The German Question, Part Fifty

"Bismarck" Part Three/B "The Day of Reckoning"

Now we need to go back to "Schleswig-Holstein." After the two German super powers defeated Denmark in 1864, they made an agreement regarding these two provinces in 1865. Both provinces became members of the (Prussian-run) Customs Union ("Zollverein"), although Austria herself was not a member. There were various stipulations, but basically Prussia was to administer Schleswig, the northern most province, and Austria was to administer Holstein. This left Austrian-run Holstein as the peanut butter and jelly between a slice of Prussian bread in Schleswig, and another slice of Prussian bread in Prussia proper.* Austria agreed to permit Prussian access to Schleswig through Holstein. The two powers agreed to resolve any differences over administration between themselves. Put simply, there were disagreements, and Austria called for the issues to be resolved by the German Confederation. This was a clear violation of the agreement with Prussia, although a violation that gave Bismarck his reason to act against Austria.

The overall march to war was highly complex, but essentially events began unfolding when Italy moved numerous military units to the border of the Austrian controlled Italian regions coveted by the Italians. Austria called up troops to reinforce its units in these same regions. This gave Italy cause to order a full mobilization of its army, and with Prussia committed to support Italy,** the Prussians mobilized their army shortly thereafter. Most of the representatives in the assembly at Frankfurt wanted matters to calm down, and for all sides to demobilize their forces, although most supported Austria, still the symbolic leader of Germany. The few supporters of Prussia among the German states had only small military forces, but Austria's potential to gain non-German allies was slim (Russia especially was reluctant to get involved on Austria's side, due to past differences between the two powers, although the Russians were alarmed by Prussia's growing power among the German states***). Austria agreed to the calls for demobilization of any troops that were seen as threatening Prussia, but she could not do the same with Italy, which was in no way connected with the German Confederation. Bismarck cried "Foul!" He sent Prussian troops into Holstein in response to Austria's calling the Holstein provincial assembly into session about the dispute with Prussia. Austrian troops, far from Austria (which was much further south), and sandwiched between Prussian forces, withdrew from Holstein.

This prompted Austria to call for the German Confederation to mobilize forces against Prussia, a process that began. Prussia declared that such actions dissolved the German Confederation (saying it, did not truly make it so), but the Prussians also offered new constitutional reform and reorganization for a new federation of all the German states.

Prussia pressured the other German states to accept its reform plan, but they rejected it (most favored Austria, anyhow). In mid June 1866, Prussia sent troops into the states of Saxony, Hanover, and Hessen-Kassel, and the war began. The Prussian forces dominated the forces of these states, except those of Hanover, which inflicted a defeat on the Prussian army in late June, but then surrendered to Prussia shortly thereafter, when more Prussian forces arrived.

Relatively small Prussian forces kept forces of other Austrian allies, like Bavaria, tied down and thus out of the main fighting, except for Saxony. The rapidly mobilized Prussian forces advanced into Saxony. The Saxons moved their army (relatively small) out of Saxony and into neighboring Bohemia (a Habsburg possession) to join the slowly mobilizing Austrian forces which were assembling for an eventual attack on the Prussians in Silesia.**** The Prussians struck in early July with three converging armies inflicting a devastating defeat on the Austrian forces at the "Battle of Königgrätz" (Sadowa, in Czech), with the Austrians losing 40-45,000 men (killed, wounded, captured), while total Prussian losses were less than 10,000. This one major battle brought agreement between the two German states for France's Napoleon III to begin mediation between the belligerents for an end to the war. Napoleon III accepted the role.

While the Austrians suffered at the hands of the Prussians, they enjoyed far more success against the Italians, who suffered a major defeat early on (June 24) in the Austrian held region of Veneto at the "Battle of Custoza" (near the city of Verona), although the Italians did achieve a victory in the Trentino region (about 20 miles from the city of "Trento") on July 21 against the Austrians. Peace negotiations required that the Italians yield any gains in the area.

Next, the war ends....... (A Word History is below the notes)

* You can see the almost hopeless military situation for Austrian troops in Holstein, if any war developed between Austria and Prussia. You know what happens when you press two slices of bread against a layer of peanut butter and jelly......SQUISH!

** Remember, Italy and Prussia had an agreement to support one another in a war against Austria.

*** Russia siding with Austria would then have forced Prussia to divide its forces, just as Austria was already doing, due to the threat from Italy.

**** For those who have been following this series, you may recall Austria's long held desire for more territory in Silesia going back to the wars between Austria and Prussia when led by Maria Theresa and Frederick the Great, respectively.

WORD HISTORY:
Beer-The ultimate origin of this word is uncertain. Some linguists believe it came from Latin "bibere," meaning "to drink," which then went back to Indo European "po/poi," which then had a variant "bibo," which gave Latin "bibere," and the noun form "biber," meaning "a drink." The theory is that West Germanic borrowed the word from Latin, giving Anglo-Saxon "beor," although Anglo-Saxon (and Germanic generally) used the ancestral form of "ale" as a general word for "beer," in those times. Another theory has the word derived from Old Germanic "beuwoz," a form of which meant "barley." Still another theory has "beer" coming from Indo European "beus/bheus," which meant "sediment, yeast sediment," which then gave Old Germanic "biuzan" or "biuzaz," which meant "beverage made from yeast;" thus, "beer." To be honest, I don't know, as all are certainly possible; however, the word "beer" only appears in the Germanic languages (see other Germanic forms below), except for borrowings, so perhaps the last theory is correct, that it developed in Germanic. The Latin ancestor is possible, but the problem I have with it is, most sources cite a West Germanic borrowing during the 500s (A.D.). The Anglo-Saxons had already established themselves in Britain (what would be called 'England') by that time, and while they could have borrowed it from the continental Germanic relatives (or vice versa), that makes it a little more of a stretch. Anyway, Old English "beor" later became "ber/bere," before the modern spelling. German, Dutch, and West Frisian have "Bier/bier," all with similar pronunciations to the English form (the German form has a capital "B," as all modern German nouns are capitalized), Low German Saxon has "beer," and Icelandic has "bjór." Danish, Norwegian and Swedish all use a form of "ale" for their word for "beer."

The German Question, Part Forty-Nine

"Bismarck" Part Three/A- "The Day Of Reckoning"

The events prior to, and during the "Austro-Prussian War" ("Der Deutsche Krieg," in German, "the German War"), were far more complex than what I'll write about here.

Bismarck saw an opportunity for Prussia to place Austria in a sort of military vise grip. With a newly united Italy still desiring certain Italian majority provinces that were controlled by Austria, Bismarck made a pact with the Italians. The pact essentially committed Prussia and Italy to assist each other in any war either had with Austria; a war that seemed more likely to start between Italy and Austria, at that time. Earlier, Bismarck secured French neutrality in any conflict between Prussia and Austria,* with France's "Napoleon III" believing that any war between the two German states could only benefit France's territorial desires along the western areas of the German states (like Luxembourg), and further, he believed that Austria would defeat Prussia in any war.**

Prussia enjoyed several advantages over Austria. The Prussian army was large, well trained, well led, well equipped***, had a significant number of well trained reservists, and individual regiments had their personnel located close by, for quick mobilization. By this time, 1866, railways had developed throughout the German states, although somewhat unevenly, but Prussia's railways were especially well developed, giving Prussia's army the ability to quickly move troops from one location to another, and then to also quickly supply those troops. On the other hand, Austria faced the prospect of a two-front war; against Prussia in the north, and against Italy in the south. Further, the unrest of her many non-German subjects, and their resentments, made many of Austria's infantry units, where there were numerous non-Germans, a bit suspect in terms of reliability. Austria's cavalry and artillery forces, however, were renowned for their prowess. The threat of unrest also made the Austrians choose to keep many military personnel far from their regimental commands in an attempt to prevent armed organized uprisings. This meant it took time for Austria to mobilize its army, as many troops had to travel considerable distances to join their units, and Austria's railways were somewhat less well developed in certain parts of her vast territories than Prussia's.

To be continued.... (A Word History is below the notes)

* France was ruled by Napoleon's nephew, "Napoleon III." Bismarck and Napoleon III had a one-on-one meeting, at which time Bismarck secured France's neutrality.

** Luxembourg was a member of the German Confederation and the Zollverein (the Customs Union, led by Prussia), close to Prussian territory, and actually had, at times, Prussian troops stationed there. Any Prussian defeat could have helped France in their desire for Luxembourg. France also was interested in Belgium.

*** Prussia's infantry were equipped with bolt-action, breech-loading guns, which allowed their infantry to lie down and fire, making them more difficult targets. They could also fire at a faster rate than Austria's muzzle-loading guns, which pretty much required infantrymen to stand to reload. While the Austrian military leaders saw the effectiveness of the Prussian guns during their joint-effort with Prussia in the war with Denmark, they seemingly did not grasp the significance of the more modern gun, or Austria's strained financial resources may have forced them to abandon any plan to re-equip, as thousands of new guns would have been costly.

WORD HISTORY:
Stone (Stein)-For those of you who have been following this series on the Germans, you probably have noticed my tendency to do words which were borrowed into English from German, or words that we associate with Germans. While "stone" was NOT borrowed, its Germanic ancestor also gave German "Stein," which besides having the same meaning as the English word, also means "stone/ceramic beer mug," but only in certain regions of the German-speaking world. It is a shortened form of German "Steingut," or "stoneware." "Stein" is a word very much present in English. It is perhaps more prevalent in American English from the large number of German immigrants who came here.

This word goes back to Indo European "stai," which meant "stone." (Note of interest: It also had the meaning, perhaps the original meaning, of "hard substance, solidity," which gave some of our more distant relatives; that is, further down the "family tree," words associated with that concept, such as Greek "stear" which means "tallow;" that is "solidified fat," and Latin "stiria," which means "icicle." The Old Germanic offshoot was "stainaz," which then gave Old English "stan," with a long "a" sound, unlike the modern short form for "Stanley." Later it was spelled "ston," before acquiring its modern form. The verb form, as in "to stone someone to death," developed in English during the 1100s. It is VERY much present in the Germanic languages: as noted above, German has "Stein," Low German has both "steyn" and "steen," Dutch has "steen," Frisian has "stien," Danish and Swedish both have "sten," Norwegian has "stein," and Icelandic has "steinn." The term "Stone Age" originated in the 1830s from Danish archeologist Christian Jürgensen Thomsen.

Obama & FDR

I think it is safe to say that all presidents get compared to other presidents or to other historical figures, sometimes favorably and sometimes not so favorably. When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, many Americans had high hopes about what he would accomplish. Some people compared him to Franklin D. Roosevelt (aka, "FDR"), especially since Obama was entering office at a time of serious economic trouble. The high hopes were probably unrealistic, and the comparison with FDR was just too premature, and no two eras are ever exactly the same.

For those unaware, FDR, a Democrat, was elected in November 1932, ousting the incumbent Republican, Herbert Hoover, who was beleaguered by his failure to halt, let alone reverse, the Great Depression. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by substantial majorities.* FDR took office on March 4, 1933.** Obama, a Democrat, took office January 20, 2009. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, with the Senate alignment similar to FDR's time, but with it being slightly less favorable for Obama, particularly because of the required 60 votes needed to pass most legislation, due to a more modern deal worked out between the two parties awhile back on Senate rules. The House alignment was somewhat less favorable than during FDR's time, although not usually affecting the outcomes of key votes (see Note #1 below regarding House rules on bill passage). In fairness to Obama, Republican members of Congress had been so decimated in the previous two elections (2006 & 2008), that the "survivors" tended to be VERY conservative, coming from solid Republican districts or states, with a few exceptions, and therefore unwilling to compromise much on anything. Unlike the President, who has been blasted by conservatives as "radical," and by progressives as "too moderate;" thus getting little, if any, political credit, the congressional Republicans' hard line stance has earned them the cheers of their conservative base, a base now so energized for the upcoming election, that Democrats, now the unmotivated party, may lose seats in Congress in historic numbers, even though polls show the American public dislikes Republicans even more than they do Democrats!

Okay, so what is the difference between FDR's time and Obama's early time in office? First, and most importantly, FDR took office after 3 1/2 years of Hoover's failure to stem the developing economic depression. Hoover tried new ideas and traditional ideas, but the economic storm got worse,*** with millions out of work, and millions more reduced to part time. Not only did FDR and Democrats win big in the 1932 election, but Republicans were so discredited, that mounting major opposition to FDR was not easily done (he DID face opposition from various conservative factions, including the extreme rightwing, and from conservative elements within the Democratic Party, primarily from some Southerners). But the country wanted change, and the Great Depression era was a watershed, with many working class and middle class Americans so terrified and traumatized by the economic mess, that they were willing to forget ideology and support new ideas (unemployment reached a high of about 25%, but many other Americans had reduced work schedules, making the "effective" unemployment rate somewhere between 30 and 40%). Roosevelt and Democratic leaders rushed through legislation to try to change the psychology of the country. All did not pass easily, and it was not a "tea party" for FDR (ah...maybe I should change that line?), but gradually the tide was turned against the downward spiral, however, the struggle to repair the severely damaged economy took a decade, and unfortunately, it took World War Two to bring the U.S. back fully.

Unlike FDR, Obama took office only about a year after the actual recession began, and only MONTHS after the financial meltdown and the (2008) Wall Street crash began. In this case, he was more in the position of Herbert Hoover, than FDR. Hoover assumed the presidency only a couple of months before the economy went into recession, and less than seven months before the Wall Street Crash of 1929. With many structural problems in the American economy, there wasn't a hell of a lot he, or anyone, could do to halt the initial downturn, at least in the sense of what was considered proper government involvement back in 1929, which was essentially "no involvement." In this sense, Obama had more of the FDR situation on his side. Hoover, who believed in deficit spending to limit economic downturns, was, however, limited in that action by the political considerations of that time (and his own limitations), including those of his VERY conservative Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, who believed in balanced budgets, pretty much regardless of circumstance. Americans just didn't accept big government deficits in peace time, and major government involvement in the economy was a "no no," at least during the early part of the "Depression." Hoover's more activist programs, and especially FDR's major activism, paved the way for future presidents, including Obama, to take action against economic downturns, although, as we have witnessed in the last couple of years, many hard line Republican members of Congress have opposed virtually ANY intervention into the economy, including those proposed by President Bush. The economic stimulus package passed by Congress in early 2009 and signed by Obama helped keep the country from going over the cliff, but the President needed to take charge, and not farm out the work to Congress. The stimulus probably should have been bigger, and with MUCH more job-creating infrastructure programs. (Note****) & (Note ^)

Lastly, unlike Hoover, FDR was a politician of the first magnitude. He had a "feel" for what the public wanted and how far he could go on policies, especially early on. He had no qualms about blasting business and wealthy interests (virtually all men, back then), and in fact, he seems to have relished their nasty comments about him, which only served to bring additional scorn to these interests from a substantial part of the American public. Obama, on the other hand, never really took charge politically. As a result, he has had the worst of all political worlds; being called a "socialist," "fascist," or "communist" by rightwingers (and those may be the "nice" terms they've used about him), but seen by his base supporters as being too timid, and seemingly unwilling to challenge the "laissez faire," "business is always right," "let's all be concerned about the plight of millionaires," "if you're not rich, the hell with you, you're on your own," system that has evolved during of the conservative era we've been in. He chose to do "health care reform" almost from the start (which showed poor judgment, and poor political instincts, in my opinion, although I understand the moral argument, trust me), but then he refused to really do battle over essential cost controls (like the "public option"), or even to try to change the very insurance system itself; instead continuing with the same employer-based system that business people, even when Bush was president, complained has limited their abilities to compete with foreign countries, ALL OF WHICH HAVE SOME SORT OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM! Further, it retains a layer of costs, insurance company profits, to the overall system. Once he chose this battle however; he couldn't get out, as this would have weakened his overall position. The resulting year long battle played out in front of the television cameras on a daily basis. All the while Americans wondered who was minding the economic ship, as the captain they elected for the job was now at the helm of a different ship. Previously demoralized Republicans and their business allies went on the attack, and the President's ambitious agenda played right into what they began telling Americans; "The President and congressional Democrats are overreaching, and they're going to tax the hell out of you," "The health care bill will create 'death panels' to decide if elderly people will get expensive treatments for certain ailments, or be left to die," "The Democrats are spending trillions and they are bankrupting the country." While many of the attack lines were totally ridiculous, unlike the President, the conservative Republican machine was not the least bit squeamish about seizing the political initiative, using vast hyperbole, or letting little things, like facts, get in the way of their assault, including the fact that the country had been running budget deficits ("bankrupting the country") under Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan took office, and that the 2009 deficit was almost entirely inherited by Obama from President Bush. The President and the overall White House seemed absolutely overwhelmed by, and unprepared for, the attacks. With such a complex subject, the President and his supporters were unable to ever articulate a concise reason why Americans should support the bill, or why this divisive legislation was needed "right now." Polls showed a solid majority of Americans opposed to the measure. In the end, progressives, fearful of the consequences of a major legislative defeat for the President, rallied to the bill's support, even though it was not anywhere near what most of them wanted. A very limited (in my opinion, but it does have some good things in it) bill passed, but the President and congressional Democrats took an absolute pounding, and they have never recovered. The bill was so poorly crafted, that after a year of bruising, almost bare-knuckled brawling, most Democrats running in this year's midterm elections never bring up the health care law, unwilling to cite it as an achievement. On the other side, a number of Republican candidates are calling for repeal of the law, or at least parts of it, or of essentially killing parts of the law by not funding them, if Republicans take control of Congress.

Unlike FDR, this President seems to lack that feel for politics, especially needed in the age of 24/7 news coverage, where virtually everything makes it to some news outlet, be it on television, or on the Internet. Some sort of "pension-type" program for elderly Americans was a priority for many progressives (in both parties) in FDR's time, but he didn't just wade into that battle right off. He built overall political support for himself and Democrats first, by dealing with the economy, which had THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, then later he pushed for the establishment of "Social Security," with even a good number of Republicans voting for the measure. President Obama, like with the "stimulus," farmed out the health care bill to Congress, unwilling, or unable, to even take charge of his own political party.

(A Word History is below the extensive notes)

* Democrats controlled the Senate initially 59 to 36, with one "Farm-Labor" senator, who was really a Democrat (The "Farm-Labor Party" was in Minnesota"), so the Dems had a majority of 60 to 36, and that number varied from time to time due to deaths or appointments to other offices, but essentially it was 60-36. Remember, in those days there were only 48 states, not the 50 of today; thus there were 96 senators. In the House of Representatives, which as today had 435 seats, the Dems were overwhelmingly the majority, essentially having a 316 to 117 superiority, with 2 vacancies (the Dem number includes Farm-Labor members). The number of vacancies frequently changed during this period (not an uncommon occurrence) and the alignment therefore changed periodically, but not all that drastically. It is important to remember, the rules of the House of Representatives requires only a simply majority vote to pass legislation; so, on any given issue, a bill only needs to have one more "yes" vote, than "no" votes, for passage. Remember too, even if a bill passes the House, it must also pass the Senate in the same exact form, and then be signed into law (with some exceptions) by the President to actually become law. Unlike today, there was much more bipartisanship in FDR's time, and it was not uncommon for some Republicans to support legislation backed by FDR, just as it was not uncommon for some Democrats to oppose his legislation, but it was a totally different era, when the two major political parties both had large numbers of conservatives and progressives.

** Up to that time, presidents were inaugurated on March 4, not January 20, as they are today. The 1933 presidential inauguration, however, was the last held on March 4, as the time between the election in early November and the inauguration (if for a new president) was considered to be too long. When the Constitution was first ratified, the four month period between elections and inauguration was much more necessary, as, for one thing, travel and communication could take quite some time back then, and a new president also had to assemble his staff and make cabinet appointments, also with communication and travel time having to be considered. Then when Lincoln was elected, southern states began to secede from the Union BEFORE Lincoln took office. With the new president not yet in office, and likewise with the new Congress, the situation took the course that it did (maybe it would have anyway, but we'll never know). The 20th Amendment to the Constitution, which changed the date to January 20, was ratified in January of 1933, but did not take effect until October 1933; thus FDR's March 4th swearing in. Almost as if to make a point, the time between FDR's election and his taking office saw a major banking crisis develop in the country, with hundreds of banks either failing, or being of the brink of failure. I wonder now if American conservatives, if they do indeed win big in the 2010 midterm elections, will try to go back to the March 4th date? After all, we continually hear from some of them that the Constitution is the Constitution, and that liberals and Democrats are always trying to change it. It says what it means and means what it says, damn it! (Oops, they probably say "darn it," fearful that a bolt of lightening will hit them otherwise.)

*** If interested, I did a whole series on "The Great Depression." You can access the series by clicking on "The Great Depression" in the "labels" listed at the bottom of this article. That will take you to all articles where I've done something on the "Depression." Scroll down until you come to those on the "Great Depression," which will be listed from last to first. You probably should read them in order, so just scroll to "Part One."

**** To be fair here, while I often disagreed with President George W. Bush and his administration on economic matters, my ego is not so fragile that I can't give credit to Bush and others in his economic circle to what they (finally) did right. While VERY unpopular, even with many Republicans, what came to be known as "the bank bailouts" was essential to preventing a total collapse of the American economy. It should have had "conditions" for the banks to meet in order to get the money, but it helped the country, and a good sum has been paid back to U.S. taxpayers, with interest, although there is an overall outstanding balance due. Obama and his economic team continued and expanded certain aspects of the basic policy, although now, many Republicans barely, if ever, acknowledge that it was Republican Bush who started the bailouts of banks, insurance companies, and auto companies. The argument that the Bush Administration should have enforced existing regulations more and taken measures to avert disaster is something I totally agree with. Their reliance on "free markets" to police themselves was total nonsense, and the notion, "let everyone do whatever they want to do, especially business people; after all, it's a free country," has brought us to the point where we are today.

^ Even though "stimulus" jobs would have, by nature, been limited by time, when Americans are working, they pay taxes. Taxes, in spite of this conservative nonsense that has been spouted for decades, do reduce deficits. So the investment would have had some payback, plus, it would have instilled far more confidence that the economy would steadily recover, something that is now lacking. The recent financial crisis in Europe hasn't helped matters here, though, and there's no question it has hampered the American recovery, as banks and businesses seemingly drew back. A larger stimulus, with more jobs, might have been able to supersede the European crisis in the overall psychology about the economy, but who knows?


WORD HISTORY:
Riddle-There are two distinct words, but with the same spelling. (1) The noun meaning "puzzle, mystery," goes back to the Indo European root "ar," which seems to have had something of a reverse form variant, "re," with the general notion of "fit together." (To solve a "riddle," we need to "fit together" clues.) This root gave Old Germanic "raedislijan," with the general meaning "advise, counsel" (it is also the ancestor of "read" and "rede," this being archaic, but meaning "advise, counsel"). This then gave Old English "raedels/raedelse," with meanings "counsel, conjecture, imagination, riddle." Later, the spelling changed to "redel/redels," before settling on the modern spelling. Close relatives are: German has "Rätsel," meaning "riddle, puzzle;" Dutch has "raadsel," with the same meaning.

Riddle (2)-meaning "fill with holes, perforate," as when a gunslinger warned, "I'm goin' ta riddle yer hide." Actually, the past tense usage is more common, "riddled." This goes back to Indo European "krei," which had the notion of "separating, distinguishing between," which then gave the Old Germanic offshoot "khridan," and the variant "hridan," where the "k" sound was not present; this meant "sieve, sift" which retained the original notion of "separate" (This may initially have come from the related Old Germanic form "(k)hrid," which meant "to shake," presumably with the notion that when you "shake" something, it separates items, as when you "shake the dust off of your clothes). This gave Old English "hriddel," also meaning "sieve." Later the spelling changed to "ridelle" (and "ridelen," the verb form, "to sift"), before eventually moving to the modern spelling. German has "Reiter," also meaning "sieve," but it is not commonly used anymore, to my knowledge, although perhaps in some dialects. A variant of the Old Germanic word, however, eventually evolved into modern German "rein," which means "pure, clean" (again, "possibly" with the idea of "shaking" something clean, or perhaps "filtering/sifting" something until "pure"). The other Germanic languages all have some form of this word with the same basic meaning, however, at this time, I have not been able to find a related word in English.

The German Question, Part Forty-Eight

"Bismarck" Part Two "Prelude To Austrian-Prussian Reckoning"

German unification came about with what many historians call, "The (German) Wars of Unification," a series of three wars. I've already covered the war carried out jointly by Prussia and Austria against Denmark in Parts 45 and 46, in this series. Now I'll get into the real crux of the matter; that is, the day of reckoning between Prussia and Austria over political dominance of German affairs. I suppose I'd have to say that the long build up to a major showdown between the two German "super states" is more important than even its aftermath, since this confrontation set in motion the inevitability of German unification (in my opinion).

First, a recap:
For centuries, Austria was the leading German state among literally hundreds (at times, thousands) of German states. The Habsburg family rulers, which ruled Austria, were also chosen for centuries as the emperors of an increasingly weak German Empire.* Over time, however, the Habsburgs expanded their holdings to areas of eastern and southeastern Europe where Germans were either a distinct minority, if even present at all. The Protestant Reformation brought the spread of Protestantism, primarily Lutheranism, to much of the northern German lands, where Protestants often became a majority. Austria and the other southern German states remained heavily Catholic. Prussia, a north German state, largely Protestant, and ruled by the Hohenzollern family, gradually became a military power, challenging Austrian power over German affairs. Napoleon defeated the Germans and dissolved their weakened empire, occupying many of the German lands, and even annexing some German territory to France. This all began to build a sense of German national patriotism, rather than the regional patriotism long in place in the German states, and culminated in the defeat and ouster of Napoleon from the German territories. While many Germans wanted a new unified German nation formed after Napoleon's defeat, the rulers of the various states sought to keep their own local and regional power. A confederation was formed among the German states, but with little power over truly "German" affairs. Austria headed this confederation. In the effort to truly unite Germans, many Germans wanted Austria to relinquish control over a large portion of their non-German lands, something which the Habsburgs refused to do. Prussia formed a "customs union" ("Zollverein") to expedite trade among an increasing number of the states, but without Austria.

The Revolutions of 1848 brought demands for German unification and constitutional law, but what looked to be a sure thing, proved to be illusory, although the ideas put forward during that time did not all die. The Revolutions, while they essentially failed, also showed the strains on the Habsburg holdings, as their non-German subjects rose in revolt in many places. While order was restored, it seemed only a matter of time before the Habsburgs would have to grant some degree of independence to their non-German subjects, giving Germans the increased hope that Austria would then either lead (mainly preferred by "South" Germans), or become a part of, a newly united Germany. Later still, Austria had to confront a developing threat from their Italian holdings in northern Italy, as Italians, like the Germans, were increasingly pressing for a unified nation, and part of what many Italians saw as that unified nation included the Austrian holdings.** This forced the Habsburgs to deploy considerable military resources in that area; a fact clearly noted by Bismarck and his advisers in Prussia. By 1861, Italians declared Victor Emanuel II (Vittorio Emanuele, in Italian) as King of Italy, although not all areas desired by Italians were included in the new nation, including, interestingly, ROME!!! The Austrian possessions also remained outside of Italian control, but Austria was well aware of Italian designs on these areas, where the Austrians continued to maintain substantial military forces.

Railroads began to develop throughout the German states beginning in the 1830s. This faster means of travel helped to further unite Germans, in both travel and trade, as many Germans began to pay tourist-type visits to areas far beyond their old regional homelands. Visits to old castles, battlefields, and other historical venues began the development of a whole new industry in the German economy, and gave Germans a sense of common pride and history.

To be continued.... (A Word History is below the notes)

* In this case, I'm not only meaning weak in military power, but also weak in structure and the emperor's ability to get Germans to act in concert with his wishes.

** This was "sort of" a reverse of the situation in northern Germany with Schleswig and Holstein, which were seen by Germans as part of Germany, but were controlled, to varying degrees, by the King of Denmark.

WORD HISTORY:
Ale-This goes back to the Indo European root "alu," which had the notion of "magic, possession, intoxication." This gave Old Germanic "alu(th)," which then gave Old English "ealu," which meant "ale," or just "beer." Interestingly, English had both words, "ale" and "beer," and they were interchangeable, or perhaps regional, but "beer" (which I'll be covering in a future Word History) did not develop a distinct meaning until the 1500s, when hops began to be used in the brewing process. Forms of the word in English's closest West Germanic relatives (German, Dutch, Frisian) have died out in the standard languages, as they now only use forms of the word "beer," although I wouldn't be surprised that forms survive in dialects, and I did find "aal" for Dutch and some Low German versions, but whether this is truly used very often in modern times, I don't know. But English's North Germanic relatives still use their own forms: Danish and Norwegian have "øl" and Swedish and Icelandic have "öl." By the way, an interesting side note; "ale" also meant "a celebration, with lots of ale." This still survives in the last part of the compound word "bridAL," which meant a "celebration of a wedding, wedding feast." Poor woman, she just got married and her husband's stewed to the gills! ("Hic!...Ah...'scuse me.")

"A Little Fresh Air?"

We've all been deluged by political ads from all sorts of candidates. Some are comical, some are serious, some are pretty obnoxious. If these ads are to be believed, then it's no wonder the country is in such condition, since "Candidate A" says "Candidate B" is a scoundrel, and "Candidate B" says "Candidate A" is a scoundrel. Unfortunately, I think, at times, both are right! I prefer to have some skepticism about many of the claims made by candidates from any party.

I've been seeing ads by a couple of regional candidates (for the state legislature, in different districts) saying, if elected, how they will "get government off the backs of business." There are no specifics, just the Reaganesque one liner.* I got to wondering, just what has "government" done to burden business people so much? These ads, run for candidates who are Republicans, have obviously been given the tag line by some consultant, or by the Ohio Republican Party. Fair enough; Democrats do similar things. But the question still remains, "What regulations have so burdened business people?" The current governor has been in office for four years, and he is a Democrat. Did he churn out so many regulations that Ohio business people have been overwhelmed? Hmm, maybe, but I've heard this campaign slogan before, so it must go back further, maybe to.....the former governor? Well let's see, he was governor for eight years, and he was a Republican. Hmm, that's curious. Maybe the ads refer to the governor before that. Let's see, he was governor for eight years, and he too was a Republican. That's even "curiouser," and I hope my Third Grade English teacher isn't rolling over in her grave. So, my question still remains.

We've all heard similar on the national level for many years now from Republican officeholders or candidates. Those American business people just have one hell of a life! The government (in this case, at the federal level) is just throwing one thing after the other at these folks. Maybe that's why so many business people are so wealthy? Hmm, that doesn't make any sense, does it? Now, I'm not naive, and I'm sure there are some regulations, some going back decades, that need to be changed or even done away with, but again, just what regulations are so terrible? Should we have more arsenic in our water? Hey, Cary Grant was in that great movie, "Arsenic and Old Lace," maybe we could do a remake, but change the title to "Arsenic and Our Water Supply." How about lead paint? I'll bet removing lead from paint was one regulation that burdened business people. Hey, so it saved some lives or deformities; what's that compared to making money? Besides, we now seem to get our fair share of lead from Chinese imports. Hey, that reminds me, I'm sure that inspections of imports into the U.S. is one awful burden on American importers, don't you think? Maybe that's what they mean by "get government off the backs of business?" Then of course there's a real biggie! Air pollution! If we just didn't have all of those regulations about the air that we breathe, a lot of business people and wealthy investors could make a bundle. Yep, we could coin a new slogan for Sarah Palin, "Dig, baby dig!" We could just burn the hell out of coal, if we didn't have all of those darned regulations. What's a little, or even a lot, of smog and soot in the air? As Sharron Angle would say, "Man up, Americans." First though, just ask yourself, do I REALLY want to go back to such things? Will I be willing to live in close proximity to such places, or are those places just good enough for the "peasantry?" After all, the "peasantry" exists to make my life better, right? Will I be willing to breath all sorts of pollutants 24/7? If you answer "yes," there could be a good side to this for you, lung disease often kills quickly, so take a deep breath, and THINK ABOUT IT!
(A Word History is below the note)

* Reagan used to say, "Government isn't the solution to our problem, government IS the problem.

WORD HISTORY:
Water-This important noun goes back to Indo European root "wed/wod," which gave rise to the variant "wodor/wodr" (and some other forms are possible), all meaning "wet/water." This gave Old Germanic the offshoot "watar," which in turn gave Old English "waeter," before later developing the modern pronunciation and spelling. The verb form, as in "water the garden," was derived from the noun, and in Old English it was "waeterian;" later the ending was dropped and the "ae" became just "a." The word, in various forms, is present in all of the Germanic languages: standard German has "Wasser," and in Low (Saxon) German it is "water," Luxemburgisch has "Waasser," "Frisian has "wetter," Dutch has "water," Danish has "vand" (the "t" sound died out in Danish), Swedish has "vatten," Norwegian has "vann" (like Danish, the "t" died out), and Icelandic has "vatn." The standard German and Luxemburgisch forms were influenced by what is called a "sound shift," in this case, the Germanic "t" sound became an "s" sound (also spelled at times as double "s"). English, Low German and Dutch were not affected by this sound shift; thus English has "kettle," but German has "Kessel," English has "better," but German has "besser," for instance.

The German Question, Part Forty-Seven

"Bismarck" Part One

Bismarck is such a historical figure that many, many books and articles have been written about him. I'll only scratch the surface here.

Fürst Otto von Bismarck (Fürst=Prince) should at least be a name known to many of you, even if you haven’t been particularly fond of history. Just a note before I go on: Bismarck was fluent in English and he was a staunch Lutheran.

Bismarck was born in what is the modern German state of "Sachsen-Anhalt," so he was a northern German, and descended from a line of "Junkers."* He became a member of the Prussian "Landtag" (the name of the Prussian parliament/legislature), known for his conservatism, if not his downright reactionary beliefs, as he was a devoted supporter of the Prussian monarchy. During the 1850s  Bismarck represented Prussia at the assembly of the German Confederation, which met in Frankfurt; where for a time, he was fearful that German unification would dilute Prussian power and independence. His views gradually softened, and he came to view German unification as a good thing, as long as it was led by Prussia and not Austria. He also learned the arts of politics and diplomacy to an incredible degree, finding that wheeling and dealing (along with ruthlessness) was more effective than pure, "in-your-face" ideology. Eventually, due to diplomatic appointments for Prussia, he met many foreign leaders and diplomats, as he was sent to Russia, France and England.

Liberal reforms in Prussia since the "Revolution of 1848" had given the elected legislative body the right of approval of budgetary items, including military spending. Wilhelm I, then King of Prussia, wanted a reorganization of the Prussian army, but the delegates initially balked at his proposed military budget, then out and out defeated it. The jilted king seriously considered abdication, but then decided to appoint Bismarck as both "Ministerpräsident" and Foreign Minister ("Aussenminister," in German)** in September 1862. With Prussian constitutional law still relatively new, Bismarck found ways around the representatives. First, his government position was not responsible to the elected delegates, but rather only to the king. Further, he chose to ignore the representatives and their defeat of the king's proposed budget, and he simply declared the previous year's budget in force. The representatives cried "foul," but to no avail. Over time there were many more confrontations, and the representatives repeatedly asked that the king dismiss Bismarck, but the king refused, as this would then have encouraged the delegates to challenge any appointments made by the king.

Bismarck is famous for his statement about Prussia's policies, made shortly after his appointment to office: "Speeches and majority decisions will not decide the great issues of the time...but blood and iron" ("Blut und Eisen").*** So you can see in this one statement Bismarck's contempt for the legislative body, as well as his willingness to use force. The use of force would come to pass.

To be continued.... (A Word History is below the notes)

* "Junker" is a contraction of the words "jung" (young, the "j" is pronounced as "y") and "Herr" (lord, or gentleman). The Junkers were a class, usually of lesser nobles, who had estates in Prussia, most often in the northeastern part of Prussia. They tended to be associated with the military, often, but not always, even hiring themselves out to various entities for military adventures in times long past; that is, they were mercenaries. Some trace back to the time of the Middle Ages, especially when German knights were off fighting numerous Slavic and Baltic peoples and colonizing areas in northeastern Europe, receiving land (what became their estates) for their meritorious military service or as "payment" for having served some landed noble who had hired their services (see: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/04/german-question-part-nine.html ). Other Junker families do not go back quite that far in time, and Bismarck's family seems to have achieved that status in the 1500s. Over the centuries, the Junker families became less associated with being military mercenaries; however, they often maintained their connections to the Prussian, then the overall German, military, with many holding key positions in the army. With the gradual easing of the mercenary image, they became highly respected in Prussian/German society as officers of the army. Others, while more loosely associated with the army (served and held rank, but were not active throughout their lives), were seen more as country squires, or gentlemen. Politically they were known for their conservatism.

** Foreign Minister is the American equivalent to "U.S. Secretary of State."

*** "Supposedly" Bismarck actually said these in reverse order, "Iron and Blood," but I wasn't there and I didn't see it on the "Six O'clock News," so hey, what can I say?

WORD HISTORY:
Iron-This word goes back to Indo European "isr" (long "i") and/or "eis," which seems to have meant "strong, powerful" and therefore, "holy." Iron was not in use when the Indo European dialects grew apart, so there was no general word for the metal. It is "assumed" that Old Germanic borrowed a form of the word from Celtic,^ that language having developed an offshoot from the Indo European word, as "isarnon." This then gave Old Germanic "isarnan," which then gave Old English "isaern," and later, when the "s" sound died out, "iren" and finally the modern version "iron." The meaning initially had to do with the metal, and then it was used in reference to weapons made of iron, then to shackles made of iron (used in the plural "irons"), the use for a vitamin in the diet seems to be from the latter part of the 1600s, and the use for a golf club came along in the mid 1800s. The use of a "heated flat, wedged piece of iron to smooth clothing" seems to date to the early 1800s with that specific name. The verb form was derived from the noun in the early 1400s, initially with the meaning "make from iron, cover with iron," then in the mid 1600s, "to put someone in chains or shackles (irons) to contain them," but ultimately the main modern meaning came to be, "to use a heated flattened piece of iron to smooth out clothing" (although the 'put in shackles' meaning is still used somewhat). German has "Eisen," Low German has "Iesen," Dutch has "ijzer," West Frisian has "izer," Swedish has "järn," Norwegian and Danish both have "jern," and Icelandic has "járn," all meaning "iron," the noun for the metal.

^ Celtic is a branch of the Indo European languages. It is represented in modern times, for example, by Welsh, Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Breton (from the Brittany region of France).

Paying The Piper-Part 8/2-An Unpleasant Ticket To The Past

A couple of weeks ago on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," host, former conservative Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, stated that the "free trade" policy that has shipped so many jobs overseas, along with investment, has become difficult to change because it has become "a religion."* I think Joe has hit the nail on the head. It is much the same with the "free market" ideology, and I believe you can more or less lump the two together; "free trade/free markets." The interesting thing is, the "super patriots" of the American Right talked about no unilateral disarmament in our relationship with the former Soviet Union. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but many of these same people, or their more recent clones, are always touting "free trade" that is often unilateral. We needn't dig up Einstein to ask him why so many American jobs have gone overseas. Forget about patriotism, American business people will go to where one of their highest expenses, labor, is cheapest. Costs are always important. If you had a lemonade stand when you were a kid, you probably didn't buy lemons at the most expensive place in the neighborhood. Americans basically understand all of this; it is a part of our society. The American labor movement understands it, too. What concerns many in American labor is that the basic trade system with many countries is not fair to start with. Workers in many of the "new" economies of the world make a fraction of what many American workers make, or should I say, what many American workers MADE. Be careful of the code phrase oft stated by executives, "Our production costs are too high." With the system that is now in place, essentially what America's powerful interests are saying with this phrase is, "American workers make too much!" Of course, they don't say that executives or wealthy investors make too much, although the incomes of the wealthiest Americans are really the only incomes that have grown much in the last thirty years, under the prevailing economic philosophy of modern American conservatism (if it can be called "conservatism"). Pat Buchanan, a frequent participant on "Morning Joe," and noted conservative commentator, also recently stated how all of this "free trade" policy has damaged the country. Okay Pat, then why are you pushing for more conservative Republican victories? It's like saying, "My party is destroying the American economy. Let's elect more people from my party!"** You can't have this both ways, unless you're willing to pay the price; the ultimate demise of the country. Until this mentality changes, woe to America.

(A Word History is below the notes)

* I really like Joe Scarborough. I don't always agree with him; in fact, at times, I very much disagree with him, but he is one conservative who seems to have learned some lessons from the economic mistakes of the last few decades, and Joe is willing to say so. This seems to run contrary to many other conservatives who act as if they did absolutely NOTHING WRONG to bring on the current economic problems of the country, and in fact, seem to advocate their policies even more strongly. When the Bush Administration proposed the "bank bailout" bill in September of 2008, many conservative lawmakers said that banks that made bad decisions should just be allowed to fail. That all sounds good until you see what happened when just one bank failed, Lehman Brothers. The whole WORLD financial structure shook, with world stock markets tumbling by huge amounts. Where would we be now if virtually ALL banks had been left to fail? This is the very same philosophy that says, "Look, if you're sick and you don't have insurance, the HELL WITH YOU! I've got mine!" Don't be confused by any of this, folks! If this kind of thinking had prevailed throughout history, humans would still live in trees. "Hey you birds! What ya doin' buildin' that nest in my tree?"

** I don't agree much with Pat Buchanan, but when he's right on policy, he's right. In fairness to his position, he did try to get Republicans to abandon or modify these trade policies, especially in his presidential run in the primaries of 1996. He was HIGHLY CRITICAL of the Republican position. He seemed to have drawn a lot of former Ross Perot supporters to his banner, but the problem has been, after Buchanan's run, who did these types, including Buchanan, eventually vote for? More Republicans with the same ideology they claimed to be against.

WORD HISTORY:
Morel-The ultimate origin of this word for a type of mushroom is uncertain. One source notes that it goes back to Indo European "mork," which meant "root, tuber," but I can't find "mork" in any Indo European words. So how Germanic got the word, I can't say, although the one source could be correct. Old Proto Germanic had "murhon," which indeed meant "edible root." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "more" (the ending "e" was pronounced back then as "eh/ah"), which meant "carrot," which included parsnips, back then. It seems the Germanic dialects of those times did not distinguish between carrots and parsnips, because the "orange" carrot either hadn't yet been cultivated, or was unavailable to our ancestors at that time. "More" (then also spelled "moore") remained the English word for "carrot" until the 1500s! Gradually English usage of the borrowed word "carrot" developed, replacing the native word. I'll probably get around to covering "carrot's" history in the near future. The Old Germanic word also gave Frankish, another Germanic dialect, the form "morhila," which meant "mushroom" in that dialect. This then was absorbed into French, a Latin-based language, but with a good number of Germanic words, as "morille." The French term was borrowed into English in the 1670s as "morel." The Germanic word also gave Old High German "morhilo," which has since become modern German "Morchel," which is their term for the type of mushroom. The same Old Germanic word that gave Old English "more," also gave German "Möhre," still one of their words for "carrot" (they also use "Karotte," which they too borrowed).

The German Question, Part Forty-Six

"German Unification" Part One/B "Wars With Denmark"

I will be covering Otto von Bismarck's rise next, but first I want to finish the "Wars With Denmark." This will require in this article that I skip ahead to the time when Bismarck had already become the Minister President of Prussia. Further, as I noted in the first part of this section, the history of this whole conflict over Schleswig and Holstein is extremely complex, but the "devil is in the details," and try though I might, it is difficult to keep this simple.*

The question of Danish succession still lingered as the childless King Frederick VII grew older. The Danes believed that Schleswig was governed by Danish law and, therefore, Danish succession. The German view remained that any heir had to be male and passed on by the male line, not the female line. Holstein was not really in contention on this matter, as it was a member of the German Confederation, although it was a possession of Denmark (see further below). A complicated set of actions eventually conferred the future crown of Denmark AND Schleswig upon Christian of Glücksburg (who would become King Christian IX), but he was not a direct male heir, as he was related from the female line, and initially he had not been an heir to the throne of any country or province. King Frederick VII, whose childlessness had brought the whole matter to such a fever pitch, approved Christian as his heir. From the point of view of the Danes, the matter was settled.

Not long after the "First Schleswig War" ended, Frederick VII "granted" (decreed is a better word) a constitution that really did little to change his overall power. Later, the Danish assembly (or parliament) passed their own version of a constitution, also covering the Danish provinces outside of Denmark. This was rejected by Prussia and Austria on technicalities, and later also by the entire German Confederation, as the aim of the Germans was to continue to pry the provinces, especially Schleswig, away from any kind of Danish rule. The Danes had the opposite aim; that is, to tie Schleswig, and for some Danish nationalists, even Holstein, more closely to Denmark. There were numerous claims and counter claims during the years, but there was an agreement in London among several of Europe's powers, that Holstein and Lauenburg would have a new line of succession when King Frederick passed on, and not that of Frederick's heir. However, the two provinces would remain as Danish possessions. Schleswig, on the other hand, would be bound by the Danish succession law, but the Danes could not tie the province closer to Denmark than was Holstein.

In 1863, Frederick VII died, bringing Christian to the throne, as King Christian IX. A new Danish constitution awaited the new monarch's signature. The problem was, the constitution stipulated that parliament would govern both Denmark AND Schleswig. While Schleswig would still have its own provincial legislative body, this all amounted to an annexation of Schleswig to Denamrk. This violated the agreement between the various European powers made in London a number of years prior. This king signed on the dotted line. Frederick of Augustenburg ("Augustenborg" in Danish) was to become "Duke Of Holstein." Years earlier, when the contentious issue of Danish succession was being debated, he claimed Schleswig also, but later renounced that claim for a financial settlement. Now, here came Frederick again, claiming title to Schleswig.** In late 1863, the German Confederation, supported by Prussian Minister-President Bismarck, sent troops into Holstein to hold the province until matters were resolved (remember, Holstein was a member of the German Confederation, but a possession of the Danish crown). Bismarck got Austria to agree to resolve the Schleswig issue jointly with Prussia. Bismarck demanded that Denmark rescind its annexation, but that was rejected. Prussian and Austrian troops marched into Schleswig in early 1864. Bismarck's ultimate goal was annexation of the provinces to Prussia, as they were adjacent to Prussia, but Austria would not have participated in the war knowing that fact.

With German public sentiment strongly in favor of Schleswig and Holstein becoming independent of Denmark as a combined entity, Bismarck held the upper hand with fellow German power, Austria, whose leaders were concerned about Prussia's ever escalating power in German affairs, to the detriment of Austria. Overall German public opinion made it impossible for Austria to oppose the "public" Prussian position of independence for the provinces.

The two German powers defeated Denmark, with their forces actually entering Denmark itself. The war ("The Second Schleswig War") was over by August 1864, with a treaty signed in Vienna in October. Denmark renounced claim to the provinces, and it ceded control of the provinces, plus even more territory, to the administration of Austria and Prussia. Denmark lost approximately one million subjects, with as many as two hundred thousand being Danes. With Schleswig and Holstein detached from Denmark, German unification took another step forward. (A Word History is below the notes)

* I think back to my American History class in college, where the instructor (then in the process of earning his doctorate), when he came to the Civil War, was asked why he didn't get into the details of the war. He said it was all too complex, but that he could simplify it in three words, "The South lost." Of course in college, there was a separate class for those interested in just the Civil War.

** Frederick was pro-German, although he had been born in Copenhagen, Denmark. His pro-German position "might" have been taken because the Germans were more than willing to support his claim on Schleswig, an issue very sensitive to Denmark and to the Danish monarchy. Let's see, first he took a payoff to renounce his initial claim from prior years, now he's back renouncing his former "renouncement." You don't think Frederick was after anything or everything he could lay his hands on do you? Na, I can't believe that.

WORD HISTORY:
Throne-This goes back to Indo European "dher," and an alteration "dhrono," which had the notion of "support." The idea of support gave Greek "thronos," meaning "a seat, chair," which seems to have also developed the meaning "elevated seat, seat of honor;" thus, "throne." Latin borrowed the term from Greek as "thronus," which then passed to Latin-based Old French as "trone," and then in the 1200s, English borrowed the word as "throne." Just a note, German also borrowed the word from Old French and modern German has "Thron" (it is masculine; so, "der Thron").

The German Question, Part Forty-Five

“German Unification” Part One/ "Wars With Denmark"

First: The history of Schleswig-Holstein is far more complicated than what I will write about here, so if your background traces back to one of these areas, or to Denmark, I hope you won't feel slighted. Even with my generalizations, I hope no one will become too confused, as it is quite complex. Second: Remember the basics of feudalism; the lower level, vassals, pledged fealty and service (often militarily) to the upper level, a lord, who provided some sort of protection or basic living conditions. That lord's property, or area of control, was called a "fief" (no "To Catch a Fief" or "Fief Of Baghdad" jokes, please). This system had many levels, with lower level nobles/landowners pledging service to higher nobles, and at times, those nobles then doing the same with even higher nobles, even eventually reaching to the level of kings or emperors.

In the far northern part of what is now Germany (and near Denmark), there were two provinces, Schleswig and Holstein (now most commonly referred to in the combined "Schleswig-Holstein"), that were a center of controversy. Both regions had long, but somewhat varied, associations with Danish kings, who also carried the titles of (Danish) "Duke of Schleswig" and (German) "Count of Holstein" (Count=Graf, in German).* Centuries before, Schleswig had been considered a part of Denmark, but that changed during the Middle Ages, when it was a fief of the Danish king. Holstein, while a possession of the Danish king, was a fief of the German emperor (as mentioned about feudalism in the opening above), and it was a part of the Old German Empire (Holy Roman Empire), and later, it was a member of the German Confederation (the era where we are now in this series). Holstein was almost exclusively German in background (language and custom), but while Schleswig had a German majority, there was a minority of the population that considered themselves to be Danes, and a somewhat smaller percentage that were Frisian.** To complicate matters, in the 1400s, there had been an agreement between the Danish king and a number of German nobles stipulating that Holstein could not be annexed to Denmark, but giving the king the title of "duke," regarding Schleswig. It seems that the German nobles felt that with the separate title of duke, the province would retain some independence of the Danes, and indeed that happened, although it took a couple of centuries (see Note 2, below). Further, the two provinces were declared to be "forever undivided."*** (Separate note: There was actually a third province, (German) Saxe-Lauenburg, involved in some of these disputes, but only at times. It was a part of the German Confederation, but it too was a possession of the Danish king. It had been the king's possession since being handed over to Denmark by Sweden, which had gotten it from Prussia, following Napoleon's first defeat, in 1814. The province was exclusively German in population. [Told you, this stuff is confusing. No wonder they fought so many wars.])

The ouster of Napoleon from Germany inspired German nationalism, and that included German nationalism in Schleswig. The German population of the province began to make it known that they wanted to be part of any new German nation, which at that time appeared to be more imminent than it actually proved to be. The Danish population of the northern part of Schleswig (where they were a majority) likewise made it known that they didn't want to become German subjects. To keep this somewhat simple, the revolutions that erupted in 1848 led the Danish king to grant a constitution. As part of the Danish reorganization, the king and Danish nationalists wanted Schleswig to be incorporated into Denmark proper, although with a great deal of independence. This brought open challenges by the German population, which gained the support of Prussia.**** Further, there was that treaty from the 1400s, which the Germans now used to their advantage, since it stated that Schleswig could not be annexed to Denmark, and that Schleswig and Holstein could not be separated. The Danes in Denmark and the Danish population in Schleswig essentially wanted Schleswig and Holstein to be separated, with the boundary between the two provinces also becoming the boundary between Denmark and the German Confederation, or any new German state. The Germans argued that the old treaty didn't permit the two provinces to be separated, and that Schleswig should become part of the German Confederation, as Holstein already was. On their side, the Danes had a treaty from the 1700s where some European governments declared that the Danish king would always also assume the title of "Duke of Schleswig." As if these issues were not enough, there was much controversy over the succession to the Danish throne. Laws going back many centuries throughout the German states and Denmark did not permit female succession as rulers. The Danes had been debating allowing female succession, as one of their kings, Frederick VII, was childless. If the existing (traditional) law prevailed, this would have permitted a German-leaning noble to rule in Schleswig and Holstein. Danes wanted a new Danish law to prevail which permitted female succession, including in their possessions, Schleswig and Holstein, and there was a declaration of such a law by the Danes. Germans, of course, opposed the decree. This all added more fuel to the fire.

German nationalists in Schleswig and Holstein rose against Danish rule in 1848, establishing a separate government. In support, Prussia sent troops into the area which precipitated a war with Denmark (called "The First Schleswig War"). Prussia's action gave a boost to its prestige among most Germans, except mainly the Habsburgs of Austria, who wanted to see Prussia's influence over Germans diminished, so as to retain their own standing among Germans. The war dragged on for three years, including numerous ceasefires and negotiations (other European powers participated in the negotiations), before European powers got Prussia to agree to return Schleswig and Holstein to Danish possession, with Denmark essentially agreeing not to annex Schleswig. This was basically a Danish victory, but the actual issues remained unresolved.

To be continued.... (A Word History is below the notes)

* For those who have been following this series, and just for example, remember that the kings of England were also hereditary rulers of Hanover (Germany), but Hanover was not a part of England. Hanover was entitled to a vote in the election of the German emperor, so you had the King of England voting on who became German emperor. Remember too, King George I of England did not speak English, rather German, but his successors did speak English. In the case above, the King of Denmark had a seat in the German Confederation due to his possession of Holstein, which was a German state. Confused yet?

** The population of Schleswig had been becoming more and more "German" in nature. The spread of Lutheranism brought German language religious services to much of Schleswig, and also, over the course of a couple of centuries, German officials tended to run many of the local bureaucracies. Gradually, Low German overtook Danish in what had been majority Danish speaking parts of the province, but again, the province seems to have had at least a scant German majority for much of its history, even before this advance by German. While population patterns may not always work out this way, in the case of Schleswig, it was very reasonable, with increasing percentages of people considering themselves Danes, the closer an area was to Denmark proper.

*** This was an interesting situation. Since Schleswig was a fief of the king, his role as duke of the province made him a vassal to himself in his role as king. The "forever undivided" clause is difficult to understand (at least for me, duh!). Schleswig was considered Danish, while Holstein was conceded to be German. While both were possessions of the Danish king, they were in different spheres of influence right from the start. Since the agreement specifically forbade Denmark to annex Schleswig, the same had to be true of Holstein, simply by implication. If what happened to one, had to happen to the other, this was a controversy just waiting to develop. The text above will show how this played out.

**** By this time, Prussia dominated much of northern Germany, and the German populations of both Schleswig and Holstein felt an attachment to Prussia, and therefore, both wanted any new German nation to be led by Prussia and not Austria, a south German state. This certainly gave Prussia an incentive to help with the German situation in Schleswig.

WORD HISTORY:
Brat-Not as in "you little brat," but rather the shortened form of "bratwurst," which is commonly used in American English, usually in the plural, "brats." I'm not certain about usage in the rest of the English speaking world. "Wurst" was covered in a previous Word History. "Brat" goes back to Indo European "bhreue," which had to do with "cooking, heating, boiling, burning." This then gave Old Germanic "bredon/bredan," which meant "roast meat, roast flesh." This then gave Old High German "brado/brato/praten," with the same meaning. (By the way, it also gave Old English "braede," which meant "meat" and "braed" which meant "flesh," both of which later died out. The same base also gave German "Braten," meaning "roast.") This then gave German "Brät," meaning "lean meat, finely chopped veal or swine." By putting "lean, chopped veal or pork" into casings, this gave German "Bratwurst," the sausage we all know today. "Supposedly" the word was first borrowed into English from German in the early 1900s.

Paying The Piper-Part 8/1-An Unpleasant Ticket To The Past

Sub Part: One

While America has many political parties, usually only the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are considered to be "major," but so called "third party" candidates have, at times, garnered more than just a small percentage of the votes for any given office, although third party candidates seldom win an election. Since we don't have a parliamentary system, where members are apportioned according to the percentage of the vote by the public for each political party, our two-party system has served us pretty well. In order to attract a broad spectrum of votes, candidates from the two major parties typically either "lean" conservative, or "lean" progressive, or they are so middle of the road they are, well, right in the middle, with the more extremist types being a distinct minority. Much of that has changed over the last few decades, as conservative elements, some being very to extremely conservative, have tended to support the Republican Party. In more recent times those very to extremely conservative elements have gradually taken over the party, even going so far as to label some Republican officeholders "RINO"s ("Republicans In Name Only"), and to even suggest that these people should leave the party.*/** In the last couple of elections, Republican members of both the House and the Senate have been whittled down, with only a few exceptions, to very conservative members. Former "maverick" John McCain has now abandoned long held positions (like on immigration and bipartisanship) to hold onto his Senate seat against a very conservative Republican primary challenger. In fact, McCain now says he was never a "maverick," in spite of all the film/video footage of him over the years claiming the "maverick" mantle.

All of this leads me to the present, where some Republican candidates have made statements against things like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, pro-business Republicans have helped to give business and the wealthy interests a decided edge over anything, including common sense. All the while, income disparity has grown by leaps and bounds. With the election of George W. Bush, we saw certain parts of the economy go back to the days of the Wild West, where either there were no laws, or there was no one really interested in enforcing the scant laws on the books.*** President Bush began his second term with a push to privatize part of Social Security; an attempt that failed. The thing is, now we have some Republicans claiming Social Security, Medicare and unemployment are illegal!!!**** Many conservatives (in this case, I'm not always meaning Republicans) have had an obsession with Social Security since it became law in the mid 1930s. Some of the more modern conservatives have wanted some form of privatization, and I've written here before about my father's warning about it. My dad was a rock-ribbed Republican, but when he got older and found that Social Security did provide some "security," he told me that Republican attempts to privatize parts of it were misguided, and that business interests "can't wait to get their hands on that money!" To be continued.... (A Word History is below the notes)

* This is not to say that Democrats have not, at times, done similar, perhaps the most famous being Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to "purge" some Democratic members of Congress who hadn't been as supportive of his agenda in the 1930s. The major difference, however, is that the Democratic Party has always had such diverse segments, that Democrats have fought with each other, at times, as much as they have with Republicans. The late comedian Will Rogers said in one famous statement, "I don't belong to any organized political party; I'm a Democrat."

** This doesn't mean that all, or even a majority of, Republicans feel that way, but in our multifaceted ways of getting information these days, often times the loudest shouters, or the shrillest of the shrill, get the attention.

*** I've written many times that Republicans didn't do all of this themselves, as they had help from "some" Democrats in Congress, and within the Clinton Administration, although some of those Democrats eventually switched to become Republicans.

**** These programs are not perfect, and they will require adjustments, but the idea that they are illegal is pretty far out there to me, but look out for what's coming if these kinds of ideologues join Congress.

WORD HISTORY:
Poll-"Supposedly" this word goes back to an Indo European root, "boul," which had the notion of "round object." This gave Old Proto Germanic the offshoot "pulio," which meant "head, top." Apparently Anglo-Saxon/Old English did not have a form of this word (I couldn't find one), but it could have died out before it was ever recorded, likewise with some German dialects. English borrowed the word from Low German in the late 1200s as "pol/polle" (I found both spellings). In Low German it was "pol, poll, pole," and it not only meant "head," but also "hair of the head," and these meanings passed into English, too, although the "hair" meaning eventually died out, but it took awhile. By the 1600s (1625, according to one source) the meaning of "head" was used to mean "counting heads" during a public vote; thus "poll" and the meaning associated with elections to this day. During the early 1900s, it also came to be used for people giving opinions on various issues or candidates; thus "public opinion poll." A few centuries ago, a verb form meant "to cut hair." This then came to be applied to deeds, with a "deed poll" being a deed executed by only one person or party, and the deed copies were cut straight, and not indented. With indenture deeds/agreements, the agreement copies were cut with various jagged indentations. When legal issues arose, the copies had to fit together, showing that they were from the same agreement. (Get it?) Besides the Low German form mentioned above, Swedish dialect (not standard) has "pull," which means "head," and Danish has "puld," which means "crown of the head or hat."

The German Question, Part Forty-Four

Somewhat updated Word History, 8/22/2015


"The Customs Union" (Zollverein)

While the various German states bickered, or even worse, fought, with each other at times, a number of these states did, at times, show that they could work together. Tolls were a common means for rulers of the states to enrich themselves. Many centuries ago, a fair number of the castles of the German lands were not only built for protection, but their strategic locations also gave local rulers the means to halt travelers and traders to extract tolls from them. As the centuries passed, more Germans became involved in making (manufacturing) items. These manufacturing areas, as well as the existing agricultural regions, often placed heavy tolls on certain goods in order to force outside competitors, including those from other German states, to raise their prices, thus protecting their own product industries.

After Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna, the various German states had hundreds of tolls. The newly expanded Prussia, ruled by the Hohenzollern family, implemented measures to eliminate, or reduce, tolls within Prussia and the Hohenzollern holdings outside of Prussia itself, but to continue tolls on most outside goods coming into their territories. Other smaller German states formed alliances to do likewise. The primary exception to all of this was Austria, which sought to maintain its tolls in order to protect its agricultural and industrial areas. Gradually, other German states, mainly in the central German lands, joined the Prussian customs union, but eventually even many of the southern states joined too. Austria remained outside the "Zollverein," as it came to be called by the 1830s (see Word History, below), as not only did the Austrians want to protect certain industries, the Prussian leadership of the "Zollverein" wanted Austria excluded, in spite of calls from some other members to admit Austria.* The "Zollverein" is important in German history, because it was a prelude to Prussian leadership to unite Germany into a modern nation, with the exclusion of Austria; the "Small Germany" solution to German unity.

* Remember, if you've been following this series, a serious rivalry had developed between Austria and Prussia for dominance of German affairs and potential leadership in any unified Germany.

WORD HISTORY:
Toll-This is the noun form meaning "tax, duty, payment, fee" ("toll," as in "sound, especially of a bell," has a different history, and I'll hopefully get to it eventually). It "seems" this word goes back to Indo European "teleh" (see further below for other possibility), which had the notion of "lifting, weighing." This gave Greek, an Indo European language related to English further down the family tree, "telos," which meant "tax" (remember, in ancient times payments were often "weighed" for a specific amount, whether it was gold, silver, salt, or any other item). This later gave Greek "teloneion," a "toll house," which was then borrowed into Latin as "telonium," but in Late Latin (about 200 to 700 A.D.) it was altered into "tolonium," still meaning "toll house/custom house." It is "assumed" that the term was borrowed into Germanic, and that Old Germanic did not have a form of this word on its own, but there is a "possibility" that Old Germanic did indeed have such a form, which would make "toll" related to "tell," which originally meant "to count" ('toll'= tax, fee, so the connection to "count" is obvious, and that is why English still has "teller," usually applied to a bank employee). Old English had both "toln" and "toll," Old Frisian had "tolen," Old Norse (North Germanic) had "tollr," Old High German had "tol," which in modern German became "Zoll," Low German Saxon has "Toll," Dutch has "tol," Danish "told," Icelandic "tollur," Norwegian "toll" and Swedish "tull." I did not find a form in West Frisian. 

The German Question, Part Forty-Three

"Revolution....Sort Of" Conclusion

The revolutions in the Austrian Empire of the Habsburgs forced the government to flee Vienna a couple of times. Emperor (Kaiser, in German) Ferdinand I made concessions in an effort to bring calm to the situation.* By late 1848, Ferdinand I abdicated in favor of his nephew, Franz Josef, but not before he declared that Austria's non-German lands could not be separated from Austria, and that all of those Austrian lands should be included in a new German nation. This announcement essentially ended the debate over "Large Germany" versus "Small Germany" in the Frankfurt National Assembly, with "Small Germany" winning out, but with accommodations made for a future entry of Austria's "German settled lands" into a German nation.

In the end, all of the "separate" uprisings/revolutions failed in the German states and in the German possessions with non-German populations. I write "separate," because that's what they were. These uprisings all occurred at the same or similar times, but they were not coordinated, and that allowed each to be suppressed, although at times with great difficulty. Unlike the revolutionary elements, the monarchs of the German states were united in the idea of preserving the status quo; that is, keeping themselves in power; thus Prussia sent troops to help quell the uprising in Baden.** By and large, the soldiers in the various state armies remained loyal to their rulers. Without major defections from these forces, the German democrats (small "d" here Americans) faced an uphill struggle. Further, the German democrats were trying to do too many things; overthrow the absolute monarchies of the various states, create a national state, and create a constitution for that national state. Any one of these items in itself would have been difficult, but to attempt all three pretty much simultaneously was a daunting task.*** The democratic elements of German society were defeated, but they scared the monarchists enough to gain some concessions, at least at first, even though those concessions were often later withdrawn by the monarchies when they again held the upper hand. Some of the supporters of German democracy left for America, or elsewhere, rather than remain under absolutist monarchical rule, or for fear of being arrested and executed by the triumphant regimes.**** This put a dent in the core of German democratic forces, weakening the chances for democracy in any new united German nation.

* Ferdinand I suffered from epilepsy and mental "slowness." His father recognized his son's potential for only limited rule, as his Will allowed for a counsel of advisers to provide assistance to Ferdinand. Speculation is that while Ferdinand married, the marriage was not "fulfilled," or "consummated," as the term goes, so there were no children. By the way, "technically," Ferdinand was the head of the German Confederation, but a "deputy" actually sat in his place in Frankfurt. This was not necessarily due to his limitations, as other monarchs sent "deputies" in their places, too, but it just was not practical, especially with uprisings still occurring in many places. Ferdinand's medical problems and his initial support for concessions to the revolutionaries were what led to his abdication, as the conservative monarchists wanted a stronger emperor, and one with no ties to compromises with democratic elements.

** This then gave Prussia a southern German state as an ally; something that was quite different, as the southern German states had traditionally supported Austria as the leading German state.

*** Remember, Americans, or more correctly, the American colonists, defeated the British, allowing a new nation to be formed, and THEN came a constitution. In the interim, any substantial British military forces were far away, and the changed situation, American independence, posed a major supply problem for any attempt by the British to return large forces to America, unless they came from Canada. In France, the revolution wasn't about "founding" a French nation, France already existed as a unified nation.

**** There are often comments by American politicians regarding the lack of "capital punishment" in Europe, and indeed, the repugnant view of capital punishment by many Europeans, including Germans. We need to remember that Germans and other Europeans lived under repressive regimes for centuries, where death penalties were arbitrarily meted out and often with little, or any, appeal for commutation. Germans (and Europeans) are much more aware of how "capital punishment" can be abused. America has had a system based upon a constitution and basic rights for over two hundred years now, even though some people have been treated less than equally under our laws, like Irish (Catholic) immigrants in the 1800s, Chinese laborers in the 1800s, and black Americans pre and post slavery, for example. Still, in more recent decades, except for a few "haters," most Americans are appalled when the legal process is not properly applied. I hope that continues to strengthen. (NOTE: 8-6-22: The January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol Building has brought the arrests of hundreds, but it remains to be seen if any of the leaders and instigators of this attack will be held to account.)

WORD HISTORY:
Gesundheit-This word, exclaimed when someone sneezes, is a borrowing from German. One source (other sources are vague about its entry into English) indicates that it came into English in the early 1900s, but my "guess" is, it was well before that, and more than likely came to English from German immigrants to America. Whether this exclamation is even used much, or at all, in England is unknown to me. Its Indo European ancestry is uncertain (although some linguists believe it has ties to Slavic and Indo-Iranian, which are Indo European languages related to English further down the family tree), but it goes back to Old Germanic "swintaz/sundas," which had the notions of "strong, sturdy, safe." This gave the West Germanic offshoot "gasundaz" (English, German, Dutch, Frisian, Yiddish are all "West Germanic"). This then gave Old High German "gisunt," followed by Middle High German "gesunt," which then gave German the noun form "Gesundheit," which means "health, healthiness." By the way, the West Germanic form gave Old English "gesund," with the "ge" prefix later being dropped and the spelling changing to "sound," as in "strong, safe" ("The bridge is sound") and also "healthy, good health, well" ("sound in body and mind"). Other Germanic languages have: German and Low German have "gesund" and Dutch has "gezond," Danish has "sundt," Norwegian has "sunt," Swedish has "sund." and West Frisian has "sûn." Apparently Icelandic does not use a form of the word. Further, and just for fun here, a variation of the Old Germanic word also gave German "Geschwind," which means "fast, quick," and is part of the German word "Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung," or "speed limit." Say that real fast three times! German is known for its combinations of words into one "word," or maybe "paragraph" might be a better term! Until next time...."Ahhhhhhh choooooooo!!!"

Hitler The Jew?

Recently, DNA samples were gathered from some of Hitler's relatives, only to give some credibility to what many had suspected about Hitler for quite some time, that he was part Jewish, and that he certainly was not pure "Aryan." Understand, this is not conclusive, but some of the family genetic matter traces back to Berber people from North Africa. Berbers are a people historically, and to this day, mainly located in Morocco, Algeria, Libya or Tunisia. This genetic material also is fairly common in European Jews, and many Jews went to Europe via North Africa centuries ago.

Hitler's father was illegitimate, being born to an unwed mother whose family name was Schicklgruber.* Hitler's father, Alois, went by "Alois Schicklgruber" well into adulthood, as his mother supposedly never revealed to anyone who her son's father was. She later married a "Hitler," also spelled "Hiedler," and I believe I've even seen the spelling "Hüttler." Many people in those times did not have much education, so it is my understanding that spelling variations were quite common, and don't forget those German dialects with different pronunciations I mention so often here. A word can be pronounced a particular way in one town, and somewhat, to very, differently just a village or two away. Many German dialects never had, and still do not have, "standardized" spellings, either. Anyway, I guess it is safe to say that we still don't know for sure who Hitler's grandfather was. Many stories surfaced over the years, even before Hitler gained power, but whether any of these stories is true, or whether they were just done to discredit him is another matter. While we now see Hitler as having been a powerful, ruthless dictator, we have to remember he started out in that often less than honest profession of "politics." Lots of potentially damaging stories circulate about virtually all politicians, but how much of the information is true or false is the question, not that I'm expecting a roaring tide to come forth seeking "fairness" to Hitler.

I haven't kept up on all of the stories about Hitler and other Nazi leaders for quite some time, so you might want to double check my information, and it is extremely difficult to sort out fact from fiction on such a nefarious figure as Hitler, but I recall that it was said a while back, that Reinhard Heydrich, a high-ranking officer in the SS, especially in the department dealing with "intelligence" matters; that is, elements that initially gathered information on German citizens, including German Jews, and then later on citizens in occupied areas of Europe; the best known being the Gestapo,** allegedly found out information about Hitler's ancestry, which he kept in a highly secret file available only to him. The rumor was that the info showed Hitler to be part Jewish, otherwise, why would Heydrich have kept it so secret, or so the rumor went. Whether any such info was uncovered in captured SS records, I don't know for certain, but I doubt it, as it certainly would have been major news, especially now with this DNA testing of Hitler's relatives.*** Rumors had surfaced that Hitler's actual grandfather had been Jewish, and that his grandmother had worked for a Jewish family named Frankenberg, whose (then) teenage son was "supposedly" the father of her child. "Supposedly" the rumors about Hitler's ancestry troubled him so much, that he asked one of his close Nazi advisers, Hans Frank, to delve into his ancestry and report the findings to him. "Supposedly" Frank gave an "all clear," thus easing Hitler's mind.****

Of course, if the Jewish ancestry can be proven to be true, this would be the most tragic of ironies; Hitler the hate-filled murderer of so many Jews, a part Jew himself. Traudl Junge, one of his personal secretaries, said in an interview not long before she died (she was in her 80s), that if she could have still asked Hitler one question, it would have been if he would have gassed himself, if he had found out he was part Jewish.

* If I remember correctly, William L. Shirer, a correspondent for CBS in Germany during much of the time of Hitler's rise and prewar rule, speculated humorously in his book "The Rise and Fall Of The Third Reich," that he doubted Adolf Hitler could have become ruler of Germany if his father had not changed the family name from Schicklgruber, because he couldn't imagine Germans screaming "Heil Schicklgruber!!!" In one of those short "Three Stooges' " films from during the war, a picture of Hitler is shown, and I believe it is Moe who screams, "Yikes, it's Schicklgruber!"

** The word "Gestapo" was created by lumping abbreviations together to form the word; in this case, Geheime Staats Polizei, or "Secret State Police." The organization became so well known for its terror tactics, that I imagine any survivors from those times still shudder at the mere mention of the word.

*** During the course of the war, especially in its waning days, and thereafter, literally tons and tons of Nazi military and government documents were captured by the Allies and the Soviet Union. Those records captured by the Western Allies were microfilmed and are available in the U.S. Archives in Washington, D.C. I believe the original records were eventually returned to the then "West" German government. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the records they captured from the Nazis have become available, and historians are still "mining" information from those records. It is my understanding, however, that there are still records and artifacts (including some of Hitler's blood, for a possible DNA sample) in Russian possession that are highly classified and unavailable to the public. Since the Russians were the ones who captured Berlin, they must have made a major haul on German documents; after all, Berlin was the capital.

**** I don't recall everything on this, but "supposedly" there were no Jews living in the town where Hitler's grandmother resided at that time, thus "supposedly" debunking the rumor. Of course, there were no DNA tests back then, and so "evidence" had to be circumstantial, just as genealogists have done to this day, unless, more recently, DNA samples are available and the person/people are willing to pay for such testing. If all of the recent tests prove to be true about Hitler himself, it makes me wonder how many other Nazi leaders may have had Jewish ancestry or other ancestry so incompatible with Nazi "nonsense"...I mean, ideology; then again, I believe I'll stand by my original word.

WORD HISTORY:
Blood-This word seems to go back to the Indo European root "bhel" (with the concept of "bloom, come forth") and the derived form "bhlo," which meant "gush, spurt, burst out" (again, the base notion of "come forth" is present). The Old Germanic offshoot was "blodam," which then gave Old English/Anglo-Saxon "blod," which seems to have had a long "o" sound before later softening and the eventual "oo" was used in spelling. It is very common in the other Germanic languages: German has "Blut," Low Saxon German has "bloot," Letzeburgisch (a German dialect spoken primarily in Luxembourg) has "blutt," Kölsch (the dialect of Cologne) has "bloohdt," Dutch and Frisian have "bloed," Danish, Swedish and Norwegian all have "blod," and Icelandic has "blóð."