The German Question, Part Fifty-Nine

"Bismarck" Part Five/D "Bismarck as Chancellor & A Treaty With 'Contentious Relatives' "
"Ethnic Minorities in Bismarckian Germany/"East/North Addendum"

I found some very good information about minorities in Germany since I published the last few articles on this subject as part of this series. The info is from a census from December 1900, which is a bit ahead of our story, but I would certainly believe it gives a pretty good representation of what things were like in Germany a couple of decades prior. It is a breakdown of minorities by "language," not by what people considered themselves to be ethnically. In some cases, I believe this might skew the numbers. How? Let's say your parents came to America from country "XYZ." They wanted their kids to grow up being purely Americans, so you don't really speak the language of "XYZ,"....ah..."XYZan," I'll call it. When the census is taken and one of the questions is often about your ethnic background, you check "XYZ." Under the system in this German census, you would not be counted as a minority, because you don't speak "XYZan." Now, if that's not as clear as mud, I can try again. (What's that loud "No" I hear? Just because you can't speak "XYZan," no need to get hostile!)

So here are some numbers for minorities already covered in the last few articles: there were more than 3 million Polish speakers in Germany; most would have been in the far eastern areas, although some in the Ruhr (which is in the west), as industrial workers. "Masurisch" and "Kassubisch" (Masurian and Kashubian) had 142,000 and 100,000, respectively.* Danish speakers accounted for 141,000, almost all in Schleswig. Lithuanian speakers, 106,000, in the (then) far northeastern corner of  Germany. Wendish (also called "Sorbian") speakers, 93,000, in the "Lausitz" region, down near and along the modern Czech border. There were 100,000 speakers of Czech and Moravian, I would believe mainly in the Silesia region (again, near the modern Czech border).** (A Word History is below the notes)

* Masurian is a Slavic language closely related to Polish that was spoken in the eastern areas of Prussia, also known as "East Prussia." The speakers of Masurian were mainly Protestant Poles (most Poles remained staunchly Catholic), and they fit in nicely with the mainly Protestant German population in the area. Eventually, most came to consider themselves as "Germans." Kashubian is another Slavic language (or Polish dialect, depending upon point of view) that was spoken along the Baltic Sea coast, including the area in and around Danzig (Gdansk, in Polish). A majority of Kashubians were Catholic, which brought them into conflict with Bismarck, although as far as I am aware, they all spoke German, too, and probably some even  spoke Low German, as that was common in that area. Further, their predominant religion and close linguistic relationship with Polish made many Kashubians "suspect" in the eyes of German nationalists. Many Kashubians never fully integrated into "German society." Their homeland has been a part of Poland since the end of World War Two. The Kashubians figured somewhat in the rather famous novel "The Tin Drum" ("Die Blechtrommel") by German author Günter Grass, as the novel is set most often in and around Danzig. Grass was part Kashubian from his mother's side. 

** Moravian is a dialect of Czech.

WORD HISTORY:
Leber/Liver-"Wurst" was covered earlier, as was "Brat," so here is "Leber," as in Leberwurst, or liverwurst. As you can already see, "Leber" and "liver" are closely related. They go back to the Indo European root "leip," which had the notion of "adhere, stick, be sticky," with references to blood and to fat." Indo European "leip" is also the ancient ancestor of "live," which in German is "leben."^ In ancient times, many people believed the liver produced blood, probably due to its reddish-brown color; thus the tie to "live" and also "life," the related word in German is "Leib," which tends to mean "(living) body," as opposed to dead body/corpse, "Leiche." The Indo European root gave Old Germanic "libra/libera." This then gave Old English "lifer" and Old High German "lebara." The Old English form then became "lyver(e)," before the modern form. There are various forms throughout the Germanic languages: standard German "Leber," Low (Saxon) German has "Lebber," West Frisian, Dutch, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian all have "lever," Icelandic has "lifur," and Luxemburgisch (a German dialect to some, a language to others) has "Liewer."

^ Liver is also distantly related to "lipo," when it refers to "fat," as in "liposuction." "Lipo" is from Greek.  

The German Question, Part Fifty-Eight

Bismarck" Part Five/C "Bismarck as Chancellor & A Treaty With 'Contentious Relatives' "

"Ethnic Minorities in Bismarckian Germany/(North)West"

In the western part of Germany, there were tens of thousands of Danes living in the northern part of Schleswig, called "Nordschleswig," in German, and "Sønderjylland," in Danish; that is, "South Jutland" (see earlier articles in this series about Schleswig). The region borders on Denmark, and the main city in the area was Flensburg. Danish language newspapers were common in the area, and as it had not been all that long since this area came under Prussian rule (then a few years later under a united Germany), there was still strong pro-Danish sentiment among the Danish minority (in some local areas, there was a Danish majority). Just as it was with other minorities, these Danes were now German citizens and were protected by the German Constitution.* Former Danish inhabitants of Schleswig with strong pro-Denmark feelings came back over the border into Schleswig (now we're talking about non-German citizens NOT protected by the constitution), some taking jobs with the Danish language newspapers.** As part of the crackdown by Bismarck and his government, they were often expelled from Germany or arrested. Gradually, German became the only language of instruction in schools, but Danish did not falter as much as German officials had hoped, and North Schleswig remained Danish in character, although German settlers from other parts of Germany began to be more of a presence in Danish areas. While this is getting ahead of sequence, just to sort of tie this up, after World War One, a public vote was held in the northern and central regions of Schleswig to determine if the border between Denmark and Germany should be altered (southern Schleswig was heavily German, and no vote was needed). The vote in the north was 75% for return to Denmark (the 25% shows the inroads Germans had made, however), while in the central area, which included Flensburg, it was 80% for remaining with Germany. In 1920, the northern region was ceded by Germany to Denmark, along with a fairly small German minority. It has remained this way ever since, although eventually both Germany and Denmark both permitted their respective minorities to use their own language without persecution. (A Word History is below the notes)

* When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, the United States had many people who had come here as immigrants, especially from Europe. Some came here as far back as around 1900, give or take a few years. There was a tendency to use the term "nationality" in reference to a person's "background," but often this term was incorrect, at least as to how it was often meant back then. A person's "nationality" simply means the country (nation) where you have citizenship. A little later, the term "ethnic background" became more popular, and this was often what many Americans had previously meant when they used "nationality." In the previous segment, I covered the Poles living in Germany. Their "nationality" was "German," as they were German citizens, but their "ethnic background" was "Polish." In a country as large as the United States, and with most people having come here of their own free will (with the huge exception during the time of slavery) it is easy to forget that in other parts of the world, like Europe, national borders were seldom set by "ethnicity," and often many different "ethnic groups" lived relatively close to one another, even overlapping. "King XYZ of Pneumonia" wanted the iron ore of "Prince ABC of Diphtheria," and he got possession of it by a deal or by war. The population's "ethnic background" was immaterial, and they became "citizens" of "Pneumonia" (what's that deep cough I hear?). Hm, I wonder what the "Duke of Tuberculosis" had? (Hey, there's a hacking cough.) During the 1800s and later, "ethnicity" began to matter much more to people in Europe, as we saw in the fairly recent articles I did in this series about the Austrian Empire, where its minorities wanted either independence, or, like the Italian minority, wanted to become part of Italy. All in all, the term "nationality" is still misused at times.

** When Prussia took control of Schleswig, many thousands of Danes chose to move into Denmark. Later some of these people, unhappy with their situations, crossed back into Schleswig. Who knows how many, but it certainly would not seem to be unreasonable to assume "most" hoped for a return of Danish rule to Schleswig.

WORD HISTORY:
Schön/Sheen-Since I did "Danke" in the last segment, this word is often paired with it, and in fact, there was a famous American song by Wayne Newton called "Danke Schön" (pronounced similarly, but not exactly, like "shane," and it can also be spelled "Schoen"). Many of you may already know that it is the German equivalent to "Thank you very much." Anyway, you get two words again (Hey, I'm going to have to start charging double...let's see...what's 2 x 0?"). There are differing opinions about the ultimate origin of these words. Some believe them to be related to "shine" ("Schein" in German, for all practical purposes pronounced just like its English cousin), and certainly "sheen/schön" are similar in appearance and meaning to "shine." For those unaware, "sheen" means "lustre, gleam, glistening beauty." Its German relative, "schön," means "beautiful (of objects, and also for women), handsome (for men), nice, pretty." The German word is still used far, far more than we use "sheen" in English, and it is used in many expressions, just like "Danke schön," to add emphasis ("danke schön," literally "thanks beautifully," but really, "thanks a lot"). Other linguists feel there is no connection between "sheen/schön" and "shine," except coincidence. You can take your pick, but I tend to favor the idea that there is a relationship, but that's just my opinion. It seems Shakespeare is given credit for using "sheen" (then spelled "sheene") in the noun form, circa 1600. Both "sheen/schön" go back to Old Germanic "skaunaz/skauniz," which then gave Old English "sciene/scene" (the "sc" being pronounced as modern "sh"), and Old High German "sconi/skoni." Later in English the spelling became "shene," while in German it became "schoen." All sources agree that the Old Germanic form came from Indo European, but which root is the question. I prefer "skeu." "Skeu" had the notion of "look at, pay attention to, be aware of." It is the original source of "shine" and "show," which, by the way, in German is "schau(en)," in the verb form ("Schau" as a noun). The idea is, a person would be "aware of, pay attention to," something that "shines, glistens, is beautiful." There are various forms in the Germanic languages besides English "sheen" and German "schön:" Low German has "schöön," "Dutch has "schoon," Norwegian has "skjønn," Swedish has "skön," Danish has "skøn." I could not find a form in either Icelandic nor West Frisian (although Old Norse had "skjoni" and Frisian once had "skene"). By the way, "sheen/schön" are related to English "scone," the cake/cookie, which seems to have come from Scottish English from Dutch "schoonbroot," or "fine, glistening bread." Of course, in this case, English uses the hard "c" sound. Hey, now that's THREE words! What's 3 x 0?

The German Question, Part Fifty-Seven

"Bismarck" Part Five/B "Bismarck as Chancellor & A Treaty With 'Contentious Relatives' "
"Ethnic Minorities in Bismarckian Germany/East"

Bismarck and other Germans feared a repeat of what had been happening in Austria for quite some time, and the major reason Austria was no longer a part of Germany; that is, large areas of territory governed by German Austrians, but with non-German majorities (namely: Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians/Ruthenians, Rumanians, Slovenians, Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Italians, and some others, including Jews. I never feel comfortable listing Jews separately, but they were often seen that way by the Germans and by the various other groups I've listed above; and, that perceived "separateness" will play a major part in the ugly tragedy I will be covering in the not too distant future as a part of this series). In then northeastern Bismarckian Germany (within the state of Prussia), there was a fairly substantial Lithuanian population (more than 100,000), many of whom, unlike the solidly Catholic Lithuanians just over the border, were Lutherans. They spoke both German and Lithuanian, and they maintained their Lithuanian culture with Lithuanian language newspapers and community groups. While certainly not all agreed, from what I've read, the overwhelming majority supported Prussia, and then, upon unification, Germany, in their allegiance.* Likewise was the case with the Slavic elements in and around the city of Danzig, and other small Slavic minorities along the Baltic coastal area, and in eastern parts of Prussia (to clarify: they were minorities in the overall sense of Prussia, but they "may" have actually had local majorities in "some" communities). They too spoke their own Slavic dialects, but they also spoke German, with many using German as a first language. Many were also Lutheran, although a fairly small portion maintained their adherence to Catholicism.** Where there was a major difference was in those former Polish territories taken by Prussia in the late 1700s, early 1800s, the city of "Posen" ("Poznan," in Polish) being one of the major cities.*** Here not everyone spoke German as a first, or even as a second, language, and Polish was the every day language of a majority of the population. The region's population was around 1,750,000, and about two-thirds of that was Polish. The Poles remained Catholics, whereas the German minority in the region was largely Lutheran, with only a small percentage of Germans there being Catholic.****

Bismarck's "Kulturkampf" and later laws forbade the use of Polish in Catholic Mass. Polish language religious schools were closed, with German language schools substituted. The government then tried to buy Polish-owned land, usually farmland, and sell it to new "German" settlers. Further, Poles were forbidden to build new homes. Later, the government even tried to force Poles to sell their properties. Overall the policy failed, as too few "Germans" were willing to resettle in the region. Poles and Jews "identified" as Russian citizens were sent to Russia, and the border was closed to admitting Poles.^

The whole process only intensified Polish nationalism and the desire of Poles to see a rebirth of an independent Polish nation.

Next, "minorities in the western areas".... (A Word History is below the notes)

* Lithuania itself was then a part of the Russian Empire, which had a far less tolerant government concerning Lithuanian language and culture, and where publications in Lithuanian were suppressed. Lithuanian is a language classified by some linguists as "Baltic," and by other linguists as "Balto-Slavic." It is related to Latvian and to the now "dead language," Prussian. The last speaker of Prussian, by all accounts, passed on in the 1700s. The names "Prussia" and "Prussians" continued, but they were adopted by the German settlers to that area centuries before. Since the end of World War Two, due to other nations' strong association of Prussia with German militarism and aggression, the state of "Prussia" was abolished.

** The Wends (or Sorbs), in the region (called "Lausitz" in German; rendered as "Lusatia in English) somewhat south of Berlin, down to what is now the border with the Czech Republic, were similar. They tended to speak both German and Sorbian (a minority spoke only Sorbian) and they were a mixture of Lutheran and Catholic. A couple of the main cities of the region are Bautzen and Cottbus. Today, the number of Sorbian speakers (about 50,000 to 60,000) is quite diminished from Bismarck's time, when somewhere between 150,000 to 200,000 people spoke Sorbian as a first or second language in the region, as today most people prefer German only.

*** Silesia ("Schlesien" in German, "Śląsk" in Polish ) was another region where some areas had Polish majorities.

**** More than a quarter million Poles left the Polish areas of eastern Germany to work in the heavily industrialized Ruhr area in western Germany. There, they endured various persecutions, including special ID cards and suppression of Polish festivities, as well as the same persecutions as German Catholics, because of their staunch Catholicism. Since those times, the "mixing" (assimilation) of Poles with Germans in the region has eliminated this Polish minority.

^ In those times, the vast bulk of Polish territory, including Warsaw, was part of the Russian Empire, and thus Germany and Russia shared a common border.

WORD HISTORY:
Danke (Thanks)-This word is pretty well known in English, and it simply means "thanks." It, like its English cousin "thank," go back to Indo European "tong," which meant "to think, to feel," and yes, it is related to our word "think" and to German "denk(en)," which also means "to think." A variant Indo European form, "teng," had the notion of "being thoughtful, having grateful thoughts, to think of in a grateful way," to the act of expressing such. The Indo European form gave Old Germanic "thanka(z)." This then gave Old English "thankian," and Old High German "dancon." Later English dropped the ending, giving it the modern word. The Old High German form then became "danken," and that is still the same today. The shortened form in German, "danke," comes from "Ich danke," meaning "I thank." The 1500s saw the negative expression of blame, as in, "Thanks to you being so slow, we are now late for the concert." The noun "thank," now more commonly expressed in the plural, "thanks," is from the idea of "a thought of gratitude." Besides the German and English forms, the other Germanic languages have: Low German has "dank," Dutch has "danken," Frisian has "tank," Danish has "tak," Swedish has "tacka," Norwegian has "takk," Icelandic has "thakka." Notice that Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Icelandic, all from the North Germanic branch of Germanic, have lost the "n" sound.

Revised Word History: "Krieg"

I did some more research on the German word "Krieg," most often used in English as part of the compound "Blitzkrieg." So here is a revised and expanded history of the word:

Krieg-Since I did "Blitz" earlier, here is the "krieg" part of the compound. First, interestingly Old Germanic did not seem to have any one word for "war." Our English word goes back to a meaning of "confuse, mix," but this didn't come into English until the 1100s (see link below). "Presumably" Old English also had a word similar to "krieg," although I have not found it. It seems that the continental Germanic languages, besides German, used a form of "krieg" for their word for "war" too, but this seems to have come about AFTER the Germanic tribes (Anglo-Saxons) settled in Britain. So here's what I found: "Krieg" goes back to a form of the Indo European root "g(w)er," which had the notion of "heavy," and maybe also "strength" (if something is "heavy" it takes "strength" to lift of move it). A form of the root was "gwerg" (this is NOT carved in stone, but I believe the "w" was not so much a separate sound, but rather a combination with the "g," which had a hard sound, as in "give," and the "w" was more of a "v" sound). This gave Old Germanic "kreg/krig," which meant "stubbornness." (I'm wondering if this meant more specifically "stubbornness in defense?" This would sure give it a tie in to later mean "war.") This then gave Old High German "krig," with the same meaning. Old High German is a term linguists use to denote the Germanic dialect that developed not long after the Germanic tribes that went to Britain left the Continent. It is the ancestor of modern German, just as Old English, or Anglo-Saxon, is the ancestor of modern English. Both English and German are West Germanic, which then goes back to Old Germanic, and then back to Indo European. Later the form "kriec" developed, with the meaning "strain, endeavor" (presumably one has to strain or make great endeavor to be stubborn, although I found one explanation essentially saying that "stubbornness" leads to "conflict") and this then developed into the meaning "war." Besides standard German "Krieg," the other Germanic relatives of English have: Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish all have "krig;" Dutch has both "krijg" and "oorlog," Low German has "Oorlog," Frisian has "kriich," and Icelandic has "stríð," which is a relative of our words "strife" and "stride."

For the history of the word "war," see:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/07/german-question-part-twenty-four.html

The German Question, Part Fifty-Six

"Bismarck" Part Five/A "Bismarck as Chancellor & A Treaty With 'Contentious Relatives' "

Just a note about Luxemburg/Luxembourg to start: Luxembourg remained an independent country and a possession of the Dutch throne, but it also remained a member of the German Customs Union ("Zollverein"), thus, giving it continued strong ties to Germany without being a member state.

So with a newly united nation, Bismarck set out in his mind to strengthen that unity. Germany was a nation with a predominately Protestant north, and with a predominately Catholic south.* Now that staunchly Catholic Austria was excluded from the new nation, and with Protestant Prussia having led the unification efforts, Protestantism was the favored religion, and most positions in the national government were occupied by Protestants. The Papacy had been controversial for centuries, and not only in the German territories, but within Christianity as a whole. The Catholic Church was organized to control matters and adherents of the Church, with a central authority in Rome. With such a governing system, non Catholics always feared that adherents to Catholicism would have divided loyalties between Church and state.**

Bismarck was the "Reichskanzler" of Germany ("Imperial Chancellor," or "prime minister," for a term better known to many English speaking people), but he also was still the head of the government of Prussia. In his first few years as head of the new government, Bismarck implemented policies to try to lessen the influence of the Catholic Church in Germany, and sometimes just in Prussia. Further, there were efforts to "Germanize" Jews, Poles, and Wends (Sorbians). This overall approach to lessen various influences in Germany came to be known as the "Kulturkampf," or "Culture War;" although, some historians limit the term to the attempt to lessen Catholic influence. To be brief here, over time, the laws to lessen Catholic influence: forbade clergy from discussing or preaching about political matters to congregants, under threat of imprisonment; banished the Jesuits from Germany; gave the government the right to inspect religious schools; gave the government the right to train, appoint, and discipline members of the clergy; removed marriage from religious control to that of the "civil authorities." Clergy who protested the laws were arrested. The measures and their enforcement inflamed relations between the German government and the Papacy, with Bismarck literally breaking off diplomatic contacts with the Pope. This war against the Catholic Church, instigated by German nationalists and by the German government, enforced by German police and civil authorities, was an ominous precursor to what would come a little more than six decades later.

The overall measures against Catholic influence had some success, but it also had many negatives, including the negative view of such among some foreign nations, especially those with strong Catholic traditions. Political parties were growing in Germany, and Catholics rallied to the "Catholic Center Party," which gained in popularity, and which also contained traditional conservative Catholics, something Bismarck eventually needed politically. The whole matter tarnished Bismarck's reputation to some extent, and he reconciled with the Papacy to some degree when a new Pope took over the Catholic Church in 1878.

To be continued with Bismarck's attempts to "Germanize" the non-German population..... (A Word History is below the notes)

* Notice in both cases I used the word "predominantly." Especially in the north, there were some especially strong Catholic areas, including parts of the Rhineland, part of Alsace and part of Lorraine in the west. Then there were the staunchly Catholic Poles, and some German Catholics in the eastern part of the country. The southern areas were more uniformly Catholic, but there were some Protestants there.

** This was also the case in America. Catholic candidates, especially for high office, were often overtly and covertly thought to be puppets for the Papacy, which was trying to take control of the country. For those old enough to remember, when John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, ran for President, many Protestants openly said how the Pope would give Kennedy his orders, if Kennedy won the election. I can distinctly remember some people saying, "We're going to be controlled from 'across the pond.' " Kennedy won, and all Americans did not suddenly become members of the Knights of Columbus, don Rosary Beads, attend six o'clock Mass, or say "Hail Marys," except in reference to long, desperate passes by quarterbacks on the football field. To be honest, however, in Bismarck's time, the Church had much more direct influence on many of its members than it seemingly has in more modern times, although the Papacy had been dealt a serious blow as a result of the "Franco-Prussian War," which was just covered in the previous installments here. Because of the war, Napoleon III withdrew his troops from their protection of the Papacy role in Rome. This permitted Italian troops to enter Papal territory and for Italy to annex the territory to the still relatively new Italian nation. Rome, which had been named the capital of the new nation nearly a decade before, then truly became the seat of the Italian government.

WORD HISTORY:
Krieg-Since I did "Blitz" earlier, here is the "krieg" part of the compound. First, interestingly the Germanic languages did not seem to have a common word for "war." I could not find a lot of information on this word; thus its origin is unknown to me. It goes back to Old High German "krig," which supposedly meant "stubbornness." Old High German is a term linguists use to denote the Germanic dialect that developed not long after the Germanic elements that went to Britain left the Continent, and it is the direct ancestor of modern German. Later the form "kriec" developed, with the meaning "strain, endeavor," and this then developed into the meaning "war."

For an updated version, see:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/11/revised-word-history.html

For "Blitz," see: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/11/german-question-part-fifty-two.html

The German Question, Part Fifty-Five

"Bismarck" Part 4/D  "The Germans Unite...Sort Of-The Founding Of Modern Germany"

Historically, there was overlap between the Franco-Prussian War and political events that united the Germans. I chose to keep the two things separate, except for the treaty that ended the war and expanded German territory.

The "Treaty of Frankfurt" officially ended the war between the German Empire and France (the Germans united just prior to the French defeat; thus it was the German Empire; see below). One of the main provisions of the treaty was that France ceded to Germany the province of Alsace (Elsass, in German) and about a third of Lorraine (Lothringen, in German). Those areas were still heavily German in character in those times.* The predominately French areas were left as part of France, except as I will mention later. As part of Germany, the majority German territories were united into a province called "Reichsland Alsace-Lorraine," or simply "Alsace-Lorraine," which although incorrect, is still how many non-Frenchmen, at least many Americans, refer to the area.

When Prussia formed the "North German Confederation" after excluding Austria from German affairs in 1866, Bismarck implemented a basic constitution for member states. That constitution was essentially what became the constitution of a united Germany. Remember, Bismarck was not a democrat (small "d," Americans), but a monarchist. He understood the political realities of his times, however, and he chose to bring change, first to Prussia, and then to a united Germany, on his own terms; thus his constitution should not be thought of as comparable to that of the U.S., or many other free societies, but it did begin a process of more freedoms for Germans. It made the Prussian king the automatic "Kaiser" ("emperor") of the German Empire.** The new empire was a federation; that is, it had a national (actually, imperial) government, but also individual state governments. The state governments were still controlled by various noble families of varying titles (king, prince, grand duke, etc), so they were still "monarchical," too. The Kaiser was also the President of the Bundesrat, or "Federal Council." This council had to agree to all legislation, and it essentially consisted of representatives of the state "monarchies." Then there was a major democratic element; "the Reichstag." It consisted of representatives chosen by the people in a secret ballot, although in those times, "the people" meant "men 25 years and older." The Kaiser had the power to appoint the head of the government, the "Reichskanzler," or Chancellor, who headed a number of ministerial offices. This kept power in the hands of the Kaiser, since the Chancellor was not connected in any way to a vote of the people. German "national" citizenship was established, overriding the citizenship previously granted by the individual states. The Kaiser could declare war, make treaties, and conduct foreign policy. He was also head of the military. Most other matters were in the hands of the individual states, which also oversaw any national laws. This constitution was signed by the monarchs of the various states, including the south German states which had remained outside of the North German Confederation. On January 18, 1871, King Wilhelm I of Prussia was crowned Kaiser Wilhelm I of the German Empire in the Palace of Versailles, France (the war with France was still ongoing). The official name of the new nation was "das Deutsche Reich," "the German Empire."

So, we have come a long way since the days when a multitude of ancient Germanic tribes were roaming over parts of Europe, including those which settled in Britain and established England; thus giving the world the English language. We have seen groups thought of as "Germans" by many, gradually split off to form new nationalities; the Dutch, the Swiss Germans, the Liechtensteiners, but most painfully, the Austrian Germans. So while the Germans finally united into a modern nation, it lacked a group that had been a substantial part of German history, but this was still not the end of possible Austrian participation in Germany.*** (A Word History is below the notes)

Next, "Bismarck as Chancellor & A Treaty With 'Contentious Relatives' "

* Since the end of World War Two, both areas have become less German in character, as French has overtaken the German and German dialects of these areas, although there have been more recent local attempts to promote the dialects, perhaps more out of quaintness, and also the fact that Germany and France are far less hostile to one another these days. Hitler's crimes certainly made the people of Alsace and the "German" part of Lorraine (for lack of a better term) put distance between themselves and any association with Germany. Sources are sketchy, but just to put a number onto things, only about 35-40% of the people in Alsace still speak German fluently, and in the former "German part" of Lorraine, it is perhaps only 20%. The German dialects of the two areas are different, as the Alsatian German dialect (Elsässisch), traces back to the old Germanic tribe, the Alemanns, as do the German dialects in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, extreme western Austria and southwestern Germany. The German dialect of Lorraine traces back to the Germanic tribe, the Franks.

** Remember in the "old" German Empire (the Holy Roman Empire), the German emperor was chosen by special electors (Kurfürsten) from certain German states. While not exactly democratic, at least there was an election, and while eventually the Habsburg family of Austria came to dominate the process, they technically were not the hereditary emperors. Under Bismarck's constitution, the Prussian king was always to be the German Kaiser; no election required for either position, but rather always hereditary.

*** Lest we forget, while most of the inhabitants of the new German Empire were indeed Germans, or at least declared themselves to be Germans, there were still a fairly substantial number of people of Polish heritage in the eastern areas, and some people of French heritage in the western areas; namely Alsace, Lorraine, and the Saarland area. A few people of Danish heritage were in the north, in Schleswig, and while many people likely considered the Frisian population in the north to be "German," many linguists and ethnographers (people who study ethnic groups), but not necessarily all, saw them separately, at least at that point in time, and into the near future, although they gradually "became Germans." Further, a group of Slavic people, usually referred to as "Sorbians," resided somewhat south of Berlin, down near the border with what is now the Czech Republic" (the area known as "Lausitz," in German, or usually rendered as "Lusatia," in English). In those times they retained their own Slavic language and culture, although I believe many, if not most, also spoke German. Today, the number of fluent Sorbian speakers has diminished quite significantly, and all also speak German.

WORD HISTORY:
Mustard-Germans have various types of mustard, including sweet, which tends to be more common in Bavaria. I know several Americans who were stationed in Germany during the Cold War, or otherwise lived there for a period. They all swear by German mustard being the best in the world. While I like mustard, I'm more of a ketchup guy, so I'll defer to these people. Anyway, Germans generally call mustard "Senf," a word which traces back to Latin ("sinapi(s)," and Latin got it from Greek (transliterated "sinapi(s)"). Its history prior to that is uncertain, with some suggesting that it is not derived from Indo European, but a borrowing from perhaps North Africa or the Middle East. In the northeastern part of Germany (including Berlin), there is a tendency to use the word, "Mostrich," which is related to the word "mustard" (at least the first part, see below).

The English word "mustard" goes back to Indo European "meus," which meant, "wetness, dampness." This gave Latin "mustum," which meant "new wine." Long ago, the seeds of the mustard plant were crushed and mixed with new wine to form an old form of mustard, and this passed to Old French as "moustarde." English borrowed the word in the 1200s. "Mustard" is related to "must" (NOT to the verb, as in, "You must not do that") which usually refers to grape juice, as does German "Most," which tends to be southern in usage and can also still mean new wine, but also cloudy fruit juice or cider, not necessarily just grape juice.

The German Question, Part Fifty-Four

"Bismarck" Part 4/C "The Defeat Of France"

There are numerous sources for those interested in the actual battles during the Franco-Prussian War, but my dealings with such will be very limited.

In the war between France and the Germans, the French had a slight advantage in rifles, as their guns were of more modern design than the German guns. The Germans certainly had a big advantage in artillery, as the French artillery pieces were still muzzle-loaded, which took time, and the German guns were the new and much more rapid fire breech-loading guns. The Germans eventually also had a numerical advantage in manpower, as they were able to mobilize more than a million men (about one and a quarter million, by most sources), while the French eventually had slightly less than a million men, although their initial forces seemingly were a bit larger than what was available to the Germans. The Germans mobilized their forces far faster than thought possible by the French commanders. Further, the French thought the south German states would join the war AGAINST Prussia, as the secret alliances between Prussia and these states had indeed remained beyond French knowledge.

By early August, the French had taken the German city of Saarbrücken,* which lay just over the border. The French thought they were on their way to a march into the heart of Prussia and a quick victory, but the Prussians and the other Germans, especially Bavarians, were already converging on the area with substantial forces. The French withdrew back across the border, but German forces ended up surrounding them. Some French troops were able to flee toward the main body of the French army in the region, but the others were either killed or captured. Things would only get worse for the French. Two more German victories in the area within just days forced the French forces back, with high causalities; about 24,000 killed, wounded, and captured/missing (total for both battles), with the German forces, which were not only Prussian and Bavarian, but also from other German states, suffering more than 13,000 killed, wounded, missing/captured.

Large forces of the French army retreated to the city of Metz, which was a fortress. The Germans besieged the fortress on August 19, turning back all attempts by the French to break out. By October 27, the French forces surrendered the city, along with at least 180,000 men! It was a decisive German victory. In the meantime, French forces, with Emperor Napoleon III also present, tried to break the siege of Metz from the outside on September 1. They were trapped by German forces near the city of Sedan and defeated, with Napoleon III and his primary commander both being captured. The French suffered the loss of more than 120,000 men (most surrendered) and the Germans lost something over 9000. With Napoleon III's capture,** France again declared itself a republic, and the French leaders, after brief peace negotiations with Prussia, decided to continue the war. This brought the German armies right to Paris, where they initiated a siege.

The new government of France mobilized new armies in other parts of France. The intention was to relieve Paris with simultaneous attacks from various directions. The Germans sent relatively small forces (don't forget, they were besieging both Metz and Paris at that time) to try to disperse these new French troops before they could actually concentrate for an attack. Initially the French were successful against these German forces, but once the original French forces surrounded in Metz surrendered on October 27, the German forces that had been besieging the fortress came to the rescue. Eventually the Germans were victorious. Each German victory released those German troops to support military operations elsewhere. With food supplies low in Paris, and with little hope of any remaining French armies being able to successfully advance on the capital, the French surrendered. During surrender negotiations, Bismarck promised food would be supplied to Paris.

Next, "The Germans Unite....Sort Of-The Founding Of Modern Germany" (A Word History is below the notes)

* While Saarbrücken literally means "Saar Bridges" in modern German; the city being located on the Saar River, "supposedly" this simply evolved into that meaning, as the inhabitants prior to Germanic people were Celts, who called the area "Sarabriga," which meant something like, "large rock/boulder above flowing water," again supposedly from the cliffs above the river and wetlands below. "Some" say the second part, "briga," then was translated into Germanic as a form that is related to modern English "brook" and modern German "Bruch" (meaning "wetland, bog, swampy area"). When bridges were finally built, the pronunciation then followed suit, eventually becoming the modern form. By the way, if you didn't already notice, English "bridge" and German "Brücke" are related. The "n" at the end of the German form makes it plural, "bridges."

** Napoleon III was later released by the Germans and he, his wife and son went to England, where he died a couple of years later.

WORD HISTORY:
Folk-This goes back to Indo European "pel," one of the meanings of which was "multitude, abundance." This gave Old Germanic the offshoot "folkam," which meant both "people" and "group of warriors." This gave Old English "folc," with the more extended meaning "nation, tribe, people, military personnel." Later English adopted the "folk" spelling which has endured into modern times. English borrowed the Latin derived word "people," which then took over as the primary word, but "folk" has lasted, usually with the connotation "common people," evident in the derived adjective, "folksy." Its various forms are used throughout the Germanic languages: German, Low German and Dutch have "volk" (German spells it with a capital "V," but it is pronounced "f"), West Frisian, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian have "folk," Icelandic has "fólk." Besides meaning "people," the more extensive meaning "people of a nation" is also a part of many of the Germanic languages. Americans likely best know the German form from "Volkswagen."

NOTE: The Indo European form "pel" (variant form "ple") gave Greek "plethos," meaning "multitude," and Latin "plebs" meaning "people," so you can see the relationship to the Germanic form. Both Greek and Latin are Indo European languages related to English further down the family tree.

Some Perspective On Political Donations

Word History updated very slightly December 20, 2017 

Recently I made note here of donations made to Republicans, namely to the Republican Governors Association, by Rupert Murdoch, owner of many things, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Within hours of that article, it was announced that MSNBC talk show host, Keith Olbermann, had been suspended without pay by the cable channel's parent company, NBC, for violating company policy about political donations. Olbermann recently made donations to three Democratic candidates. There was great uproar over this suspension, with even some conservative voices siding with Olbermann, and there were the inevitable charges that it was a violation of freedom of speech. For those unaware, Olbermann is politically a liberal/progressive, originally known for covering sports. NBC has since reinstated Olbermann.

The whole incident brought out that MSNBC host of "Morning Joe," Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, previously contributed to a Republican congressional candidate, and that Fox News talk show host, Sean Hannity, has also done so. From what I've read, Fox also has a similar policy to the NBC policy about political donations. Neither of these two has been suspended (at least not as I write this).

First my disclaimer...I'm not a lawyer, so this is purely my opinion based upon what I understand the Constitution to mean about "freedom of speech." The Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." The situation here did not involve Congress making a law to suspend Olbermann, Murdoch, or any one else. The television networks made their own policies. You may like or dislike those policies, but that's what this issue is about, not freedom of speech. If you own a business, you set the policies for your employees. How those policies are implemented, carried out, or acted upon can certainly come into legal question, however.

Now, whether Murdoch should have made his million dollar contribution to Republicans is not a legal matter, and I never indicated that it was in my comments. He has EVERY RIGHT to contribute to any candidate or cause. Whether this was a smart thing to do, is a matter for discussion, as Fox News has promoted itself to be "fair and balanced." It now seems that it is "fair and balanced" in choosing which Republican causes and candidates to support. Unlike Olbermann or Hannity, Murdoch represents his whole media empire, and it is my understanding that some Fox News "employees" were not thrilled to learn of Murdoch's political contributions. Let's be honest, we all know where Fox News stands, despite their "fair and balanced" protests to the contrary. Murdoch hired former GOP political operative Roger Ailes to head the station. In just this past election campaign, some Republican candidates made remarks about just appearing on Fox News for interviews; the implication being that they get softball questions. Further, one candidate literally said that they permitted her to make appeals for contributions. Murdoch's donation just confirmed the "fair and balanced" slogan as a total joke, something that was already happening anyway.

We also know where Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann stand, Joe Scarborough, while a Republican, is more temperate in most matters, but they do not own their respective outlets. They are all "talk show" hosts, or "commentators, " not really reporters, as such. They are on the air to make comments, even provocative comments, and that they do. From what I've read, and this is always subject to change, up until now, no reporters for any of the networks were found to have made political contributions. The main problem I see with Olbermann's political donations (which were not known to MSNBC at that time, or so I understand) was that he co-anchored the election night results, which does not give an impression of objectivity (to be clear, I did not watch MSNBC's election coverage, so I have no idea of how Olbermann or anyone else came across). It might have been better for all networks to leave "commentators" in that role during election coverage, and not make them anchors or co-anchors. BUT there's no law against them doing otherwise.

WORD HISTORY:
Donation-This noun goes back to the Indo European root "do," with a long "o," which meant, "to give." This produced "dono," which meant  "gift." The Latin offshoot was "donum," which likewise meant " gift." The Latin verb form seems to have been derived from "donum," and was "donare," meaning "to give as a gift." The noun form gradually became "donatus, and then "donation," which passed into Old French as "donacion." English acquired the word via French in the early 1400s, originally spelled "donacioun," before evolving to the modern spelling. "Supposedly" English derived its own verb form, "donate," from the noun in the early 1800s.

The German Question, Part Fifty-Three

"Bismarck" Part 4/B   "Crisis Over Spain"

Now, you may wonder what Spain has to do with Germans, Frenchmen, and German unification. Myself, when I first studied German history a few decades ago (you didn't think I was going to say "many decades ago," did you?), I wondered, "What does Spain have to do with Germans, Frenchmen, and German unification?" (Hm, that line sounds familiar.) First, you have to realize that, over the centuries, the various noble families of Europe had gradually become entwined through marriages, often, but not always, done for the purpose of gaining territory, or gaining potential military alliances. As people became more and more aware of genetics, and the potential hazards of close relatives marrying one another, these noble families often sought mates in other regions or other countries.* If you have been following this series, you may recall how the Habsburgs gained all sorts of lands due to marriages to foreign mates (see earlier articles on this subject). While this is a bit ahead of our story here, it shows how some of the families were connected at high levels: Queen Victoria of England was the grandmother of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who ruled Germany during the First World War period (we will be coming to this in the not too distant future). Not only that, she was the grandmother of the Empress Alexandra of Russia (of "Nicholas & Alexandra" fame), and the grandmother of King George V of England. These grandchildren all played prominent roles in the World War One period, 1914-1918 (Queen Victoria died in 1901).

So, the throne of Spain was vacant and it was offered, in 1870, to one of the Hohenzollerns, Leopold, who was Catholic (Spain was an overwhelmingly Catholic country) and who had Spanish family connections. His cousin was King Wilhelm I of Prussia.** Now, geography is important. Prussia and the other German states essentially border France to the east; Spain borders France to the south. France's Napoleon III*** may have made some foreign policy blunders, as I've noted here earlier, but he could read a map. Two Hohenzollern rulers on France's borders was not acceptable. Bismarck encouraged Leopold to accept the Spanish throne, knowing full well that it could provoke a war with France. The French made it clear that they were willing to fight Prussia to stop a Hohenzollern from becoming King of Spain.**** The French public was very much on the side of Napoleon III in this matter.

Out of Bismarck's presence, a French representative asked King Wilhelm not to give his consent to Leopold, and Wilhelm, not all that interested in the subject, agreed. So it appeared that war had been averted, but the French press rubbed salt into Wilhelm's decision by portraying it as a humiliation of Prussia, which was also Bismarck's opinion. With the French public ready for war, Napoleon III and French officials decided to press King Wilhelm to make it clear that he would not give his consent to a Hohenzollern ascending the Spanish throne in the future either. When the matter was put to Wilhelm, again without Bismarck's presence, he refused. The king sent a telegram to Bismarck in Berlin about what had happened and asked if Bismarck thought it best to release the information to the press. Bismarck released the telegram to the press, but in a heavily edited version, which showed the French demanding that the King of Prussia do as they wanted, but also showing Wilhelm as having insulted the French representative; that is, a representative of Napoleon III.***** Of course, the edited telegram succeeded in simultaneously stirring public emotions on both sides, which made war much more the likely outcome.

The German public was now angered, and the French public remained ready for war. On July 19, 1870 Napoleon III declared war on Prussia. This brought the south German states to Prussia's defense as Bismarck had envisioned in the secret treaties he had made with their rulers. Not that the treaties may have even mattered, as the German public rallied to Prussia. It was now GERMANS, not just Prussians, against France. (A Word History is below the notes)

* I'm using the term "nobles" and "noble families" so as not to only limit the matter to the various monarchies. Some noble families rose to prominence, and some did not.

** Just a reminder, the Hohenzollern family had ruled Prussia for centuries.

*** Napoleon III's wife, Eugénie, was born in Spain to a Spanish noble and his part Spanish wife.

**** King Wilhelm's position as King of Prussia, and the prestige that title carried, gave him much say in Hohenzollern family matters, and his advance consent was pretty much needed for Leopold to take Spain's throne. It seems though that Wilhelm did not especially see the matter in the same light as Bismarck; that is, that Prussian prestige was on the line.

***** For one thing, both the initial approach by the French representative to the king, and his subsequent approach, were beyond the usually accepted diplomatic customs. An ambassador usually spoke to another country's ambassador, a prime minster spoke to another prime minister, a ruler spoke to another ruler. In this case, the French bypassed this protocol.

WORD HISTORY:
Spiel-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain. Presently I cannot trace this word back further than Old High German "spilon," which seems to have meant "dance, pass the time pleasantly." Old English (Anglo-Saxon) had "spillian/spilian," with the same general meaning, but also "play," which became a meaning in German. The English word may well have been borrowed from its Old Saxon (Low German) relative, a development which seems to have taken place centuries ago with Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. The word later died out in English. Both the German and Old English forms meant "to play." The German form eventually became "spielen," the verb form, and "Spiel," the noun form. Like our word "play," which was also present in Old English, and which overtook the Old English "spillian" in all meanings, the German word can mean "to play music," "to play games," etc. A "Spielzeug" is the German word for "toy." In English, "spiel" can be used in reference to music, "play a little spiel," but also "fast talk" or "sales pitch;" as in, "The sales lady gave me this spiel about how great her products were."

The German Question, Part Fifty-Two

"Bismarck" Part Four/A "Prelude To War With France"

After Prussia's defeat of Austria and the formation of the North German Confederation, Emperor Napoleon III of France was in a bit of a precarious situation. There were rumblings in France from people who wanted more liberties, thus keeping the possibility of a revolution very much on Napoleon III's mind. Foreign policy blunders, including an attempt to install a French-backed ruler in Mexico (which failed), gave continued hope to French revolutionaries. After much damage to his prestige, Napoleon III needed a success to gain the support of a solid majority of the French people.

While Prussia's position strengthened greatly with the defeat of Austria, the south German states remained outside of Prussia's control, although Bismarck secretly signed alliances with these states, which guaranteed mutual assistance in any war, the importance of which would soon be realized.

There were numerous and complex diplomatic maneuvers in the time between the Austro-Prussian War and the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War; too many to go into here, but just briefly, Napoleon III wanted allies against Prussia to help tie down Prussian forces. He used Austria's humiliation at the hands of Prussia to try to lure her to side with France in a war against Prussia, and further, to try to get Austria to have the south German states follow Austria's lead. Austria wanted Italy drawn into any alliance against Prussia, but Italy wanted all French troops withdrawn from Rome, where they stood guard in protection of the Papacy. A French withdrawal would have given Italians control of their designated capital, which still remained outside of the new Italian nation. This demand put Napoleon III in a bind. With unrest in France so prevalent, he did not want to stir the pot further by permitting Italy to occupy Rome and antagonize French Catholics (France was an overwhelmingly Catholic country). Also working against Napoleon III was the fact that Bismarck had worked out agreements with Russia, essentially guaranteeing that Russia would remain neutral in a Prussian war with France, or that Russia would actually go to war with Austria, if the Austrians sided with France.

Prior to the Austro-Prussian War, Bismarck had negotiated with Napoleon III (see previous articles for more detail) to keep France neutral. He offered to "consider" Napoleon's desire to take over Belgium and Luxembourg, and perhaps other (German) territory along the Rhine River.* Later, after Austria's defeat, Napoleon III's representative reminded Bismarck of his promise to "consider" territory for France. Again, Bismarck outwitted the French by skillfully getting the French representative to put the matter in writing (no recording devices in those days). Bismarck then later released this letter, which brought cries of indignation from others against Napoleon III.** As to Luxembourg, Napoleon III tried to buy it from the Dutch king, but Prussia and other German states strongly objected, bringing the parties to the point of war. A special meeting of the major European powers in London resolved the matter by guaranteeing Luxembourg's independence and neutrality, and by requiring that Prussia withdraw its troops. Napoleon III lost out on territory again.***/****

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

* Belgium was not German territory, but at that point in time, Luxembourg, a personal possession of the Dutch king, was still a member of the German Confederation. Napoleon III was also interested in other German areas on the west bank of the Rhine River. Napoleon III made a serious error (from the French point of view) by not getting Bismarck to commit to territorial adjustments, rather than Bismarck's foxy "consideration" of such. (See Note 2)

** Napoleon III had earlier guaranteed the independence of Belgium. His new attempts to take over Belgium brought him sharp rebuffs from Great Britain; thus alienating another potential ally against Prussia.

*** Luxembourg, which was granted independence after the Prussian victory over Austria and the dissolution of the German Confederation, became a member of the (German) Customs Union ("Zollverein") and had Prussian troops stationed there. If Napoleon III had succeeded in buying Luxembourg, those troops would have been removed, giving him a better strategic position in any potential war with Prussia. On the other hand, Bismarck's military advisers naturally wanted to retain their military presence in Luxembourg, which is along the northern French border.

**** Napoleon III also lost the "public relations" war, as he was seen, correctly, as trying to take over other countries. While we are now approaching the point in this series where the Germans came to be seen by much of the world as the aggressors, up to that point, and for a couple of centuries previous, France was often, but not always, seen as an aggressor nation, and this certainly was not limited to Napoleon or his nephew, Napoleon III. That does not mean that other nations didn't periodically have similar aggressive intentions,"  back then.

WORD HISTORY:
Blitz-This word is more commonly part of the World War Two era compound German word "Blitzkrieg" in English, or just "blitz" for the American football term "to rush the quarterback." In England the shortened form "Blitz" has been used for the German air attacks on the United Kingdom in 1940 during World War Two, commonly known there as "the Blitz." This word goes back to Indo European "bhleg," or some sources say "bhel," which had the meaning of "shine, burn." This spawned the Old Germanic verb form "blikkatjan," which meant "to brighten, to flash" (this also gave Old English the noun "blæcern," meaning "candle light"). This then gave Old High German "blecchazzen," with the same meaning. Later this became "bliczen," which then simply meant "to flash," with the obvious progression to modern "blitzen," and the derived noun form "Blitz," which means "lightening" (all German nouns are capitalized; thus the capital "B"). Just for your information, the meaning of the names in the Christmas story with the reindeer "Donner" and "Blitzen," is "Thunder" and "Lightening."

Of Crackpots and The Election

Let's see....we wanted Republicans, then we wanted Democrats, now we want Republicans again, "sort of." The GOP took control of the House of Representatives the other night, and made gains in the Senate. About the only positive things Democrats could point to was that they held onto the Senate, and that they prevented some real crackpots from entering that legislative body to join the likes of Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, who will sorely miss Sharron Angle* and Christine O'Donnell.** If DeMint ever gets his way, we'll nearly all undoubtedly be driving around in chariots and heading home to cook our rationed food on stones located just outside our tents. The privileged few, the business class, will still have their mansions and they'll dispatch their underlings to escort the rest of us to our tasks building real pyramids (not like the Wall Street types; "pyramid schemes"), on a daily basis, and I do mean DAILY, but there won't be any calendars, because I'm sure DeMint and his bunch don't believe the Earth revolves around the Sun. If you have some medical condition that could possibly be helped by "science," forget it! No need for scientists, because thinking will be considered to be dangerous, not that they don't already believe that now. Everyone will be mandated to watch two hours of propaganda...I mean "news," on Fox News at local coliseums. Oh, and one more thing, there will be no need for real elections, since Fox will tell us every day how well off we are, and how the "natural state of affairs in a free market system" is for the very few to own society, while everyone else has been born to serve those few. Anyone who disagrees will have to stand before the one and only Supreme Court justice, Christine O'Donnell, who, with broom in hand, will ask no questions, but with a wiggle of her nose will dispatch that person to....ah.....POOF!

(Before I got "poofed," I did a Word History below the notes. Let's see...how do I get back now? I knew I should have watched "Bewitched" more often!)

* Sharron Angle, GOP senatorial candidate in Nevada, bluntly said that she would not talk to reporters, that she would only answer questions AFTER she was a senator (there's a vote for democracy), and that she would only appear on "Fox News," that bastion of "fair and balanced," whose owner contributed at least a cool million to the GOP in the recent elections. If ANY OTHER news organization, the so called "liberal media," had contributed to Democrats, the people at Fox would have landed in your laps after jumping through your television screens. And there would be no more Rush Limbaugh, because he would have most certainly had a stroke.

** Christine O'Donnell, the GOP senatorial candidate in Delaware, was the first woman since circa 1675 to declare "I'm not a witch." Unlike the women of times long passed, O'Donnell actually said it in a television ad, also saying, "I'm you. I''ll go to Washington and do what you would do." My question is, what would "you" do, since in a country like ours, we don't all hold the same opinions, so just what "you" is she talking about? Further, she said that she wanted to "follow the Constitution," but when asked what Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with, she couldn't do it.

WORD HISTORY:
Hex-Really two words in one, today. Presently, the ultimate origin of this word remains unknown. It traces back to West Germanic (English is a West Germanic language) and possibly to Old Germanic "hagatusjo(n)," having some meaning to do with "hedges," as the first part "haga," referred to "hedges, bushes," and indeed it is the ancestor of our modern word "hedge," and German "Hag" (not pronounced as our same word), which also means "hedge," and also is the "haw" part of "hawthorne," a tree that was seemingly common in pagan Germanic rituals. It is speculated by some linguists that the planting of these trees close together to form "hedgerows" to "fence in" old Germanic settlements may have given pagan beliefs the idea of "hedge riders;" that is, women with special powers who straddled "civilization" and the wild beyond, and that this gradually evolved into our more modern "witches riding brooms." Anyway, the West Germanic form gave Old English "haegtesse," meaning "witch," and this was shortened during the 1200s to just "hag," which also came to mean "ugly old woman," rather than just "witch." "Hex," the verb form ("to hex someone"), came to English in the 1800s from Pennsylvania German (commonly, but incorrectly, also known as "Pennsylvania Dutch"), a dialect (which used "Deitsch and "Duutsch" for their speech) brought to America by German immigrants, many of them from the Palatinate region of Germany. It is related to "hag." The Old Germanic form mentioned above gave Old High German "hagazuzza/hagazussa" meaning "witch," and later this became "hecse/hexse" in German, before becoming modern German "Hexe," meaning "a witch." The verb form became "hexen," in German," and the shortened form was passed onto English. "Supposedly," the noun form in English, "a hex," didn't develop until the early 1900s. By the way, the word "hex," used for a six-sided shape is not the same word, but rather simply a shortened form of "hexagon."

The German Question, Part Fifty-One

"Bismarck" Part Three/C "A Sad Parting"

France's Napoleon III now mediated between Austria and Prussia and between Italy and Austria. Napoleon III had long sought to keep some sort of power balance between Austria and Prussia and their role in German affairs. He was surprised by Prussia's decisive victory so early in the military conflict, as he had calculated that Austria would defeat Prussia in any war. Some Prussians wanted an out-and-out march on Vienna, even followed by an occupation of the Austrian capital, and former capital of the German Empire, but Bismarck and cooler heads in Prussia knew that such a move could well bring Napoleon III to side with Austria and declare war. This would have brought a two front war to Prussia, with only Italy as an ally, and as I noted in the previous part, the Italians had had a mixed record in their military operations against Austria up to that point. Further, many Germans, although undoubtedly more in the southern states, did not want to see Austria, their traditional leader, be humiliated by Prussia. Any such humiliation could have caused deep divides in the German public at a time when Prussia sought unity. An armistice limited the possibility of any such developments.

Bismarck did not seek territory from Austria. He also wanted to form a new Prussian-led confederation of the German states, BUT this time totally excluding Austria. So, without going into all of the negotiating ploys, here was the end result of the treaty process and other events:

First, the German Confederation was dissolved. Liechtenstein became independent (as it remains today).* Luxemburg also became independent, although it joined the Customs Union ("Zollverein"), giving it close ties to Prussia (and eventually the new German nation).** Italy received, and then annexed, the Italian populated region of Venetia (thereafter northeastern Italy) from Austria; Prussia annexed Schleswig and Holstein (then combined into one province "Schleswig-Holstein"); Prussia annexed other German states, or parts thereof; Prussia wanted Saxony, but it remained as an independent state (see next); Prussia formed the new "North German Confederation" ("Norddeutscher Bund"), which included Saxony, but which excluded (at Napoleon III's insistence) the southern German states, and Austria was committed to remain OUT OF German affairs. The Austrian Empire's very existence now came into question. The always present potential for ethnic unrest in the multi-ethnic empire led to a sharing of power with Hungary; thus the resulting 1867 compromise, known as the "Ausgleich," in German, brought about the "Austro-Hungarian Empire," or simply "Austria-Hungary" (also called the "Dual Monarchy"). The Habsburg ruler remained as King of Hungary, and foreign policy and military matters were run by the "Empire," but Hungary ran its own matters otherwise (it had its own legislative body which met in Budapest).***

The German population of the Austrian Empire still saw themselves as "Germans," but this began the process by which Austrians eventually would be seen separately, except for a minority point of view. More on that later. (A Word History is below the notes)

* The dissolution of the German Confederation resulted in Liechtenstein becoming an independent country, so we have another answer to our "German Question," and it does not include Liechtenstein, although its language and customs remain German in character.

** The economic relationship between Luxemburg and Germany remained, but, with Luxemburg as an independent country, Luxemburg was not obliged to follow German law nor foreign policy. So we have another "detachment" to help answer the "German Question."

*** Initially "Buda" and "Pest" were two separate cities, which did not formally unite into "Budapest" until 1873.

WORD HISTORY:
Waltz-This word came into English in the 1780s for a type of dance. It goes back to Indo European "wel," which carried the notion of "roll, turn, revolve." This gave Old Germanic "waltjanan," with the same basic meaning. This then gave Old High German "walzan," and eventually gave German the verb "walzen," and the noun "Walzer," the term for the energetic dance which involved what appeared as "rolling" or "revolving" as people danced. By the 1820s, the word began to also take on the added meaning in English of "move about nimbly," and eventually "to navigate sticky or delicate questions with adeptness." By the way, English once had the related verb "wyltan/wieltan," meaning, "to roll."