220 Foscolo, Ugo (1778-1827), 25 Fourth Crusade (1202-1204), 223 Francis I (1494-1547), 283-87 Francis II (1544-1560), 287 Franciscans, 343-44, 346, 348, 359, 363, 365

Index

Frazer, James George (1854-1941),

40n41 Frederick II (Duke of Austria, 1211— 1246), 152, 339 Frederick II (Emperor, 1194—1250),

1225 122n8,. 123-25, 1272 137, 153, 31953217337 Freud, Sigmund (1856-1939), 15, 27

Gallileo (1564-1642), 23

407

Gonzaga, Louis (1539-1595), 291 Great Britain-Iraq Treaty (1930), 231 Great Martyrdom (1622), 347, 354, 364 Gregory IX (Pope, 1145-1241), 123, 125 Gregory XIII (Pope, 1502-1585), 299 guilt, 75, 219, 393 Gutierrez, Bartolome (d. 1632), 347n5 gypsies, 32

Garibalid, Giuseppe (1807-1882), 25 Gaul, 9

Harizumi, Arima (1483-1566), 358

genocide, xi, 3-4, 9-10, 12, 16n17,

hatred, 21—22

20, 26-28, 31, 33, 35-36, 38, 40, 42, 45, 52-53, 71-72, 77, 89, 107— 8, 110, 113-17, 119-20, 123, 126, 130-31, 134, 136, 140, 150-51, 159, 162, 166, 168, 172, 174-75, 177, 181, 249, 255, 257-59, 271, 282, 306, 318, 320-21, 330-31, 335-36, 339, 341, 372-73, 376, 382-83, 389, 390-91, 396 Genocide Convention (1948), v, vii, ixnl 1, x—xi, 3-4, 13, 34n31, 47n52 genocidists, x,

11, 27, 77, 106,

114—

15, 133, 148, 153, 161, 163, 249, 329-30, 332, 337, 375, 388, 393, 399 German East Africa Company (Society for German Colonisation), 205-6 Germania Revolt (1519-1523), 165 Germans in Africa, 189-222

Gilgamesh, 96 Goethe, Johann (1749-1832), 24 Golden Horde, 109-10, 135, 258, 318, 340 Gone with the Wind, 51 goningumi (Japanese, “five-family unit”), 370

Hay, John (1830-1905), 10, 50 Henry I (1550-1588), 280, 288 Henry IV of France (1553-1610), 178-80, 288-89, 301-2 Henry II of Brabant (1207-1248),

121

Henry II of Silesia (1196-1241), 123, Sa Henry III (1207-1272), 125 Herder, Johann (1744-1803), 25, 52n59 Herero Rebellion (1904—1907), 189, 205 Hereros, 267—78

Hethum I (King of Armenia, d. 1271),

249 Hidetada (1579-1632), 346 Hideyoshi, Toyotomi (1537—1598), 344, 359-60 Hildegard (1098-1179), 70 Hinduism, 62 history, 9, 12 Holocaust, v—vi Homer (484-425 BCE), 266 Honorious III (Pope, 1 148—1227), 67 Horn, Waldemar (1864-1910), 209-10 Hottentots, 205, 219

408

Index

Huascar (1503-1532), 393 Hugo (King, 939-996), 279 Huguenots, vi, 178-79, 279-315

Hulagu Khan (1217-1265), 108-9, 240, 242-52, 254-59 Hurn(s), 21, 103, 152 Hunfali (1810-1891), 317 Hungary, 317-42 Hunic Empire, 9 leyasu, Togukawa (Daifousama,

1543-1616), 344, 360-61 Ikan, Ghazan (reigned 1295-1304),

258-59 IIkhanate (1256-1335), 135, 257-58 Incas of Peru, 379-401

Jagatai (Chagatai) Khan (1183-1241), 109, 135, 140, 151n11, 258 Janer, Florencio (183 1—1877), 183 Jayme | (1208-1276), 165 Jelal ad din (Rumi, 1207—1273), 132, 139, 146, 151 Jenghiz Khan (“The Perfect Warrior,” Temuchin, 1162—1227), 104—10, 113-14, 116, 118-20, 127, 131, 134, 137-46, 148-51, 155, 257, 259 Jesuits (Society of Jesus), 343-44, 349, 358-59, 361-62, 365 Jews, 43, 157-58, 164, 175, 177, 232 Jin Dynasty (China, 11 15—1234), 104 Juwayni (1226-1283), 147, 149

indifference, 177 Innocent III (Pope, 1160/1161—1216).

66, 70, 73, 75, 77 Innocent IV (Pope, 1196-1254),

120,

125-26, 337-38, 372 Innocent VIII (Pope, 1432-1492),

286

Kaidu Khan (1230-1301), 109, 153 Kair Khan (d. 1219), 140 (Ka)Maherero, Samuel (1854—123), 267, 270-71 Kanaris, Constantine (1793-1877), 264

Innocent IX (Pope, 1611-1689), 310

Kari, 272

Inquisition, 59, 68, 71, 73, 79, 157,

Keppler, Johannes (1571—1630), 23 Khyuk (Guyuk, Kuyuk) Khan (1206— 1248), 109, 116, 121, 124-25 kiboko, 199, 214 Kirishitans (Japanese, “Christians’’), 343, 345-50, 354-55, 357-59, 362-63, 365, 367-69 Klineberg, Otto (1900-1972), 39n36 Kluckholm, Clyde (1905-1960), 39n36 ; Kugili (Kublai) Khan (1215-1294), 109 Kumans, 318—20, 323, 327, 330, 333, 336, 340

161, 166, 170-71, 301 International Military Tribunal/ Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (1945-1946), vii, 6n10 intervention, humanitarian, 47, 50

intimidation, 148, 334

Iraqi Council of Ministers, 225 Isabella (Queen of Spain, 1451-1504), 157, 163; 168, 171, 177, 181 Ishtar (god), 88, 92, 97 Ismailis (Assassins), 241, 248-49, 251, 254-55 Jackson, Robert H. (1882-1954), vii, 6n10, 19n19

Kuper, Leo (1908-1994), v

Kurds, 232-34, 237, 239, 244

409

Index

Kwaresmian Empire, 127, 137-38,

147 Las Casas, Bartolomé (1484-1566),

397

Luther, Martin (1483-1546),

162

Luxemburg, Rosa (1871-1919), 189n1

Maclver, Robert Morrison (1882—

1970), 44nS1

Lateran Council (1215), 70, 158

Magyars, 152, 317

Law, Bonar (1859-1923), 211

Majimaji Rebellion (1905—1907), 189-90

law, international, 10, 45-46, 49

Lea, Charles Henry (1825-1909), 184 League of Nations, vii, 8, 225-27, 229-31, 233, 239 LeBon, Gustav (1841-1931), 28, 51 Ledebour, Georg (1850-1947), 189n2, 201n31, 209 Lemkin, Bella, vi

Malinowski, Bronislaw (1844-1942), 15, 40nn42—43

Mamluk Empire, 258 Mangu Khan (Mengu, 1209-1259), 110, 116, 118, 126, 240, 246, 249 Manicheanism, 62, 65, 73 Marduk (god), 88

Lemkin, Elias, vi Lemkin, Raphael (1900-1959), v—vi Lemkin, Samuel, vi

Marranos, 157, 160, 164

Library of Congress, 5 Liebkneckt, Karl (1871-1919), 189n1 Lilienthal, David Eli (1899-1981), 61n2 limpieza de sangre (“cleanliness of blood”), 164, 168

Martyr, Peter (1499-1562), 164, 177

Linton, Ralph (1893-1953), 39n36

Logothetis, Lycurgos (1772—1850), 262-63 London Missionary Society, 267 Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth (1807-1882), 246 Lord, Frederick (1841—1908), 50 Louis (Prince of Spain, 1187—1226), 68, 76-77 Louis [X (France, 1214—1270),

125-27 Louis XIII (1601-1643), 280, 302, 311 Louis XIV (1638-1715), 281, 303, 310-11 Lucero, Diego Deza (1444—1523), 167

Mar Shimun, 225, 227-228, 230,

233-35 Masamune, Date, 345

Masaryk, Jan (1886-1948), 24 Maynier, Jean (Baron d’Oppéde,

1495-1558), 283-85 Mazarim, Jean (1602-1661), 303n78

Mazzini, Giuseppe (1805-1872), 25 Mercier, Louis Sebastian (1740— 1814), 24 Meérindol, Massacre of, 283, 286

Methodius (d. 311), 127 Middle Ages, genocide in, 6 Mikhail of Kiev (d. 1176), 375 Mill, John Stuart (1806—1873), 25 Mistral, Gabriel (1889-1957), 22 Mita, 384 Modern Times, genocide in, 6 Moghul Dynasty (India), 110 Mohammed, Ala ed din (ruled 1200— 1220), 128, 132, 137 Mohammed II (1429-1481), 224 Mohammedanism [Islam], 59, 182

410

Index

Monet, Claude 1840-1926), 22 Mongols (genocidists), 103-56, 243—

45, 253, 255-56, 319-31, 333-37, 340-41, 372-73, 375-77 Moors, 157—85 Moriscos, 157-85

Moslems, 246 Mudejaries, 157, 170, 174 Miiller, Hermann (1876-1931), 198 Murad I (1362-1389), 224 Murad II (1404-1451), 224 Nana (god), 96, 98 Nansen Office for Refugees, 230

Nantes, Edict of (1598), 280-81, 301-2, 304, 308, 311 Nassir, Caliph (1285-1340), 137, 250, 254 Nassireddin (1200-1272), 254-55 Nazi Germany, viin6 Nero (37-68 CE), vi Nestorian Christians, 104, 232 neurosis, 30 Nobunaga, Oda (1534-1582), 344 Noske, Gustav (1868-1946), 189n1, 199

Oekonomos, Konstantinos (178—

1857), 265 Ogotai (Ogedei) Khan (1186-1241), 109, 140-41, 150, 240 opposition, 177

Paracelsus (1493-1541), 24 Parana Plantation Ltd., 230 Pare, Ambrose (1510-1590), 299 Paulicians (Publicani), 59 Perfecti, 62-64, 68, 70 Permanent Mandate Commission (League of Nations), 225, 226n6, 227 Peters, Karl (1856-1918), 193, 205-7, 218, 220 Philip (King of Spain, 1165—1223), 68, 77 Philip HI (1578-1621), 160, 180, 182, 361 physical genocide, 75, 110, 140, 153, 320, 326, 372 Picatoste, Felipe (1834-1892), 184 Pius V (Pope, 1504-1572), 290, 295 Pizarro, Francisco (1471-1541), 381— 83, 385-88, 390-98, 400-401 Pizarro, Hernando (1478-1508), 382, 388-90, 395, 399 Pizarro, Juan (1505-1537), 398 Poland, 371-78 political science, 9 Polo, Marco (1254-1324), 118 Poppo of Osterna (d. 1257), 377 Prawdin, Michael (1894-1970), 340 prejudice, 37 propaganda, 31, 119, 149, 167, 332 psychological changes, 79, 219 psychology, 11, 15, 17n17, 26

Organic Law of Iraq, 232

Otto II of Bavaria (1206-1253), 123 Otto III (1215-1267), 372 Otto IV (1175-1218), 72 Ottokar II (1233-1278), 154

quipi, 385 quipus, 380 Quo Vadis, vi race, 39

Paleologus, Michael (1223-1282), 256, 258

racism, 38, 43

Ranuzzi, Angelo (1626-1689), 311

Index

Raspe, Henry (1204—1247), 121, 125, 375 Raymond (Count of Toulouse, 1041/1042—1105), 67, 77-78

411

Raymond V (1134-1194), 65, 74

Seljuks, 103, 128, 136, 241 Sennacherib (704-681 BCE), 89, 91-92, 95 Shakespeare, William (1564-1616), 24

Raymond VI (1156—1222), 68, 71, 75

Shalmaneser I (1274-1245 BCE), 84,

Raymond VII 1197-1249), 68

94 Shalmaneser II (reigned 1031-1019 BCE), 88, 90 Shamshi Adad V (reigned 824-811 BCE), 90 Shia Islam, 255 Shimabara Revolt (1637-1638), 348n8

Reformation, Protestant, 279, 287 relations, international, 10 religion, 5

religious genocide, 77

resistance, 171, 376, 400 revenge, 118, 150

Revolt of Grenada (1568-1571), 159, 171,175 Richelieu (Cardinal, Armand Jean du Plessis, 1585-1642), 178 Rokn-ud-din (d. 1236), 353 Romorantin, Edict of (1560), 280, 287 Roosevelt, Theodore (1858-1919), 50

Rougier, Louis (1889-1982), 48n56

runga, 214 Rwandan Genocide (1994), v

shirku, 86

shogun (Japanese, “warlord”), 343, 345, 349, 359 Shuman-Aratame (1658), 357 Sidky, Bekir (d. 1937), 237 Sidotti (Abbe, 1668-1713), 350 Sienkiewicz, Henryk (1846-1916), vi Simeon (Bulgar Tsar, 864—927), 223 Sindhar (Sultan, 1085-1157), 145

sjambok, 196, 198-199, 217, 268

sadism, 117, 298, 306, 331 Saint Ararand, 59

Saint Bartholomew Massacre (1572), 176, 280, 289, 291, 294-95, 298-302 Saint Dominic (1170-1221), 66 Saint Germain, Peace of (1570), 280,

289 Saint Hedwig (1174-1243), 376 Samarkand,

146-49

Saracens, 59, 76, 158, 181, 256

Sargon II (reigned 722—705 BCE), 90, 93-94

slavery, 112, 131, 141, 143, 192, 218, 264-265, 326 Smuts, Jan Christaan (1870-1950), 217 sociology, 9, 17n17, 33, 38

Solf, Wilhelm (1862-1936), 216 Sorokin, Pitirim (1889-1968), 36n33

Sotelo, Luis (1574-1624), 345—46, 361 Southey, Robert (1774-1843), 389n55 South West Africa, 189, 204, 221, 268 Soviet Union, 3, 34n31

Scavenius, Erik (1877-1962), 206

Stephen III (King, 1147-1172), 342 stool pigeoning, 73

Schmelen, Heinrich (1776-1848), 267

submission, 147, 169, 395

scapegoatism, 9, 20, 30

412

Index

Subugetai Khan (1176-1248), 325, 329, 339, 341 Sumitada, Omura (Omoura, 1533-— 1587) .357

Crime of Genocide. See Genocide Convention United Nations Economic and Social Council, 3n1

Sunni Islam, 241

United Nations General Assembly

Sylvester II (Pope, 946-1003), 317

Resolution 2131 (1965), 48n55

Takayama, Don Justo (1552-1615),

Urban IV (Pope, 1195-1264), 123

358 Talavera (Archbishop of Grenada, 1428-1507), 158, 166-67, 172

vandalism, vii, 8 Vatazes (King of Greece, 1222—1254),

Unofficial Man, vi, 3n1

Tamerlane (Timur the Lame, 1336— 1405), 108, 110, 114, 119, 136, 258 Temple of the Sun, 386 terror, 119, 127, 132, 255 Theodore of Epirus (d. 1253), 223 Tiglath-Pileser I (reigned 722—705 BCE), 90 Tiglath-Pileser I] (reigned 745-727 BCE), 89 To-Chogounsama (Shogun, 1632— 1651), 348 Togoland, 209-10, 221 Tohtamish (Tokhtamysh) Khan (d. 1406), 110 Tombasis, Jakomaki (1782-1829), 261-62 Transoxania, 113, 135, 141, 146, 257 Transylvania, 341, 342n143 Treitschke, Heinrich (1834-1895), 25 Trencavel (Viscount, 1185-1209), 74 Tule (Tolui) Khan (1192-1232), 109, 142-44, 149, 150, 240, 249 Turakina (Toregene Khatun, reigned 1241-1246), 121

126 Vincent of Beauvais (1190-1264), 319

United Nations, vii, 8, 45, 51

Wadschaggas, 207

United Nations Convention on the

Waldenses, 282

Punishment and Prevention of the

Virgins of the Sun, 385, 387, 392, 400 Visigoths, 59

Vladislav IV (1595-1648), 341 von Bismarck, Otto (1815-1898), 115n6, 201, 220, 269 von Bulow, Bernhard (1849-1929), 276 von Eckenbrecher, Themistokles (1842-1921), 264 von Leutwein, Theodor (1849-1921), 190, 205, 219, 268n2, 269 von Liebert, Eduard (1850-1934), 220, 275 von Lindequist, Frederich (1862— 1945), 271 von Morgen, Kurt (1858-1028), 193 von Puttkamer, Jesko (1855-1917), 192, 201-2, 204 von Rohrbach, Paul (1869-1936), 268,276 von Trotha, Lothar (1848-1920), 270-71, 276

Waldo, Peter (1140-1218), 282

Index

Walker, Henry Francis Bell. (1876— 1948), 271n13 Warsaw Gazette, viin6, 8n12

413

Withboi, Hendrik (1830-1905), 204-5, 219 Withboois, 190

Wassaf (1299-1323), 105, 247-48 Weber, Max (1864-1920), 16

World War II, vi

Wenzel I (King, 1205-1253),

Xerez, Francisco (1497-1565), 394

153

Westen (Weston), Frank (1871—1924),

193,217,220 Western Roman Empire, 9 White Terror, 281

Wilhelm II (1859-1941), 206 William Il of Sicily (1155-1189), 223 William 1X (Duke of Aquitane),

59-60, 64 William of Rusysbroek (1220-1293), 126 Wilson, Woodrow (1856—1924), 277

Ximenes, Francisco (1436-1517), 157, 164, 171-72, 177

Yakut (1179-1229), 146 Yale University Law School (New Haven, CT), vi Yanacona, 384 Yasa (Mongol Code of Law), 106, 108, 116 Yazidis, 232, 237 Yuen Dynasty (1231-1368), 135

NN

About the Editor

Steven Leonard Jacobs, DHL, DD, joined the Department of Religious

Studies as associate professor and Aaron Aronov Endowed Chair of Judaic Studies on January 1, 2001. He received his BA from Penn State University; and his BHL, MAHL, DHL, DD, and rabbinic ordination from

the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. A resident of Alabama for more than three decades, he has taught at Spring Hill College, Mobile; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham-Southern College, Samford University, Birmingham; the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Calhoun Community College, Huntsville.

Dr. Jacobs’s primary research foci are in Biblical Studies, translation and interpretation, including the Dead Sea Scrolls; as well as Holocaust and Genocide Studies. His books include Shiret Bialik: A New and Annotated Translation of Chaim Nachman Bialik’s Epic Poems (1987); Raphael Lemkin’s Thoughts on Nazi Genocide: Not Guilty? (1992); Contemporary Christian and Contemporary Jewish Religious Responses to the Shoah (2 volumes, 1993); Rethinking Jewish Faith: The Child of a Survivor Responds (1994); The Meaning of Persons and Things Jewish: Contemporary Explorations and Interpretations (1996); The Holocaust Now: Contemporary Christian and Jewish Thought (1997); The Encyclopedia of Genocide (2 volumes, 1999, associate editor); Pioneers of Genocide Studies (2002, coeditor); The Biblical Masorah and the Temple Scroll: An Orthographical Inquiry (2002), Dismantling the Big Lie: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (2003, coauthor); Post-Shoah Dialogues: Re-Thinking Our Texts Together (2004, coauthor); Jn Search of Yesterday: The Holocaust and the Quest for Meaning (2006); Confronting Genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (2009, 415

416

About the Editor

editor); Fifty Key Thinkers on Holocaust and Genocide (2010, coauthor); and The Jewish Experience: An Introduction to Jewish History and Jewish Life (2010). His professional and civic involvements include the Alabama Holocaust Commission; Board of Advisors, The Center for American & Jewish Studies, Baylor University, Waco, Texas; international editor, The

Papers of Raphael Lemkin; International Advisory Board of the Centre for Comparative Genocide Studies, Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia; Editorial Board, “Studies in the Shoah,” University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland; Editorial Board of Bridges: An Interdisci-

plinary Journal of Theology, Philosophy, History and Science, Monkton, Maryland; Educational Consultant to the Center on the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Board of Advisors

of The Aegis Trust for the Prevention of Genocide, England; associate editor, Journal for the Study of Antisemitism.

—_ ’

et

onba

,

7

he

'

OAV

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

10281 9098

HV 6322.

.L46 2012

Lemkin,

Raphael,

1900-1959

Rena: ~~~ Lemkin on genocide

JEWISH STUDIES * GENOCIDE

“Steven Leonard Jacobs’s edition of Raphael Lemkin’s seminal study of genocide is long overdue. This remarkable volume is the first systematic investigation of the crime that, until Lemkin, had no name. A must for all students of genocide, it explores the phenom-

enon from the Assyrian conquests in the ancient world to the German exploitation of colonial Africa. Jacobs’s highly informative introduction situates Lemkin’s research within the context of his life and work. The analytical annotations of Lemkin’s findings reflect

Jacobs's encyclopedic familiarity with the multidisciplinary field. They provide helpful insights into the relationship between the founder ofthe field of genocide studies and all who have followed him.” —David Patterson, University of Texas at Dallas

“Jacobs has undertaken the mammoth task of annotating and reproducing Lemkin’s original text, a work requiring care, erudition, and extensive knowledge. He is to be commended for his effort and initiative in rescuing Lemkin’s huge work and bringing it, after

eight decades ofoblivion, finally to fruition.” —Paul R. Bartop, Florida Gulf Coast University “Scholars and students alike will benefit from Jacobs's careful scholarly work elucidating obscure references, clarifying incomplete footnotes, and updating bibliographies in

Raphael Lemkin’s History of Genocide. Jacobs's Lemkin on Genocide will prove to be an indispensable reference for scholars and serious students of genocide.” —Carol Rittner, PhD, RSM, The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey “Jacobs has rendered a valuable service to genocide scholars with the appearance of this book. Jacobs, himselfa distinguished genocide scholar, makes accessible Lemkin’s previ-

ously unpublished Jntroduction to the Study of Genocide and three-part History of Genocide. Jacobs’s introduction and notes makes this an indispensable work. If Lemkin is the ‘father

of genocide studies,’ Jacobs is one of his worthy intellectual sons.” —Alan L. Berger, Florida Atlantic University

Providing an annotated commentary on two unpublished manuscripts written by international law and genocide scholar Raphael Lemkin, Steven Leonard Jacobs offers a critical introduction to the father of genocide studies. Lemkin coined the term “genocide” and was the motivating force behind the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. The materials collected here give readers

further insight into this singularly courageous man and the issue that consumed him in the aftermath of the Second World War. It is a welcome addition to the library of genocide and Holocaust studies scholars and students alike.

STEVEN LEONARD JACOBS is the Aaron Aronov Endowed Chair in Judaic Studies and associate professor at the University of Alabama.

(’

LEXINGTON BOOKS A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 800-462-6420 » www.rowman.com

ISBN

|

978-0-7391-452b-5

UMN ii 3