The German Question, Part Seventy-Three

"Kaiser Wilhelm & World War I" Part Two/C "The Germans At War"
"The Strategy Fails & The Hun Reputation Grows"

Reports of German atrocities against civilians, especially in Belgium, were widely circulated in the newspapers in Allied countries and in the United States. It did much to further inflame public opinion against Germany. It is difficult to sort out fact from fiction, but several sources (including British) mention that after the war, many of the German atrocity stories were discredited, and some of the stories were so outlandish, I doubt their truth (unlike in World War Two).* That doesn't mean ALL stories were untrue. Kaiser Wilhelm's remark from many years before, saying that he wanted the Germans to be "feared like the Huns," opened the door to all sorts of atrocity stories, undoubtedly both real and imaginary. All of the horror stories only served to reinforce the image of German troops as savage. Several sources also mention that the shooting of prisoners of war was not uncommon by ALL sides, although such acts were not condoned by the high military authorities of any country. These actions, or so I have read, seem to have been individual acts against prisoners as they were being escorted to rear areas.

While Belgian resistance surprised and delayed the Germans in western Europe, Russian mobilization surprised them in eastern Europe. The Russian army moved into northeastern Germany much more quickly than the Germans had thought possible. At first it looked as if the vastly outnumbered Germans would be rolled over by the Russians,** as two Russian armies advanced into German territory (East Prussia) and scored an early victory. This prompted a change in the German command in East Prussia, with Paul von Hindenburg, who was in his mid sixties (a considerable age in those times), brought in to take charge. The Germans completely reversed their perilous fortunes in East Prussia by inflicting a devastating defeat on the Russians near the town of Allenstein. The continuing operations essentially destroyed both Russian field armies.*** In spite of the victory, the war went on, as the French and British held in western Europe, and the Russians, while stunned, eventually were able to stabilize their front somewhat. Now the nightmare of the German military became reality....a major two front war.

* Unfortunately, World War Two atrocity stories proved to be much more accurate, with some exceptions, no matter how gruesome (I'll be getting to this shortly). During World War One, it is certainly possible that individual German soldiers committed terrible acts, and while absolutely heinous, the incidents were presented as commonplace, rather than as isolated. Remember, armies are collections of people of ALL types, including those with twisted minds. While the originator of the quote is in dispute, "supposedly" one American senator once said, "The first casualty of war is truth." The thing is, if a nasty story appears in the paper about an enemy country, who would have the courage to challenge it? Or even want to challenge it? In an "ideal world" it would be better to know the truth during wartime, but this is not an ideal world, and like it or not, we most often check into stories after a war is over. In fairness here too, I have to say that it is not always possible to check into stories when the bombs are falling and bullets are flying.

** Remember, the overwhelming mass of the German army was operating in western Europe in an attempt to knock France out of the war quickly.

*** This area is now part of Poland. While the actual battle was fought near Allenstein, the Germans chose to call their victory "The Battle of Tannenberg" in an attempt to erase the defeat of the Teutonic Knights at Tannenberg in the early 1400s. The victory in 1914 showed German resourcefulness in the use of Germany's superb rail system, as Hindenburg was able to move his limited forces around quickly to where they were most needed. The Russian defeat in the initial operations was so complete, the Russian commander, General Samsonov, committed suicide.

WORD HISTORY:
Street/Strasse (also written as "Straße")-"Strasse/Straße" is the German for "street," and it is pretty well known in English. These words go back to Indo European "strehto," which meant "to extend, to stretch." This gave Latin the verb "sternere," which in conjunction with the meanings "to extend, to stretch," came the meaning "to spread out." The past participle form, "strata," with a long interior "a" sound, meant "paved." (Get it? "Extend, stretch, spread out.....paved.") So in Roman times, a "via strata" meant a "paved road," and it seems in every day speech it was shortened to just "strata." In those times, "paved road" meant "paved with stones." The Germanic tribes, especially the West Germanic tribes, had lots of contact with the Romans, and "strata" was borrowed into West Germanic, giving Anglo-Saxon both "straet" and "stret," depending upon dialect, which then became "strete," before acquiring the modern form. In "Merry Olde England," it was used in reference only to "paved roads," many of which dated back to Roman times. While there are exceptions, American English (and I'm sure in all English speaking countries) preserves the original meaning, too, as we tend to refer to city or urban area roads (which tended to be paved in some way) as "streets," and country or rural roads as...ah...roads, even though in modern times those roads are now usually paved. Why? Remember, as America developed, areas outside of cities and towns were usually countryside with unpaved roads; thus the roads around or leading into cities acquired that terminology, as in "Old Mill Road." Later, parts of "Old Mill Road" may have been included in the city limits, or become part of a suburb, and paved, but the name continued. Anyway, besides German "Strasse," some Low German dialects have "straat," while other dialects have "Strot;" Dutch has "straat," West Frisian has “strjitte.” The North Germanic languages use a different, unrelated word.