User:Wikirictor/articlebase

All the best Wikirictor ^{talk • contribs}

German Amazon-Jary-Expedition (1935-1937)

course of the Jari river

The German Amazon-Jary-Expedition (1935-1937) was a Nazi era scientific expedition in northéastern Brazil. The discovery of a huge cross emblazoned with swastika at the grave site of one of the expedition members in the local jungle has brought the event to renewed international attention during the second decade of the 21st century. Unlike numerous successful and reputable field trips all over Brazil by German research teams from various academic backgrounds during the 1930's, the Amazon-Jary-Expedition has been criticized for its political command, lack of academic necessities and infatuation with the commercial multi-media chronicle, which lead to suspicions about its true purpose. This impression was further reinforced during the following years as other controversial Nazi Germany missions took place, criticized for pseudo-scientific methods and unacceptable ethic standards and affiliated with dubious Nazi party agencies, that sought support for the crude ideas on their political agendas. The mission's leader had conceived plans for a military takeover of French Guiana (Guayana-Projekt), which, upon his return, he presented to Heinrich Himmler. There exists, however, no evidence for any official involvement in or adoption of these plans.

Background

Prince Maximilian of Wied-Neuwied

Independent Brazil maintained friendly relations with Germany throughout the 19th and early 20th century, characterized by dynamic trade and the moderate but steady immigration process of ethnic Germans into (mainly) southern provinces. Sources provide varying numbers between 200,000 to 300,000 arrivals from 1824 to 1933. Prior to 1871 only very few settlers and even less mechants, scholars, religious missionaries and teachers of the small German states ever advanced to southern Brazil and establish themselves into the local Germanophone homogeneous communities. Brazil benefitted from Imperial Germany’s greater political influence and economic ambitions. The vast territory absorbed the increasing numbers of scientific and technical personnel, that had set out to assess and extract resources and natural wealth. Brazil continued its policies of cooperation among growing trade, cultural exchange and economic progress until the Great depression and the Vargas Era.

From 1815 to 1817 Prince Maximilian of Wied-Neuwied led a pioneering expedition into south-eastern Brazil and crafted the earliest scientific work about the local indigenous peoples, such as the Botocudos. Upon his return to Europe he published his work in two volumes: Voyage to Brazil (Reise nach Brasilien) in 1821 and Contributions to Brazil's natural history (Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte von Brasilien) in 1833).

Behind growing economies and trade, Brazil and Germany developed a tradition of scientific cooperation. Many German naturalists, engineers and geologists arrived during the 19th and early 20th century in Brazil. Their expeditions and study and documentation of Brazil's land and nature set standards and many remain important works of reference for modern research. Among these travelers were Hans Krieg, the director of the Bavarian State Collection of Zoology, the researchers of the Institute of Tropical Diseases in Hamburg Gustav Giemsa and Ernst Nauck as well as the ornithologists Adolf Schneider and Helmut Sick.

A vaguely described mission

The expedition was a cooperation of the German government, its Propaganda Ministry and the Nazi party's Foreign Organization (NSDAP/AO), under the auspices of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biology and the Brazilian government and the National Museum of Brazil in Rio de Janeiro. Atypically, the mission enjoyed nation-wide press attention and approval among various circles in the Nazi hierarchy. Initially announced as another customary scientific survey, its goals were only vaguely described as journey out of scientific desire for knowledge to a blank spot on the map by its leader, zoologist, documentary filmmaker and SS officer Otto Schulz-Kampfhenkel.

Preparation

Schulz-Kampfhenkel, born in 1910 near Berlin as the son of a industrialist showed little interest in his family business. Young Otto collected insects, reptiles and other animals and his passion for zoology eventually led to a degree in biology. Already publicly known since the publication of his book Der Dschungel Rief... (The Jungle Calling...), the account of an expedition to Liberia in 1931/32, he organized the expedition to the 790 km (490 mi) long Amazon tributary Rio Jari (also Jary) in the Amazon basin.

Promoted to SS Untersturmführer, 24-year-old Otto Schulz-Kampfhenkel set foot on Brazilian soil in July 1935 as head of the expedition, accompanied by experienced pilot Gerd Kahle and engineer and mechanic Gerhard Krause. A modern Heinkel He 72 Kadett seaplane was to make exploring the region easier.

The expedition

Apari ceramic

After the recruitment of more helpers, among them a German, Joseph Greiner, the expedition set off from their base camp at the Santo Antonio waterfall on six boats in the direction of French Guiana in early November and study, explore and map the topography of Brazil's north-eastern border area along a route of the Jari River to neighboring French Guiana. The advance to the border with French Guiana could only be realized with the help of the indigenous people, who knew the jungle and its rivers. An Indio from the Aparai people agreed to guide the explorers. Schulz-Kampfhenkel nicknamed him rather inappropriately Winnetou - after author Karl May's well-known fictional character.

After only a few weeks the Heinkel seaplane crashed, colliding with driftwood on the Jary river and had to be returned to the base. All men fell ill with malaria, Schulz-Kampfhenkel also suffered severe diphtheria and foreman Greiner eventually succumbed to his fever. His grave site in Laranjal do Jari municipality is marked with the huge swastika topped Jari-Cross.

The mission set up camp near an Aparai settlement, explored the jungle, its animal world and collected zoological specimen. They also observed and documented the culture of the Indians and recorded their language, traditional chants and dances with a recording device.

After around 17 months, the expedition returned to Germany in May 1937 with 2,700 m film, thousands of animal bones and Indian tools and artefacts. Thanks to the dugout canoes and excellent navigation skills of the Indians in the rapids of the Rio Jary was it possible for the expedition to safely reach the base camp after almost two years. Exhibits in several cities took place. Some monkey skulls of the "Schulz-Kampfhenkel Collection" can still be seen in the Natural History Museum of Berlin's Humboldt University.

Consequences

Abunasunga

Tedamali

Kawemhakan

   Tal.

Antecume Pata

Tutu Kampu

Apetina

Paloemeu

Iyaherai

Manau

Iliwa

class=notpageimage|

Wayana settlements in Suriname and French Guiana and the northernmost villages in Brazil.

Schulz-Kampfhenkel utilized the multi-media data, recordings and documentation for the publication and professional marketing of his book The riddle of hell's jungle, published in 1938 and UFA Films launched the eponymous 90-minute full featured film, which was shown in cinemas nationwide for weeks. A great success and extremely popular at the time, besides its commercial composition, it remains a valuable anthropological document to this day.

Among the upper waters of the Rio Jary the film shows, Neolithic Digging stick planting methods of the Wayana and Wayapi Indians, who had been believed to have died out. The baking of flatbread as well as the bartering between the two tribes is shown as well as the typical pile dwellings, making music on mouth flutes made of deer bones or on nose flutes made of bamboo tubes.

Among the obvious inconsistencies foreign observers viewed the mission's objectives with suspicion as many argued Nazi Germany hoped to establish a strategic bridgehead in South America. Schulz-Kampfhenkel, however had developed the plan of conquest on his own, which he submitted to SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler during World War II. He intended to conquer French Guiana, north of Brazil, with only a few hundred men who were to be secretly smuggled into the country by submarines and the help of the local Indians. Workers from Africa, practically slaves, were to later make the land arable. This is where German colonists, as representatives of the Nordic race should gain a foothold and gain a living space upon National Socialist demand. But Himmler declined, as other projects had priority.

In April 1938, the Vargas regime effectively prohibited the existence and activities of foreign parties within Brazil. Despite the diplomatic threats of the German embassy, future Nazi missions had to be conducted undercover, that lead to no major activities anymore. Only the large wooden cross remains in the Amazon jungle as a reminder to National Socialist astray.

External links

• Otto Schulz-Kampfhenkel at IMDb
• Literature by and about Wikirictor/articlebase in the German National Library catalogue
• Institut für Weltkunde in Bildung und Forschung (WBF) (in German)
• Documentation: Herrenmenschen im Regenwald (in German)

Historiography

Amazons in the Nuremberg Chronicle by Hartmann Schedel, 1493

The ancient Greeks never had any doubts that the Amazons were, or, had been real. They were not the only people enchanted by warlike women of nomadic cultures. Exciting tales also come from ancient Egypt, Persia, India and China. Greek heroes of old had encountered and fought the Amazons of their martial society. However, their original home was unknown, certainly, though and crucially in the obscure lands beyond the civilized world. The Amazons existed outside the range of normal human experience. As a result, for centuries scholars believed the Amazons to be purely imaginary, although there were various proposals for a historical nucleus of the Amazons in Greek historiography. Some authors preferred comparisons to cultures of Asia Minor or even Minoan Crete. The most obvious historical candidates are Lycia and Scythia & Sarmatia in line with the account by Herodotus. In his Histories (5th century BC) Herodotus claims that the Sauromatae (predecessors of the Sarmatians), who ruled the lands between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, arose from a union of Scythians and Amazons.

Herodotus also observed rather unusual customs among the Lycians of south-west Asia Minor. The Lycians obviously followed matrilineal rules of descent, virtue and status. They named themselves along their maternal family line and a child's status was determined by the mother's reputation. This remarkably high esteem of women and legal regulations based on maternal lines still in effect in 5th century BC in the Lycian regions that Herodotus had traveled to, lent him the idea that these people were descendants of the mythical Amazons.

Modern historiography no longer relies exclusively on textual and artistic material, but also on the vast archaeological evidence of over 1,000 nomad graves from steppe territories from the Black Sea all the way to Mongolia. Spectacular discoveries of battle-scarred female skeletons buried with their weapons (bows and arrows, quivers and spears) prove that women warriors were not merely figments of imagination, but the product of the Scythian/Sarmatian horse-centred lifestyle. These women turned out to be able to fight, hunt, ride and utilize a bow and arrows just like the men.

Xanthian women using the apotropaic power of their genitals

---

According to the 12th-century Nestor Chronicle, the Pomeranians, as well as Poles, Masovians and Lusitanians originated from the tribe of the Lechites.

The origin of religion as a phenomenon in Homo sapiens, modern man, is not much to say with certainty. The reason for this is that this origin lies in prehistory, the period that preceded the existence of written sources. Thus, everything that is known about the origin of the phenomenon of religion is based on the application of logic or jigsaw puzzles from the summary pieces of information that have been collected over the years with archaeological research. It is disputed that religion existed in the Neolithic. How far back in time it can not be said with any form of certainty. Archaeological excavations from the Paleolithic and observed forms of keeping and carrying monkeys and other animals are seen as indications for the answer to that question. Furthermore, it seems plausible that the development of the human brain, human thinking ability, and human speech ability have had a major impact on it, with religion being a largely verbal phenomenon.

The term Modern warfare is being used rather casual and does not refer to an exactly defined historical period. Inconsistencies among historians, the various institutions and national military traditions. Since the late 19th-century, authors have maintained widely contradicting ideas on the origins, causes, manifestation, beginning and chronography of Modern warfare, that range considerably between the 15th-century European Renaissance and the early 21st-century War on terrorism.

In The Dawn of Modern Warfare eminent German historian Hans Delbrück locates the origins of Modern warfare in the 15th-century rise of the self-organized and spectacularly effective Swiss infantry units, followed by two centuries of development.

In The Oxford History of Modern War British author Charles Townshend rejects J.F.C. Fuller's idea, that Modern warfare (introduced by the widespread 16th-century adoption of muskets) and Modern society do progress in symbiotic harmony. Townshend argues, that only changes and development processes of administrative, technical and ideological nature can bring about fundamental advancements in warfare. Although neither straightforward, parallel nor smooth, these processes, once in motion, are irreversible.

Although almost universally considered to be the first modern war, a number of mainly, but not exclusively, US-American authors have the American Civil War identified as the beginning of Modern warfare. During the conflict an unprecedented mass mobilization of the civilian population took place and essential aspects of the industrial age were utilized for the first time.

 developments in medicine, communication, transportation, and weaponry as all aspects of the industrial age were utilized technological innovations that changed the nature of battle Military and Naval Academies and military science

modern warfare Information and the way in which it is used is just as important in winning an overall victory in modern warfare as the military tactics adopted to defeat the enemy. Times, Sunday Times (2006) It is largely accepted now that generals on all sides struggled to adapt to the complexities of modern warfare. Times, Sunday Times (2012) He has contributed to a number of studies of modern warfare. Warfare in the Twentieth Century (1988)

Since the end of World War II, a new form of warfare has been born. Called at times either subversive warfare or revolutionary warfare, it differs fundamentally from the wars of the past in that victory is not expected from the clash of two armies on a field of battle. This confrontation, which in times past saw the annihilation of an enemy army in one or more battles, no longer occurs. Warfare is now an interlocking system of actionspolitical, economic, psychological, military—that aims at the overthrow of the established authority in a country and its replacement by another regime

Military leaders began exploiting the fact that modern states had effectively created a new kind of human being -- the educated, independent-minded citizen who could do much more than just follow orders -- without whom modernity would look very different indeed.

heredity

The firing of needles (also needle firing) is a method of firing firearms in which the propellant charge is ignited by a needle-like firing pin,. This needle is pushed into the ignition element in the cartridge by a tensioned spring. The associated mechanism (lock) is called a pin lock. For the Dreyse firing needle cartridge, the components projectile, propellant charge and firing element were produced together for the first time as a standard paper cartridge. The first weapons with a spark ignition were muzzle-loaders, the breakthrough only emerged as a breech-loader, these were developed around 1832 by Johann Nikolaus von Dreyse. [1] Although introduced in Prussia in 1848, great international interest did not arise until 1866, when the ignition needle rifle developed by the French engineer Antoine Chassepot became ready for production. A few years later, from 1870, the ignition needle system was already technically out of date. [2] The ignition of the needle with paper cartridges was replaced by the firing with metal cartridges. [3]

A needle gun (or needle rifle for varieties with rifling) firing mechanism uses a needle-like firing pin to ignite a propellant charge. A spring pushes the firing pin in order to strike a percussion cap inside a brass - or paper cartridge.

The quote in itself allows for the interpretation that the military will take over from politics as soon as war has begun - as the German General Staff did in World War I. However, Clausewitz had disclosed this statement in its context of the "primacy of politics" and that war is always subordinate to politics.

In fact, Clausewitz meant that every war is based on a (political) purpose, that defines the war's manifestation. It does not matter whether this political purpose is declared by civilian politicians or warlords. In order to ensure that war is based on a (political) purpose, the military must be subordinate to the civilian executive and legitimized by the parliament.

Wir behaupten dagegen, der Krieg ist nichts als eine Fortsetzung des politischen Verkehrs mit Einmischung anderer Mittel. Wir sagen mit Einmischung anderer Mittel, um damit zugleich zu behaupten, dass dieser politische Verkehr durch den Krieg selbst nicht aufhört, nicht in etwas ganz anderes verwandelt wird, sondern daß er in seinem Wesen fortbesteht, wie auch seine Mittel gestaltet sein mögen, deren er sich bedient

On the other hand, we claim that war is nothing more than a continuation of the political process by interfering via other means. By interference via other means we simultaneously assert that the political process does not stop with the conclusion of the war or is being transformed into something completely different, but that it continues to exist in its essence, regardless of the means, it had made use of.

hereditary enmity, inimitié héréditaire or Erbfeindschaft

heredity

The term hereditary enmity denotes the idea of inevitable, hostile relationship and the mutual desire for revenge between France and Germany, that can't be solved peacefully.

This idea did not develop within one generation. In Germany it might be traced back to at least the time of Louis XIV's War of the Reunions and even further - to the 15th century, when France first claimed Alsace. The enmity has been further associated with the early 19th century Coalition Wars, the Wars of Liberation, the Franco-Prussian War and the First and Second World Wars.

For France, on the other hand, England was the primary enemy during the Medieval period and in later conflicts during the conquest of their respective colonial empires. Only after the 1870/71 war and the establishment of the German Empire was the relationship with Germany commonly perceived as a "hereditary enmity".

Origins

Attempting to pinpoint the origin of the hereditary enmities between France and Germany, scholars went back as far as the string of recorded history reaches into antiquiity. However, conflicts, based on ethnic reasons can't be attributed to the scattered tribes, east and west of the Rhine.

The partition of Charlemagne’s empire among his three grandsons after his death, that was regulated in the 843 Treaty of Verdun as historical fact, again, has been connoted by modern authors. The event had certainly great consequences for the elite of the empire, but the overwhelming majority of the population were geographically isolated and illiterate peasants. Parish clergy introduced the commoners with religion, demanded piety and to seek redemption. Political exercise was the exclusive privilege of the nobility. Territorial entities were ruled by individuals (kings, dukes), loyal to their families only.

Even after the majority of Lotharingia (the middle Kingdom), became part of the empire, that included Alsace and Lorraine, the commoners of West Francia would not identify with any form of loss and envision revenge.

For centuries the border region between East - and West Francia around the Rhine river remained at peace as both countries' most important security issues pointed in different directions. The French were primarily focused toward the West with England as the greatest threat. The Germans put their efforts into Italy and the Slavic peoples to the east.

In the fourteenth century France had conquered some territories of the Holy Roman Empire and meddled into the affairs of the German duchies. Again, these activities should be interpreted in the context of dynastic struggle, as attempts to manipulate the Habsburg kings. In 1323, aged seven, future Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV (originally Wenceslaus) came to the French court where he was raised under the patronage of his uncle, French king Charles IV, who took care of his nephew's particularly advanced education.

The Holy Roman Empire, as time progressed, became increasingly divided and consisted eventually of hundreds of relatively independent secular and monastic states. It was dominated by Habsburgs on the imperial throne, who with two brief breaks reigned from the 15th century to its dissolution in 1806. From their residence in Vienna, the Habsburgs successfully implemented their policy of conquest by marriage throughout Europe with little regards for national ideas.

Thus, Maximilian I's 1477 marriage to Mary of Burgundy, heiress to Burgundy and the Low Countries was a turning point in European politics, as the Habsburgs rose from German territorial lords to a first rank European dynasty. The stage was set for the French–Habsburg rivalry that would last for centuries. Their son Philip the Handsome married Joanna of Castile, heiress to the Spanish thrones. Joanna and Philip's son, Charles V united all of these possessions in personal union in 1519 and had completed the Habsburg ring around France. Spain to the south, the Netherlands to the north, and the Franche-Comté to the east.

In 1444, Charles VII of France invaded Lorraine and demanded authority as part of his cam­paign to rebuild a strong monarchy in France.

During the sixteenth century France annexed a considerable portion of Lorraine, although an attempt to take Strasburg and Alsace failed in 1552. (In the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis France retained the bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, obtained from the Spanish Habsburgs) France then established close ties with the residents of Lorraine. Alsace would remain a part of Germany until the 17th century.

The Peace of Westphalia, that ended the Thirty Years War, ruled that Germany was to be divided into 234 sovereign territorial units, each too weak to pose a threat to France and typically beset by too many internal divisions to unite against a common enemy.

The only sizeable German states, that had profited from the Thirty Years War were Austria and Prussia, who immediately embarked on their own rivalry - German dualism - and canceled out each other’s influence for the next couple of centuries.

The Treaty also ruled French sovereignty over the Landgraviates of Upper and Lower Alsace and ten imperial cities in Alsace, although - in a confusing and partly contradictory clause of the treaty - these entities retained their rights of membership in the Holy Roman Empire.

These aquisitions of France did certainly not mark the begin of the hereditary enmity. They might, however be added to the list of irritations, that future generations would address in the dispute. Fulbrook (1992: 60) argued that this disposition of Alsace" ensured future conflicts between France and Germany."

In the 17th century, Louis XIV of France took advantage of the relative weakness of the German states to advance France’s territory and to secure French predominance in Europe. Louis set himself up as protector of the states of south and southwest Germany through the creation of the League of the Rhine in 1658. He then captured Strasburg in 1681 and consolidated French control of the left bank of the Rhine. France also occupied Lorraine in 1683. France returned Lorraine in the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick, although retaining Alsace and Strassburg. France occupied Lorraine again in 1733 during the War of the Polish Succession and was given Lorraine in exchange for Tuscany in the 1738 Treaty of Vienna. Lorraine was finally annexed to France in 1766. France’s control of Alsace and of Strasburg left western Germany exposed to the continued threat of French domination and conquest. France endeavored to keep Germany weak and disunited so as not to pose a serious threat.

Louis XIV's conquests in 1681 and 1683 took place while the Holy Roman Empire was engaged in the defense of Vienna against the Ottoman siege. Louis even revived the Franco-Ottoman alliance of Francis I and attacked the Empire, relieving pressure from the Ottomans. Louis was reviled for this action all over Europe and was called:

"The Most Christian Turk, the most Christian ravager of Christendom, the most Christian barbarian who had perpetrated on Christians outrages of which his infidel allies would have been ashamed"

— House of Commons Journal, April 15, 16 1689.

The name Ezéchiel du Mas, Comte de Mélac