| Tango01 | 10 Jul 2015 12:35 p.m. PST |
"More than one million people died in East Africa during World War One. Some soldiers were forced to fight members of their own families on the battlefield because of the way borders were drawn up by European colonial powers, writes Oswald Masebo. I was born and raised in a simple home in the rural district of Ileje about 1,000km from Dar es Salaam, in south-west Tanzania. The district is at the border with Malawi where the hilly plateaus of Ileje and Rungwe districts rise above the plains of Lake Nyasa and Kyela district. My family has made a living from the land of Ileje for generations. During World War One, Ileje and the surrounding environments became a battle ground between German forces and British allied forces from Malawi. Although the war began in 1914, it was the battles fought in 1915 and 1916 which were most intense and which had grave consequences to the generation of my great-grandparents…"
Full article here.
link More than a million people…? Wow!. Amicalement
Armand |
 ColCampbell  | 10 Jul 2015 1:05 p.m. PST |
I'd like to know his source(s) for the one million dead in the fighting in East Africa during WW1. That sounds way, way too high even if civilians were considered in the total. Jim |
| Jcfrog | 10 Jul 2015 2:05 p.m. PST |
Yes one million? When there was nothing like huge long battles, and never more than say 15000 askaris on one side or another, even if civies suffered of which I never read any hint.
It hints that famine be the cause. But one million , that would be perhaps one in five at the time. Hardly. Even then no doubt it hurt, uselessly. |
| jurgenation | 10 Jul 2015 2:14 p.m. PST |
I also have to question ,what seems to be more of an anti colonial statement ,than fact. Like Jcfrog says 15,000 at their peak,very few big engagements. |
| Glengarry5 | 10 Jul 2015 2:53 p.m. PST |
Forced conscription of porters, famine and disease, food supplies looted and general mayhem exacerbated by the war… not even including the swine flu epidemic. As in most wars the actual fighting is only a small fraction of the suffering and death war causes. link |
| jurgenation | 10 Jul 2015 6:41 p.m. PST |
No I agree w/that Glengarry 5,I million sounds high though. |
| Zargon | 11 Jul 2015 7:30 a.m. PST |
The answer is….Oswald Masebo. |
| Fatman | 11 Jul 2015 8:10 a.m. PST |
The 1 million figure includes the fatalities caused by famines which resulted from the war but even if you discount those your looking at just shy of half a million mostly African porters. Fatman |
| John the OFM | 11 Jul 2015 7:21 p.m. PST |
I think 1 million sounds a little bit low. There is a tendency to characterize von Lettow Vorbeck as a romantic "Good German". How do you think he kept his army in the field, with primitive supply situations? How did he feed his armies?
And how did the British and Belgians and Portuguese who opposed him cope with the same problems?
No one keeps statistics for the natives who perished in these campaigns. Why would they? They didn't count or matter. |
| Tango01 | 11 Jul 2015 11:38 p.m. PST |
Well… as today! Amicalement
Armand |
adds a machinegun platoon to his WWI Brits.
