Alfred Rosenberg alikuwa mhusika muhimu katika kuundwa kwa itikadi ya Kinazi na ndani ya uongozi wa Wanazi. Ingawa hakuwa na umuhimu mkubwa wa kisiasa, kazi yake kuu, Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts (Hadithi ya Karne ya 20), ndiyo iliyowasilisha mkakati kamili na mpana wa kuwanyima watu utu wao, na kwa sababu hiyo alipata sifa mbaya. Msingi wa mtazamo wa dunia wa Ujamaa wa Kitaifa ni maono ya kihistoria ya ulimwengu mpya, mtazamo unaoweka kujielewa kwa binadamu katika misingi ya rangi na mapambano ya kutawala kikabila. Kitabu hicho kinaeleza:

Alfred Rosenberg was an important character in the formation of Nazi ideology and within the Nazi leadership. Though he was not so politically relevant, it was his seminal work, Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts (The Myth of the 20th Century), which came to present a thorough and far-ranging strategy of dehumanisation for which he earned his disrepute. At the root of the worldview of National Socialism is a historical vision of a new world, a worldview that positioned human self-understanding as characterised by race and struggle for ethnic domination. The book describes:

"Zamani zilizopita na za sasa zinaonekana ghafla kwa mwanga mpya, na kwa sababu hiyo tuna dhamira mpya kwa siku zijazo. Matendo ya historia na ya wakati ujao hayamaanishi tena mapambano ya kitabaka au vita kati ya mafundisho ya Kanisa, bali mgongano kati ya damu na damu, mbio na mbio, watu na watu. Na hii ina maana ya mapambano kati ya thamani za kiroho."64

“Present and past are suddenly appearing in a new light, and as a result we have a new misson for the future. The actions of history and the future no longer signify class struggle or warfare between Church dogmas, but rather the conflict between blood and blood, race and race, people and people. And this means combat between spiritual values.”64

Rosenberg’s work formed an image of the Jewish person as a “parasite”, defining them as an ‘anti-race’ who were not fully human and could not be part of a German or even global social identity. Jews were furthermore devoid, he argued, of a metaphysical and cultural dimension and could not be prescribed to a human race, rendering them instead animal-like. Jews were henceforth often compared to rats in Nazi propaganda - including art pieces, posters, speeches and films. The same kinds of animalistic imagery were prevalent in Rwanda when Tutsis were called “cockroaches” and so too were black slaves in the Americas, viewed as subhuman animals. Interestingly, in all the aforementioned instances, we observe a pattern of referencing animals that are mostly feared, such as snakes, rats and lizards. It was this Othering, such a castigating of others as disposable and less-than-human entities that both made possible and accelerated the development of genocidal tendencies. The untermenschen for the Nazis was not a description to describe those who were like subhuman entities, but to describe those who were subhuman. Principal prosecutor Telford Taylor of the 1946 Tafsiri ya Kiswahili: Kazi ya Rosenberg iliunda taswira ya Myahudi kama "vimelea", ikimfafanua kama "anti-race" ambaye si binadamu kamili na hawezi kuwa sehemu ya utambulisho wa kijamii wa Kijerumani, au hata wa kimataifa. Aidha, alisema kuwa Wayahudi hawana upande wa kimetafizikia wala wa kitamaduni, na hawawezi kuhesabiwa kuwa sehemu ya jamii ya binadamu, bali walifanana na wanyama. Kwa hiyo Wayahudi mara nyingi walifananishwa na panya katika propaganda za Nazi, zikiwemo kazi za sanaa, mabango, hotuba na filamu. Taswira kama hiyo ya wanyama ilikuwepo pia Rwanda, ambako Watutsi waliitwa "mende", na pia watumwa weusi katika Amerika, waliochukuliwa kama wanyama wasio binadamu. Cha kuvutia ni kwamba, katika matukio yote yaliyotajwa hapo juu, tunaona mtindo wa kutumia wanyama ambao kwa kawaida huogopwa, kama nyoka, panya na mijusi. Ni huu uwekaji wa wengine pembeni, kuwatuhumu wengine kama viumbe wa kutupwa na walio chini ya binadamu, ndio uliofanya iwezekane na kuharakisha kuibuka kwa mielekeo ya mauaji ya kimbari. Neno "untermenschen" kwa Wanazi halikuwa maelezo ya watu waliofanana na viumbe wasio binadamu, bali lilikuwa maelezo ya watu waliokuwa wasio binadamu. Mwendesha mashtaka mkuu Telford Taylor wa mwaka 1946

Rosenberg’s work formed an image of the Jewish person as a “parasite”, defining them as an ‘anti-race’ who were not fully human and could not be part of a German or even global social identity. Jews were furthermore devoid, he argued, of a metaphysical and cultural dimension and could not be prescribed to a human race, rendering them instead animal-like. Jews were henceforth often compared to rats in Nazi propaganda - including art pieces, posters, speeches and films. The same kinds of animalistic imagery were prevalent in Rwanda when Tutsis were called “cockroaches” and so too were black slaves in the Americas, viewed as subhuman animals. Interestingly, in all the aforementioned instances, we observe a pattern of referencing animals that are mostly feared, such as snakes, rats and lizards. It was this Othering, such a castigating of others as disposable and less-than-human entities that both made possible and accelerated the development of genocidal tendencies. The untermenschen for the Nazis was not a description to describe those who were like subhuman entities, but to describe those who were subhuman. Principal prosecutor Telford Taylor of the 1946

Kesi ya madaktari ya Nuremberg ilifunguliwa kwa taarifa hii:

Nuremburg doctors’ trial opened with this statement:

“Washtakiwa katika kesi hii wanashtakiwa kwa mauaji, mateso na vitendo vingine vya kikatili vilivyofanywa kwa jina la sayansi ya tiba. Idadi ya waathiriwa wa uhalifu huu ni mamia ya maelfu. Ni wachache tu bado wako hai; baadhi ya walionusurika watatokea katika chumba hiki cha mahakama. Lakini waathiriwa wengi hawa wa kusikitisha waliuawa papo hapo au walifariki wakati wa mateso waliyofanyiwa ... Kwa wauaji wao, watu hawa wa kusikitisha hawakuwa watu binafsi kabisa. Waliletwa kwa makundi makubwa na walitendewa vibaya zaidi kuliko wanyama.”65

“The defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science. The victims of these crimes are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. A handful only are still alive; a few of the survivors will appear in this courtroom. But most of these miserable victims were slaughtered outright or died in the course of the tortures to which they were subjected ... To their murderers, these wretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots and were treated worse than animals.”65

Sentensi mbili za mwisho zinagusa sera ya kinazi ya kuwafanya Wayahudi kuwa kama si binadamu katika Maangamizi ya Holocaust. Mpango mkubwa na wa kisasa wa kuangamiza kama huo hauwezi, hata hivyo, kuelezwa kikamilifu kwa maneno machache au kwa kumtaja mbunifu mmoja tu. Ni mabadiliko ya fikra kwa kiwango cha kiviwanda ndiyo yaliyoweka ajenda ya vitendo, pamoja na fikra za kuwaona binadamu kuwa duni kuliko binadamu wenzao, zilizoandaa njia kwa ukatili usioelezeka ambao Taylor alioueleza. Mara tu Wayahudi na Waroma (Wagypsy) walipokuwa, katika akili ya umma, *untermenschen*, na hivyo kutengwa na mfumo wa kawaida wa haki za kimaadili unaowafunga binadamu pamoja. Watu walikuwa wamefundishwa kufikiri kwamba Wayahudi na Waroma hawakuwa tena binadamu bali panya walioambukizwa, ambao kuondolewa kwao kulikuwa jambo la lazima kwa jamii.

The last two sentences strike at the horrific policy of Nazi dehumanisation of Jews in the Holocaust. Such a sophisticated program of extermination cannot however be adequately explained in a few words or with reference to a single architect. It is a changed thinking on an industrial scale that sets the agenda for action, and the thinking of humans as less than human that paved the way for the unspeakable atrocities that Taylor described. Once the Jews and Gypsies became, in the public mind, the untermenschen, and thus excluded from the normal system of moral rights that bind humans together. People had been conditioned to think that Jews and Gypsies were no longer human but infected rats whose disposal was a social necessity.

Kwa kuzingatia yaliyotangulia, ni muhimu sana kwa Mwislamu kuwa na uelewa mzuri wa kihistoria wa watu ambao anashirikiana nao. Kujua matukio yenye umuhimu mkubwa wa kijamii na kihistoria kwa watu kunaweza kufungua njia za huruma na uelewano bora. Muktadha wetu wa kihistoria una athari dhahiri katika mitazamo yetu kuhusu dunia na kuhusu wengine; unaunda sehemu ya tabia na haiba zetu. Kuelewa maumivu ambayo wengine wameyapitia kunaweza kuwezesha vyema kuchukua mtazamo wa wengine na kuleta shukrani. Mengi yalijifunzwa kutoka Kesi za Nuremberg kuhusu saikolojia ya kuwatenga watu na kuwafanya wasiwe binadamu, kwa waathiriwa wa Holocaust, pamoja na saikolojia ya watenda makosa. Matumizi mabaya ya madaraka yanaonekana katika ushuhuda wa wahalifu wa Kinazi ambao walisisitiza sera ya kuwadhalilisha Wayahudi kama suala la sera ya kijamii. Udhalilishaji wao ulikuwa sehemu ya msingi ya kuchochea kile kilichoanza kama chuki na unyanyasaji kuwa kutengwa kukubwa kwa watu, hatimaye kufikia mauaji ya halaiki.

In light of the above, it is very important for the Muslim to have a good historical understanding of the peoples with who he or she engages. Knowing of events that have immense socio-historical importance for people can open avenues for empathy and better understanding. Our historical contexts have an obvious bearing on our attitudes towards the world and towards others; they form part of our characters and personalities. Understanding the pain that others have endured can better facilitate perspective taking and harness appreciation. Much was learnt from the Nuremburg Trials about the psychology of Othering and dehumanising of the Holocaust victims, as well as the psychology of the perpetrators. The gross abuse of power is reflected in the testimonies of Nazi perpetrators who had insisted on a policy of debasing Jews as a matter of social policy. Their degrading was a fundamental component of eliciting what began as intolerance and abuse into a widespread othering, culminating in their mass murder.

Katika kesi hizo, Gitta Sereny alimuuliza Stangl, "kama walikuwa wanakwenda kuwaua hata hivyo, kulikuwa na faida gani ya udhalilishaji huu wote, kwa nini ukatili?" Stangl alijibu, "Ili kuwaandaa wale ambao hasa walilazimika kutekeleza sera hizo. Ili waweze kufanya walichofanya."66

In the trials, Gitta Sereny asked Stangl, “if they were going to kill them anyway, what was the point of all the humiliation, why the cruelty?” Stangl replied, “To condition those who actually had to carry out the policies. To make it possible for them to do what they did.”66

Kile ambacho walinzi wa Kinazi walifichua ni kwamba utambulisho wa kibinadamu wa wahanga wao ulipaswa kufutwa. Walihitaji kugeuzwa kuwa "wasio binadamu", "wenye sura ya wanyama", na tabia yao ilipaswa kulingana na taswira potofu ambayo walikuwa wameieneza katika mazingira yao ya kijamii – katika vyombo vya habari, shuleni na miongoni mwa watu wa kawaida. Sera hiyo pia inaonyesha chuki ya asili, iliyomo ndani ya binadamu, dhidi ya mauaji. Haikuwa rahisi kutekeleza mauaji kwa kiwango kikubwa kama cha kiviwanda, hivyo akili ilipaswa kupangwa na kufunzwa kuamini kwamba bunduki inaelekezwa tu kwa panya, kwa wadudu waharibifu, na si kwa binadamu mwenzake sawa.

What the Nazi guards revealed was that the human identity of their victims needed to be effaced. They needed to become ‘unhuman’, ‘animal-like’ and their behaviour needed to fit the caricature they had promulgated in their social environment – in the media, in schools and among the lay population. What the policy further reveals is the natural, innate abhorrence to murder. It was not so easy to commit murder on such an industrial scale and so the mind had to be programmed, conditioned to believe that the barrel points only at a rodent, a pest and not at an equal human being.

Ni muhimu kwa Mwislamu kufahamu muktadha mpana wa historia ya mwanadamu, kujua wapi na lini kuwa makini, na jinsi ya kuelewa muktadha fulani kwa kuzingatia mwangwi wake mpana. Ni rahisi sana, katika muktadha wowote wa mahusiano, ikiwa ni pamoja na uhusiano kati ya Waislamu, wakati mwingine kwenda zaidi ya kinachohitajika na kuvuka mipaka ya kile kinachostahili na kukubalika. Tunaposhindwa kutofautisha kati ya watu, tunaweza kuhatarisha kuwapaka picha potofu kabisa na kwa maelezo ya jumla sana, hadi tunawaona wengine kuwa ni wageni daima na kwa asili yao, licha ya kuwa wa imani moja. Kwa mtazamo wa aina hii, kushirikiana na wengine kunakuwa tatizo, kwa sababu tunaangukia katika tatizo lile lile ambalo wengine wanalo kuhusu Waislamu: kuwaona watu kama walivyofundishwa na kuzoezwa kuwaona sisi.

It is essential for the Muslim to be aware of the broader contexts of human history, to know when and where to be sensitive and how to understand a specific context in light of its broader resonances. It is quite easy, in any relational context, including one between Muslims, to sometimes go beyond what is required and to overstep the boundaries of what is decent and acceptable. In our failing to make distinctions between people, we can run the risk of caricaturing them completely and in very general terms to the point where we see others as inherently and permanently Othered despite belonging to the same faith. With such a frame of mind, engaging with others is problematised since we fall into the same problem that others have of Muslims - of seeing others as they have been indoctrinated and conditioned to see us.

Hadithi ya wana wawili wa Adam inafichua si tu kile inachoeleza kuhusu msukumo unaoweza kumpeleka mtu kwenye mauaji, bali pia kuhusu kile muuaji anachoweza kuhisi, na kile dhamiri inachosema wakati uhalifu unafanyika. Utafiti na kitabu cha Milgram, Obedience to Authority, vinatupa ufahamu mzuri wa uhusiano kati ya kutenda matendo maovu na utii, pamoja na uhusiano kati ya kutenda vitendo vya ukatili na kutojali. Mmoja wa washiriki katika tafiti za utii za Milgram alikumbuka: "Ni jambo la kuchekesha jinsi unavyoanza kusahau kwamba kuna mtu huko nje, ingawa unaweza kumsikia. Kwa muda mrefu, nilijikita tu katika kubonyeza swichi na kusoma maneno."67

The story of the two sons of Adam is revealing not only for what it describes of the impulse that might drive a person to murder, but also about what that murderer can feel, what the conscience speaks as the crime is committed. Milgram’s study and work Obedience to Authority provides us with a good understanding of the relationship between committing acts of evil and of obedience, as well as the relationship between the committing of acts of cruelty and of indifference. One of the participants in Milgram’s obedience studies recalled: “It’s funny how you really begin to forget that there’s a guy out there, even though you can hear him. For a long time, I just concentrated on pressing the switches and reading the words.”67

Uwanja wa kiakili kati ya mtenda kosa na mwathiriwa wake hupungua, hivyo hisia za kujitenga na kutojali huwezesha kitendo hicho kuonekana kisicho cha kuchukiza sana na chenye kukubalika zaidi.

The cognitive field between the perpetrator and his victim is narrowed and so feelings of detachment and indifference enable the act to appear less heinous and more acceptable.

Kinyume chake, pale ambapo kuna ukaribu kati ya mhanga na mtenda ukatili, mtenda ukatili huwa na ufahamu zaidi wa alama za kibinadamu zinazotambulika – maumivu, damu, usumbufu, na hisia za hofu. Anaweza kumwona na kumtazama mhanga wake, na ndani yake anaweza kuanza kujihusisha na baadhi ya sifa zake mwenyewe – chimbuko la huruma. Hili linadhihirishwa na Kanali Barry Bridges katika kauli ifuatayo:

Contrastingly, when there is proximity between victim and perpetrator the latter is more conscious of human codes of recognisability – pain, blood, unease, and feelings of fear. He can see and observe his victim and in him he can begin to relate to some of himself – the breeding ground of empathy. This is echoed by Colonel Barry Bridges in the following statement:

"Ningetofautisha jambo moja kati ya kuwa rubani wa kivita na kuwa mtu anayepambana na adui uso kwa uso ardhini. Katika mazingira ya angani, mambo ni ya kiufundi sana, safi sana, na si ya kibinafsi sana. Unaona ndege; unaona shabaha ardhini – hauko uso kwa uso na jasho na hisia za vita, kwa hiyo haigusi hisia zako sana wala kukugusa kibinafsi. Nadhani ni rahisi kufanya kwa maana hiyo – hauathiriwi."68 (Kanali Barry Bridges wa Jeshi la Anga la Marekani)

“I would draw one distinction between being a combat aviator and being someone who is fighting the enemy face-to-face on the ground. In the air environment, it’s very clinical, very clean, and it’s not so personalized. You see an aircraft; you see a target on the ground – you’re not eyeball to eyeball with the sweat and the emotions of combat, and so it doesn’t become so emotional for you and so personalised. And I think it is easier to do in that sense – you’re not affected.”68 (Colonel Barry Bridges of the U.S. Air Force)

In relation to what a perpetrator might feel when such crimes are committed from proximity and the bearing this has on a human conscience, Christopher Browning explores in his very revealing study about what changed in the ordinary Germans who made the Holocaust happen, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (London, 1992). What changed in the hearts of tens of thousands of ordinary soldiers and policemen, businessmen, truck drivers, writers and teachers, only a minority of who were members of the Nazi party? These people who rounded up and methodically executed millions of Jews? Browning describes the rounding up of 1,800 Jews in the village of Józefów, east-central Poland. In the operation, Jews of working age were to be sent to a camp in Lublin whilst the women, children and elderly were to be shot on the spot. Many refused the order that day. Lieutenant Heinz Buchmann was one of them. He had joined the Nazis in 1937 and by 1942 was commander of the First Platoon of First Company. When hearing of the impending massacre of civilians, Buchmann protested that he “would in no case participate in such an action, in which defenceless women and children are shot.”69

In relation to what a perpetrator might feel when such crimes are committed from proximity and the bearing this has on a human conscience, Christopher Browning explores in his very revealing study about what changed in the ordinary Germans who made the Holocaust happen, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (London, 1992). What changed in the hearts of tens of thousands of ordinary soldiers and policemen, businessmen, truck drivers, writers and teachers, only a minority of who were members of the Nazi party? These people who rounded up and methodically executed millions of Jews? Browning describes the rounding up of 1,800 Jews in the village of Józefów, east-central Poland. In the operation, Jews of working age were to be sent to a camp in Lublin whilst the women, children and elderly were to be shot on the spot. Many refused the order that day. Lieutenant Heinz Buchmann was one of them. He had joined the Nazis in 1937 and by 1942 was commander of the First Platoon of First Company. When hearing of the impending massacre of civilians, Buchmann protested that he “would in no case participate in such an action, in which defenceless women and children are shot.”69

Wanaume kumi hadi kumi na wawili wengine pia walisalimisha bunduki zao, yaani wanaume kumi na wawili kati ya 500. Maagizo siku hiyo yalikuwa ni kuwapiga risasi wale ambao walikuwa dhaifu sana kutembea hadi kwenye soko, pamoja na yeyote aliyejaribu kujificha, ingawa katika visa vingi wanaume walisita kuwapiga risasi watoto wachanga wakati wa operesheni hiyo. Wakiwa wameshtushwa na ukatili wa tukio hilo na hisia za hatia, askari mmoja wa polisi alisema kwamba “…miongoni mwa Wayahudi waliopigwa risasi katika sehemu yetu ya mji hakukuwa na watoto wachanga wala watoto wadogo. Ningependa kusema kwamba karibu kila mtu alijizuia kimya kimya kuwapiga risasi watoto wachanga na watoto wadogo.” Askari mwingine wa polisi naye alibainisha kwamba “…kimya kimya, upigaji wa risasi wa watoto wachanga na watoto wadogo uliepukwa na karibu wanaume wote waliohusika. Wakati wote wa asubuhi niliweza kuona kwamba wakati wakichukuliwa, wanawake wengi walibeba watoto wachanga mikononi mwao na kuwaongoza watoto wadogo kwa mkono.”70

Some ten to twelve other men also turned in their rifles, a dozen men out of 500. The orders that day were to shoot those too frail to walk to the marketplace and anyone trying to hide, though in many cases men shied from shooting infants during the operation. Alert to the ghastliness of the scene and emotional guilt, one policeman said that “…among the Jews shot in our section of town there were no infants or small children. I would like to say that almost tacitly everyone refrained from shooting infants and small children.” Another policeman likewise noted that “…tacitly the shooting of infants and small children was avoided by almost all the men involved. During the entire morning I was able to observe that when being taken away many women carried infants in their arms and led small children by the hand.”70

Afisa mmoja wa polisi alikiri kwamba aligundua kwamba hakuna waathiriwa – wanawake, wazee, wagonjwa, watoto wachanga – ambaye angerudi nyumbani akiwa hai siku hiyo. Wanaume hawakuingilia kati. Baadhi yao, hata hivyo, walijutia kutokukataa mapema, wakieleza mauaji hayo kuwa "ya kuchukiza."71 Baadhi yao walidai kwamba nao walikuwa baba wenye watoto na hawakuweza kuendelea. Kulikuwa pia na wengine waliotafuta kujiepusha siku hiyo. Maafisa wasio na vyeo walioshika bunduki ndogo za kivita walijulikana kuwa "walipiga pembeni" ya waathiriwa wao.72 Wakati wa operesheni hiyo, wanaume wengine walijificha katika bustani ya padri Mkatoliki, wengine walizurura sokoni kwa sababu hawakupenda kuwakusanya Wayahudi; wengine walichelewesha ushiriki wao kwa kutumia muda zaidi kupekua nyumba ili waepuke masoko ambako wangeshiriki vikosi vya kupiga risasi. Dereva aliyepangiwa kuwapeleka Wayahudi msituni alifanya safari moja tu kabla ya kuomba aondolewe. Wanaume wengi siku hiyo walilalamika kwamba hawakuweza kuwapiga risasi wanawake na watoto, na kwa sababu hiyo wengi waliondolewa katika operesheni. Askari mmoja, Walter Niehaus, aliagizwa kumpiga risasi mwanamke mzee lakini hakuweza kuendelea baada ya kumuua, "mishipa yangu ilikuwa imeisha kabisa kwa sababu ya mtu huyu mmoja niliyempiga risasi." Wengine walilalamika, "Nilikuwa mgonjwa sana hata sikuweza tena"; "jambo lote lilikuwa la kuchukiza sana kwangu hivi kwamba nilirudi kwa kiongozi wa kikosi changu nikamwambia kwamba ni mgonjwa na nikaomba niachiliwe."73

One policeman confessed to finding that none of the victims – women, elderly, sick, infants, would return home alive that day. The men did not intervene. Some however regretted not having refused earlier, describing the killings as “repugnant.”71 Some pleaded they too were fathers with children and were unable to continue. There were others still who sought evasion on that day. Non-commissioned officers armed with submachine guns were known to have “shot past” their victims.72 During the operation, other men hid in a Catholic priest’s garden, others hung around a marketplace, because of their reluctance to round up Jews; others delayed their participation by spending additional time in the searching of houses so they could avoid the marketplaces in which they would participate in the firing squads. A driver assigned to take Jews to the forest made only one trip before he asked to be relieved. Many men complained that day that they could not shoot at women and children, and consequently many were relieved from the operation. One soldier, Walter Niehaus was instructed to shoot an elderly woman and was unable to continue after her murder, “my nerves were totally finished from this one shooting.” Others decried, “I had become so sick that I simply couldn’t anymore”; “the entire business was now so repugnant to me that I returned to my platoon leader and told him that I was sick and asked for my release.”73

Mojawapo ya masimulizi yanayogusa sana yaliyonukuliwa na Browning yanamhusu Franz Kastenbaum, aliyekiri baadaye ushiriki wake wa kulaumiwa katika Kikosi cha Polisi wa Akiba cha Batalioni ya 101.

One of the most evocative accounts cited by Browning describes Franz Kastenbaum who confessed later to his damning participation with Reserve Police Batallion 101:

"Upigaji risasi wa wanaume hao ulinichukiza sana hata nikakosa mtu wa nne. Haikuwezekana tena kwangu kulenga kwa usahihi. Ghafla nilihisi kichefuchefu na nikakimbia kutoka eneo la upigaji risasi. Nimejieleza vibaya sasa hivi. Haikuwa kwamba sikuweza tena kulenga kwa usahihi, bali kwa mara ya nne nilikosa kwa makusudi. Kisha nilikimbilia msituni, nikatapika, nikaketi nikiegemea mti. Ili kuhakikisha kwamba hakuna mtu aliyekuwa karibu, niliita kwa sauti kubwa msituni, kwa sababu nilitaka kuwa peke yangu. Leo ninaweza kusema kwamba mishipa yangu ilikuwa imeisha kabisa. Nadhani nilibaki peke yangu msituni kwa kama saa mbili au tatu."74

“The shooting of the men was so repugnant to me that I missed the fourth man. It was simply no longer possible for me to aim accurately. I suddenly felt nauseous and ran away from the shooting site. I have expressed myself incorrectly just now. It was not that I could no longer aim accurately, rather that the fourth time I intentionally missed. I then ran into the woods, vomited, and sat down against a tree. To make sure that no one was nearby, I called loudly into the woods, because I wanted to be alone. Today I can say that my nerves were totally finished. I think that I remained alone in the woods for some two or three hours.”74