Wismar Massacre: Genocide or Holocaust?

Jun 27, 2026 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Dr. Baytoram Ramharack authored and published a book entitled the ‘Wismar Massacre.’

The book was first launched in New York City, however, with the announcement of a second launch in Georgetown, a wave of criticisms was leveled on both book and author by Guyanese politicians, political activists and commentators at home and abroad.

The PNC was in the political opposition at the time of the occurrence in May, 1964, however, the domestic geo-political situation and ethnic tensions prevailing in British Guiana in the mid-1960’s was transmitted thereafter by elements who sought since then, to use the occurrence to deepen the racial divide amongst Guyanese, promote indo-Afro Guyanese centrism, to weaponize and to maintain the occurrence as a permanent feature of our country’s historiography. And as if that was not enough, others sought to advance the spurious, unsubstantiated claim that the PPP is responsible for maintaining a shroud of silence over the incident ever since that time.

To those who appear to be entrapped by any of these mindsets, or held captive by a single picture they should be reminded of Descartes, who, in his ‘The Passions of the Soul’ (1649) wrote; ‘When you grow out of something, you grow into something else.’ That probably explains why the ethno-centric narrative peddled by well-known elements prevail to this day.

There are two ways of understanding what happened at Wismar; either as a spontaneous occurrence or as an intentional project. Either way gives rise to two fundamental questions; in what way should the occurrence be understood and what is the truth behind the occurrence, bearing in mind that a truth told with bad intent beats all the lies one can invent.

To determine whether the occurrence was spontaneous or intentional and to find the truth about ‘Wismar 1964’, we must seek to connect concepts to actions. This imposes on us the need to give account of the meaning of ‘massacre’ (Cheddi Jagan, The West on Trial pps 311-12). A ‘planned genocide’ (Janet Jagan, Statement in the Senate – Notice of Resignation : 1st June, 1964), or ‘a reaction that may snowball into a ‘holocaust’ (Forbes Burnham, June 9, 1964; Legislative Council).

In other words, we need to ask ourselves which of the three scenarios was applicable at that time, but more importantly, in retrospect, which of the three would be correct in today’s context.

As regards massacre, clearly, insofar as the occurrence at Wismar is concerned it resembles a caricature of the

‘Massacre Of The Innocents’ carried out by King Herod who ordered the killing of all boys under the age of two born in the Bethlehem area. A further resemblance of massacre is reflected in a report compiled by an independent commission of three senior international jurists who investigated the violence in Gaza and concluded that “The high number of boys killed by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), reflects a policy of targeting boys due to their perceived threat as terrorists and ‘future terrorists.’”

As regards ‘planned genocide’ it is interesting to know that the word ‘genocide’ was considered applicable to the occurrence at Wismar long before it’s popular usage and in the case before the CCJ concerning Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people.

Massacre implies an intent to kill a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings. Experts claim that the killing of Palestinians is part of an Israeli strategy to destroy the future of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

The words ‘massacre,’ ‘genocide’ and ‘holocaust’ appears to be ready-made or catch-all phrases to frame peculiar narratives used at the time by political leaders to describe the events that took place at Wismar.

On the one hand, ‘massacre’ used by Ramharrack is aimed at projecting the events at Wismar, through the prism of ethno- centrism as distinct from Cheddi Jagan’s support for Janet Jagan, who in her Statement in the Senate described the events as a ‘planned genocide.’ As the sitting Minister of Home Affairs in a country still under colonial rule, Mrs Jagan’s account was that the events were not spontaneous, they were ‘planned.’ The ‘planned genocide’ as she described it, can be considered a project executed and supported by forces under a colonial system.

Small wonder why she resigned as Minister of Home Affairs.

The picture painted by Ramharrack and Norton about Wismar is misleading, while images of the event have not changed, the world within which it has meaning has changed significantly. In other words, the picture they offer of the event misleads rather than clarifies.

Both men try to make us think differently about the occurrences at Wismar. They found words and then assigned them to the event to suit their respective political and ethno-centric perspectives.

Norton on the one hand, attacks Ramharrack’s use of the word ‘massacre’ claiming it is a gross misrepresentation of the events while Ramharrack on the other hand, used the word ‘massacre’ to introduce language more suitable to ‘knowing what’ rather than ‘knowing how.’

The discussion as to whether Wismar represented ‘a massacre;’ ‘a planned genocide’ or ‘a holocaust’ should not be viewed as a matter of semantics nor as polemical. On the contrary, these are serious political, if not ideological issues that, as we read and heard, have serious socio-psychological implications for the way we Guyanese interpret important historical antecedents.

Yours faithfully,

Clement J. Rohee

---

• genocide, holocaust, Letters, Wismar Massacre

---