The German Question, Part Eighty-Two

Kaiser Wilhelm & World War I" Part Two/L "The Germans At War"

"The End Of The Second Reich"

Although not routed by the Allies, the German armies were in retreat. The outbreak of revolution stunned Kaiser Wilhelm, and the demand from even the Americans that he abdicate the German throne left him clutching at straws. His mind tried to rationalize that he could give up the German Imperial throne, but still remain "King of Prussia." Remember, although Germany had united into a modern nation in 1871, the individual German states, like Prussia, kept their positions within the new "Reich" ("empire") and the nobility retained their various titles within their respective states; thus the Kaiser ("Emperor") also held the title "King of Prussia." The various princes, grand dukes, dukes, etc all kept their titles throughout each German state. The problem for Wilhelm was, he failed to grasp how serious the situation at home had really become, as the German government was virtually paralyzed by the revolution, which included the more extreme communist elements. Prince Max von Baden, as the new head of the government ("Chancellor"), forced the Kaiser's hand by announcing Wilhelm's abdication as both Kaiser and King of Prussia on November 9. Von Baden then resigned as Chancellor in favor of Friedrich Ebert, the head of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, who had already been given a position by von Baden in his government in an effort to satisfy the revolutionary fervor. Ebert and the Social Democrats were far more moderate than the German Communists, and they even supported the continuation of the monarchy in some form. However, another Social Democrat, Philipp Scheidemann, a prominent leader of the Reichstag (the German Parliament), announced the establishment of "the German Republic," for fear of a takeover of the German government by more radical elements. The Kaiser, who was in Belgium at the time, did not presently agree to the abdication, but crossed the border into the Netherlands, which was a neutral country.*

Wilhelm became convinced that the abdication announcement would prevail when even army leaders told him they could not guarantee the troops' willingness to fight German civilians to preserve his throne. His sons agreed (he had six) not to put forth any claim to the German Imperial throne or to the Prussian throne. Wilhelm finally conceded, thus ending the Second German Reich and the Hohenzollern dynasty.

* For those who have followed this series, it is interesting to note that a German Kaiser fled to Dutch territory, an area that had once belonged to the "old" German Empire, but had gained independence in the 1600s; thus giving us part of the answer to "The German Question." Sort of ironic.

WORD HISTORY:
Up-This word goes back to the Indo European root "upo," with the notion of "from under" or "from below," "to go over/above." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "upa," then "upp/up," with the same basic meaning, which then gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "up/uppe," with English eventually settling on "up" for the spelling. The Old Germanic form also gave Old High German "uf," with a long "u" sound. After the elements of the Germanic tribes that left what is now northern Germany and founded England, what linguists call a "sound shift" took place among "some" of the Germanic dialects located south of that area, which is more elevated; thus Old "HIGH" German is the terminology that developed for these dialects. It is important to remember, not all Germanic dialects in the region were affected (the "low" dialects were not affected, and these became Frisian, Dutch and Low German), but for those that were affected, what had been the "p" sound (no toilet jokes, please), often became an "f" or "pf" sound in those dialects. Just as English speakers don't pronounce many words as they were pronounced centuries ago, German pronunciation too has changed, and the "u" sound, in this case, became "au" in German, which is English "ow," as in "how;" thus giving modern German "auf," as their word for "up." With the "low" dialects unaffected by the sound shift, you can see in just this one word, why modern English is closer to Frisian, Low German and Dutch than to modern standard German, which is based much more upon the "high" dialects. The various forms of "up" are widespread in the Germanic languages, and besides English "up" and German "auf:" Frisian, Dutch and Danish have "op," Icelandic and Swedish have "upp," Norwegian has "opp." The Low German dialects have "op," and the mixed Berlin dialect, which was originally "Low German," but then with standard German superimposed on it, but with retention of some "Low" features, has "uff," and Bavarian (a high dialect) has "aaf."

Where Is The Shared Sacrifice?

America has been sold on some bad decisions over the last few decades, and that includes some made by Democrats, not just Republicans or (so called) conservatives. Your pocketbook and national security are THE issues above all else. Bill Clinton is likable and all that, but he signed the law dismantling the regulatory system for the banking industry. Interestingly, I heard something come out of his mouth in an interview about a year ago that absolutely stunned me. All politicians, especially those running for or holding higher office, have big egos, but Bill Clinton could give lessons. He actually said he was sorry for signing the banking deregulation into law. After I got off the floor and back into my chair, I thought, "Well, NOW he says that, with the economy in shambles and millions out of work, but at least he sees the error of his ways, something Republicans will never admit." If you notice how Republicans now act, they didn't do any of this. They had nothing to do with deficits, wars, foreclosures, too big to fail, economic meltdown, over priced oil and gasoline, trade imbalances, unfair trade, jobs going overseas... I'd go on, but my fingers are cramped. I'm not blaming them alone, some Democrats have been on board with them, but it has been the modern (and some of it not so modern) Republican philosophy that has been in the ascendancy for more than three decades. If they didn't do any of this, what the hell were they doing in office? They can't have this stuff both ways.

Now Republicans have moved back to balancing budgets, something they didn't do under President George W. Bush. Sounds great until you hear their proposals. If you aren't wealthy, be prepared to take some real hits. I'm not naive, average Americans, and that includes union members, will have to make sacrifices to get this country back on track. Union members are patriotic Americans who have a stake in this country and who want it to succeed, and many have already made concessions. The problem for unions and for other non wealthy Americans is, where is the shared sacrifice? Republicans want average Americans to give up benefits and services, but they want to give more tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society, including the repeal of the estate tax for Americans worth millions and billions. Translation: "Lower YOUR standard of living so we can help those terribly needy wealthy Americans; after all, they create jobs." And to be honest, they have created jobs, often in China! Perhaps some of these Republicans should run for office over there! Don't be fooled! Don't let Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, act as if YOU have some stake in the wealthy getting "mo' money, mo' money!" It is NOT in your interest! Be careful of sayings like, "These people (the wealthy and wealthy investors) are just trying to make a living." What a bunch of malarkey! They are making bigger fortunes, not a living. There's a difference; a hell of a difference! And now Republicans want to let the super wealthy pass along all of that wealth (untaxed!) to their next generation! LOOK OUT AMERICA! The hypocritical GOP is saying that union workers, who make a hell of a lot less than the people with these big estates, are often not judged on merit, while at the same time wanting to permit huge estates to be passed along to those who have not earned it; that is, to people who are not being judged on merit, but who are benefiting purely based upon birthright. If they are able to sell all of this malarkey, we may need to bring back King John to sign a new "Magna Carta," because we may be returning the days of "Merry Olde England!" (The "Magna Carta" dates to 1215!) If you can't pay your bills, you may end up in debtors prison. Is this route we want to take America?

Having picked on Bill Clinton, now it's time for Ronald Reagan again. To be quite blunt about it, I'm sick and tired of hearing about Reagan's "boundless optimism." It wasn't Reagan's "boundless optimism" that pulled the country through the 1980s, but rather huge federal deficits run during his time in office. Oh yes, Americans went back to work after a severe recession where unemployment neared 11%, but they went back to work on borrowed money. What is this conservatism anyway? It was also during Reagan's time in office that working Americans began to see the tide turn in favor of wealthy interests and the wealthiest Americans. When trade deals were in the offing after he left office, Reagan jumped on board, and again we heard about Reagan's "boundless optimism" that America could out produce other countries.* Well again, "boundless optimism" got us into big trouble! Untold jobs have gone overseas, displaced American workers, especially older workers, have seen their lives devastated! Whole communities have been devastated as plants have moved to China. I say "The hell with the "boundless optimism" crap, it never fed anyone or educated a child. Optimism needs to be based upon reality, not a slogan or a whim. When will this country again lead this country and the rest of the world to HIGHER goals, instead of gutting the American middle class to meet the lower wages and benefits of foreign countries?

* To be totally fair here, deals like NAFTA were pushed by Democrat Bill Clinton, but with Reagan's (and all living ex-presidents') support.

WORD HISTORY:
Union-This word goes back to the Indo European root "oino/oinos/oynos," which meant "one, single." There are many words in the various Indo European languages which trace back to this root. It gave Latin, an Indo European language related to English further down the family tree, "unus," which meant "one," and then later "unionem," which meant "oneness," and this became part of Old French, a Latin-based language, as "union," and meaning " one, unity. " It is related to "unite." By the 1400s, English had acquired the word from French, and by the 1600s it was used for a "group of states joined in common purpose," and also for "political groups united in common cause." The word was also used in the 1800s (perhaps the 1830s?) in "trade union(s)," which has now often been shortened to just "union" for "workers united in common interest."

The Race To The Bottom In Doubletime

I keep telling you Americans, from what I see and hear from the rightwing ideologues, you make too damned much money! Shame on you! Of course this only applies to the bottom 90% of the income scale. No protests or bills introduced in legislatures by "conservatives" or out-and-out rightwingers about executive pay or about those darlings of the "sit on their ass class," ah I mean, the investment class, seen by the political right as "the productive class." Not many complaints even after those darlings put the country and the world into the worst slump since the Great Depression, and it's not over yet. In fact, by all accounts, the lobbyists for the banking interests spent a bundle scaling back last year's legislation to rein them in and to protect super bonuses. After much success at watering down the law, they've still been whining. I'll tell you, life's tough. Getting a ten million dollar bonus instead of twelve million can put a real crimp in a person's plans.

For more than thirty years we've heard about cutting taxes on wealthy people and lessening regulation on business interests. We were all going to have "heaven on Earth" and live happily ever after. Well let's see... America has fallen far behind on education, especially science and math. A considerable amount of American plant, equipment, and jobs have been shipped overseas to take advantage of cheaper costs, especially labor costs (and I understand the principle). Wages and benefits for many American workers have been slashed. Further, we are still involved in two wars that were paid for in precious lives and limbs, but not in dollars. More Americans are being kept afloat by assistance, while the income gap between rich and poor has grown to the widest ever.

Now the assault continues, as a number of Republicans want to curtail union rights, especially by restricting or eliminating collective bargaining for public workers. AND they want to repeal estate taxes for the very top of the income pyramid, including in some states, not just on the national level. When I was a kid, the mindset of the Great Depression was still prevalent, as economic populism, progressivism, and liberalism were riding high. Republicans were seen by many in the public as being supporters of the rich,* something that went back to the Depression days. Republicans fervently denied such. Now, they almost tout it! They no longer hide it. Congressional Republicans recently threatened to let EVERYONE'S taxes go up, if tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans were not part of the legislation. PAY ATTENTION AMERICA!!! This is NOT a tough one! Non rich Americans make tough choices all the time to stay afloat, but Republicans are terribly worried about the plight of millionaires and billionaires. I'm tellin' ya, those rich folks have a hell of a life. They may not have to worry about paying their next heating bill, but I'll tell you, it is one difficult decision about whether to have lobster salad or caviar for an appetizer.

* For the rightwing of the party, this was undoubtedly true, but in my opinion it was not true of every Republican, but back then there were actually "progressive" and "liberal" Republicans in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt. Remember Teddy? He was known as "the Trust Buster." I sure can't speak for any Republicans today, but I dare you to find many in public office today who support limiting big interests in America. It is not without reason that in the last thirty plus years we have come to "too big to fail."

WORD HISTORY:
Bargain/Borrow-"Bargain" is one of those words that is Germanic in origin, but came to English by way of a non-Germanic language, in this case Old French, although English already had relatives of the word. To start with, it goes back to the Indo European root "bhergh," which had the notion "to hide, to protect, to secure." This produced the Old Germanic offshoot "borganjan/burganan," which meant "to borrow, to lend" (borrowing/lending have the notion of "something given with security," thus showing the "secure/protect" notion of the word^), this then gave Frankish, a Germanic dialect akin to English, "borganjan," which continued with the "borrow/lend" meaning. Frankish in the general area of what is now France (named after the Franks) and southern Belgium gradually blended in with the Latin dialects of those areas, but left a number of words to the Latin-based language named after their own speech, "French," including what became Old French "bargaignier," which meant "to reach an agreement or settlement over a price by negotiation, to haggle;" that is, "to bargain." The term came along with the Normans to England (late 1066), and became "bargaigner" in Anglo-Norman. It spread into English by the 1300s as "bargaynen," still with the same general meaning. The noun "bargain" was derived from the verb. Prior to the word's arrival, Old English (Anglo-Saxon) already had its close relative "borgian" (from the same Germanic and Indo European sources) with the meaning "lend, borrow," which eventually became modern "borrow" (see below). Modern German still has "borgen," which, like its English relative, still means "borrow," but also kept the old additional meaning "lend" (it depends upon usage in a sentence for the meaning).

^ In borrowing and lending, "security" did not, and still does not, necessarily mean collateral was (is) used to "secure" the transaction, but often an agreement or pledge was what was meant. Whatever the agreement, it typically took (takes) some "give and take," "back and forth," or haggling to finalize.

The German Question, Part Eighty-One

Kaiser Wilhelm & World War I" Part Two/K "The Germans At War"

"Revolution Comes To Germany"

As the Allies pushed back the German lines in the late summer of 1918, and with the prospect of another winter looming, Prince Maximilian "Max" von Baden, heir to the throne of the Grand Duchy of Baden, was appointed Chancellor of Germany. The prince was known for his opposition to the unrestricted submarine warfare which had so antagonized the United States, and for his opposition to the general policies of Germany's right wing, in both the government and in the military. The Prince included in his government members of Germany's Social Democratic Party, a first for the nation. The Social Democrats were German socialists. (Please be kind and revive any right wingers who may be reading this. They may need a tranquilizer, and dab away any foam from around their mouths, as I'm sure they are shouting, "Head for the hills... the socialists are coming. This is the end...the end of civilization! Burn my picture of Barry Goldwater! If they find it, they'll send me to a gulag." [Ah, what's a 'gulag?' ] "I don't know, but they always send good upstanding right wingers, I mean, conservatives there. They like to use those foreign words, too, to confuse people. Long live Ronald Reagan, unbalanced budgets, health care only for those who can afford it, and tax cuts for the wealthy! Down with Keynesian economics, except when we use it!")

Prince von Baden was negotiating to end the war on the best possible terms for his country, but with the army losing thousands of men each day to surrender and desertion, the German negotiators had little leverage. Then, with President Woodrow Wilson calling for the abdication of the Kaiser, and the prospect of a harsh peace appearing to be more likely, General Ludendorff and the German admiralty decided on a last ditch major naval attack on Britain's Royal Navy in late October 1918, without permission from the new civilian German government. German naval personnel weren't stupid, and many resisted the order, unwilling to risk their lives in such a futile endeavor. A number of sailors were arrested, but the planned attack was halted. While total proof of a right wing conspiracy is lacking, there are those who believe Ludendorff, who had already shown signs of emotional instability, and other military leaders were seeking to shift any blame for the impending German defeat onto the new left-leaning civilian authorities. The whole fiasco caused, at least in part, Kaiser Wilhelm to dismiss Ludendorff, who escaped to Sweden within a short time. Even though the naval attack had been called off, German naval officers felt their sailors were no longer reliable, and word of the naval revolt spread throughout the country. With the Russian revolutionary example fresh in the minds of many, demonstrations took place, and navy personnel joined shipyard workers and other workers in calling for the release of the arrested sailors and for an end to war.

In the meantime, Austria-Hungary literally fell apart, as the various nationality groups declared independence, as attempts at government reforms failed to satisfy their quests for independence. Strikes and protests to end the war crippled the empire. The clincher came on October 31 when Hungary withdrew from its part of the empire, essentially leaving the Habsburg Kaiser, Karl I,* with only his German part of the former empire. On November 3 Austria signed a treaty with Italy.

* Karl was emperor of the entire empire, but he was also simultaneously "King of Hungary."

WORD HISTORY:
Lager/Lair-The word "lager" is pretty much confined to use in English as the short form of "Lagerbier," a term which English borrowed from German in the mid 1800s. While "lager" was a borrowing from close relative German, English has its own related word, "lair." These words go back to the Indo European base "legh," which meant "to lay, to lie (down)," and indeed it is related to English "lie" and "lay." This gave Old Germanic "legraz/legran," with the same meaning. This then gave Old High German "legar," which meant "bed;" that is, "a place to lie down." That meaning began to recede somewhat, as later the spelling became "leger," and it took on the broader meaning of "place to lay things in storage, storeroom;"^ and also, "camp, encampment;" that is "place for soldiers (or others) to lie down, settle down." The base word is also used as a verb in German, meaning "to store," and it also has given German their word for "siege," a "Belagerung;" that is, "a place where you keep an enemy 'stored,' " if you will (the verb being "belagern," "to besiege," and English has the related "beleaguer," ["besieged"] which we got from Dutch "belegeren," with the same meaning). The modern German spelling developed as "Lager," with a capital "L," as German nouns are capitalized. The word's use with beer is due to a process developed in Germany which had the idea of "storing" the beer in a cool place for a second fermentation of yeasts which were on the bottom of the cask and needed cool temperatures to activate. The process didn't become an immediate success in terms of popularity, because it required brewers to have "storage" space (usually caves, back then, or fairly deep cellars) for the process to work, and small breweries couldn't afford that. Prior to that time, yeasts fermented on the top, and didn't need cool temperatures, and these are usually called "ales." "Lager" still does have the meaning "bed or couch" in German, but to be quite honest, to my knowledge, it is not used in that sense very often anymore, although one never knows about regional uses of words in German, or even in English, for that matter. Further, like its English cousin "lair," German "Lager" can also mean "a place for animals to live, a den," but not all that commonly in more recent times. (See further)

Meanwhile, the Old Germanic form "legraz/legran" gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "leger," which, like its German relative, meant "bed, place to lie down." (It had some other meanings too, even "grave;" that is, "a place to lay someone to final rest"). The spelling and pronunciation seems to have altered to the current mode during the Middle English period,^^ and the meaning of "bed" began to recede, as it did in German, and the meaning "place where animals live, a den" became the main meaning in the 1500s, and it has so remained into the modern era. With German "Lager" sharing in that meaning, it may be that long ago that was another general meaning of the Old Germanic word.

^ When I was a kid, it was common to hear people say, "We'll have to lay things in for...," and then whatever the reason, like bad weather, a flood or winter, and the obvious meaning was "store things." I don't know about you, but I don't hear that expression as often today. My point, however, is that English "lay" and German "lager," relatives of one another, have that connection of "store," too, although the German word much more so.

^^ The "g" sound obviously died out, or more precisely, blended with the vowel to produce the "ai." Many English words once had a "g" in their spelling, which then took the similar course of blending with a vowel, while some of the close relatives retained the "g." "Day" was once spelled "daeg" (compare Low German "Dag" and standard German "Tag") and "say" was once spelled "secgan," then "seggen" (compare Low German "säggen," standard German "sagen" and Dutch "zeggen"). Note: English, like its Germanic relatives, only had to use one word to express the infinitive form of a verb, like "seggen," meant "to say." English grammar changed pretty radically during the Middle English period, simplifying things considerably. Most of its Germanic cousins have retained many of the more complex grammatical features.

The German Question, Part Eighty

"Kaiser Wilhelm & World War I" Part Two/J "The Germans At War"
"Germany's Jews During World War One"

Some information about Germany's Jews during World War One is very relevant here, as we are now approaching that terrible era of Hitlerism. One of the problems about researching German Jews during World War One is that when the Nazis came to power, the Nazi government "apparently" removed many records for Jewish war veterans. It seems at least 100,000 German Jews served in the German military during World War One, and some 12,000 died. The Jewish population of Germany at the time was about a half million. Further, the German Army occupied a large area of Russian territory (including Russia's Polish area), where Jews formed a relatively significant part of the population. The Tsarist government was noted for its oppressive anti-Jewish policies, and these policies made for mixed emotions for Jews in these regions during the war; as Russia was their homeland, but their treatment by the regime was often terrible, thus giving some Jews in these regions cause to hope for a German/Austro-Hungarian victory. That is not to say that Germany and Austria-Hungary were a paradise for Jews, but anti-Jewish measures tended to be less harsh than in Tsarist Russia.

Of the approximately 100,000 Jews who served in the German military during the war, some 30,000+ were decorated with some form of military honor. By the time of the war, many German Jews were undoubtedly assimilated a great deal into German society; that is, they essentially saw themselves as Germans, and many of their German neighbors accepted them as such.** There remained, however, an element of German society which did not accept Jews as Germans, and reports circulated that Jews were war profiteers and that Jewish soldiers were shirking their military duties to Germany. This brought about a count, or census, of Jewish soldiers and where they were serving, as anti-Jewish elements believed, and publicly espoused to inflame public opinion, the notion that Jews tended to serve, not at the front, but in rear areas of the army. The count proved otherwise, showing 78% of Jewish soldiers serving in front line units, but the information was not then released to the public, so the rumors persisted, as did anti-Jewish feeling. Some say anti-Jewish feeling intensified because the results were not released, and that conspiracy mongers then promoted the belief that the government was keeping the information secret to protect Jews from a hostile reaction to the negative information.***

Special note must be made here for Hugo Gutmann. He was a German Jew born in Nuremberg (Nürnberg in German), Germany in 1880. A decorated German soldier of World War One, being awarded the Iron Cross, both first and second class, he rose to the rank of lieutenant (Leutnant in German; pronounced "loit-nahnt"). In what became a terrible irony, Gutmann recommended the Iron Cross (First Class) for one of his regiment's soldiers, a man actually born on the Austrian side of the border, who, at that time, wore a broad mustache. Later the man would become famous, ah infamous, for his "toothbrush" mustache. That man was Adolf Hitler, and Hitler continued to proudly wear his Iron Cross for the remainder of his life; an Iron Cross recommended by a German Jew. Gutmann left Germany prior to the outbreak of World War Two, eventually coming to the United States, where he died in 1971.

* Former Russian Jews who had immigrated to the U.S. or England, often, but not exclusively, because of harsh treatment, tended to denounce the Russian government, an ally of Britain. This brought about some anti-Jewish reaction in Britain, and also among pro-Allied supporters in the United States, before America entered the war, and then among more Americans after America declared war.

** I don't want to overstate nor understate this, and to be fair, I suppose it would be just as appropriate to say that "some" of Germany's Jews did not see themselves as Germans, some perhaps out of religious belief, some out of the idea that German society would never truly accept them. The problem is, except for comments by some German Jews later on, how do we really know how many held a particular belief? The same can be said for the beliefs about Jews by the non-Jewish German population.

*** You can never get ahead of conspiracy mongers and the paranoid. If information not supporting their beliefs is released, they say it was doctored. If information isn't released, they say your hiding it because it confirms their beliefs.

WORD HISTORY:
Garden (also spelled "garten" as part of the compound "Kindergarten")/Yard-You get two words today. These words, which are really the same word, trace back to the Indo European root "gher," which had the general notion of "enclose, grasp" (when you grasp something, you "enclose it" with your fingers). The Old Germanic offshoot was "gardo" or "garda," which had the meaning "enclosure, enclosed section around a living area." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "geard," with the meaning "enclosed area around a house, a garden," and this eventually came to be the English word "YARD," but with only the meaning of "enclosed area around a house." Why you ask? I did hear you ask, right? Because the specific meaning "garden" went to that spelling of the word, initially "gardin," which English borrowed at some point in the 1300s from the Old Northern French word "gardin."^ French had the word from Latin "gardinus," which meant "an enclosed garden," and Latin had gotten the word from the Germanic dialect Frankish, also referred to by some as "Old Low Franconian," which had "gardo," again with the Germanic meanings given above. When Latin borrowed the word from Frankish, it had taken on more the meaning of "garden; an enclosed place for growing plants." So, this is one of those sort of strange events in English where our original word developed as "yard," and then English borrowed a form of the same word from another language (which had also borrowed it), but with a slight variation in meaning. (By the way, "yard," the form of measurement, is from a different source.) "Yard" and "garden" are (or were) widespread in the other Germanic languages in various forms, but their meanings vary, although the concept of "enclosed land" is present, as in some languages the meaning may be "farm" or "estate" or "grove" (an area enclosed with trees) and not all translate specifically to English "garden" and/or "yard," and it seems in some languages the terms may now be dialect, rather than standard. German has "Garten" (also used in "Kindergarten," "Tiergarten" and "Biergarten"), which in Old High German was "garto" before becoming "garte," and then the modern spelling, and it means "garden," as German uses another word, "Hof," related to English "hovel," for "yard," but German once had the word "Gart," meaning "an enclosure" but it has died out ; Low German Saxon has "Goorn," which means "garden," but also "yard," although the latter is usually part of compound, which designates whether the yard is in the "front" or the "back;" Dutch has "gaard(e)," but it may now only be dialectal; West Frisian had (still has?) "gard;" Norwegian has "gårdsplass" and "yard," but both seem to mean "yard;" "Danish has "guard"="garden" and "yard" (the spelling is a coincidence, and it is not related to "guard," a security officer); Swedish has "trädgård"=garden and "gård"=yard; Icelandic has "garður"=garden and "garðinum"=yard ('ð' is called an 'eth,' and it is pretty much equivalent to 'th,' although sometimes it is rendered as 'd') .

By the way, for those interested in Slavic languages, the Indo European base "gher," with that concept of "enclose," gave Old Slavic "gord" (notice the similarity to Old Germanic "gardo," and then the more modern base of many Germanic words "gard/gart/yard," and indeed some linguists feel Old Slavic borrowed the term from Germanic). "Gord" meant "an enclosed 'fort-like' living area, as in times of old, towns usually had some form of protection around them. This then became modern "gorod/grad/grade" (notice the transposed "r" and vowel sounds from the original "gord" in "grad" and "grade"), which means city or town (but not used in all Slavic languages). Some notable examples: Russia has the city of "Novgorod," and had, during the Communist era, "Leningrad," the renamed former capital of St. Petersburg, which has now reclaimed its original name, and "Stalingrad," the renamed city of Tsaritsyn, also renamed again, but as Volgograd. Serbia has "Belgrade."

^ Italian has "giardino," Spanish has "jardin" and Portuguese has "jardim," all seemingly borrowed from French. 

The German Question, Part Seventy-Nine

"Kaiser Wilhelm & World War I" Part Two/I "The Germans At War"

"German Morale Sinks; Public & Military"

During August and September 1918 the Allies, now with full engagement by the Americans, pushed the Germans back. General Ludendorff, knowing the end was near, tried to get a peace deal through the Americans, rather than the French and British, fearing these two would be much tougher on Germany. When that direct approach didn't work, he turned matters over to a new civilian government,* which continued to negotiate for an end to the war, while trying to get the least severe consequences for Germany. Ludendorff, distraught by the military and civilian situation, suffered bouts of depression, with some saying he suffered a breakdown.

Besides the military situation, the German home front was disintegrating. With the German leaders having staked almost everything on a quick victory during the 1914, the nation was ill prepared for a long-term war effort. The production of consumer goods, like clothing and shoes, dropped dramatically as the nation shifted to the production of military items, and scarce natural resources were strictly controlled by the government to give military production the highest priority. The British blockade kept many resources scarce throughout the war. Remember, in those times, the production of many, if not most, items, were much more labor intense than today, and with so many skilled male laborers taken into the military, their places had to be taken by women or older men to do jobs they had not been trained to do. This, and the scarcity of many raw materials, brought a drop in production. Further, with so many people drawn into the production process, there weren't enough people to work the agricultural sector, and food production declined. Here too, the British blockade kept formerly imported foodstuffs, including from American farmers (obviously until America entered the war), from reaching Germany. Winters became especially brutal, as coal, wood, and food were all in extremely short supply. With the war in stalemate for so long, and then with the failure of the 1918 offensives, German morale plummeted. The two revolutions in Russia showed German anti-war and anti-imperialist groups that it was not impossible to overthrow a monarchist regime.**

* Remember, Ludendorff especially, and Field Marshall von Hindenburg, had really been running Germany for about two years.

** The first revolution in March of 1917 forced the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and thus ended the Romanov monarchy. The Bolsheviks then overthrew that replacement government later that year, although it took them several years to truly get control of the vast country. 

WORD HISTORY:
Kinder(garten)-This will only be for the "kinder" part of the compound; "garten" will be in the next installment. The compound itself means "children's garden." "Kinder" (short "i" sound) is the plural of the German word "Kind" ("child"), and in the case of "Kindergarten," "Kinder" is also the possessive form (all German nouns are capitalized, thus the capital "K"). Notice that English has kept the German pronunciation, with the short "i," as opposed to the long "i" pronunciation of "kinder," as in, "she is kinder than her brother." "Kind" goes back to the Indo European root "gen," with the notion of "produce, give birth, give life." Its Germanic derivative also gave English "kin" (sort of literally "produce of relatives or family members"), "kind," with a long "i" ("types of product or produce;" as in, "He has another kind of personality"). "Generate," a word borrowed by English from Latin, is also from the same Indo European source. (Latin is an Indo European language related to English further down the family tree.) The Indo European base gave Old Germanic "kintha," which then gave Old High German "kind," and then later in Middle High German "kint," before returning to "kind," the modern spelling. The actual pronunciation in modern German is that Middle High German form "kint," with a short "i," and the "d" pronounced as a "t." In 1840, German Friedrich Fröbel used the term "Kindergarten" in reference to his ideas and schooling methods for educating young children. So he was the founder of the "Kindergarten." The word came into English shortly thereafter, as his method and schools were taken to England by German Bertha Ronge, and the word "Kindergarten" was used in English without translation. The first "Kindergarten" in America was established in 1856, in Wisconsin.

The German Question, Part Seventy-Eight

"Kaiser Wilhelm & World War I" Part Two/H "The Germans At War"
"Last Grasp At Victory"

With Russia out of the war, General Ludendorff and the Germans turned their newly available units against the Allies in France and Belgium in hopes of securing victory before America's entry into the war could have much influence.* Several offensives were launched between March and July 1918, and the Germans came close to Paris, even shelling the city with long range artillery, but in the end, the offensives could not make the final breakthrough of the Allied lines. By August, the Allies had turned the tables and launched a major offensive of their own. A German victory was no longer possible.

* The initial offensive was launched just before the United States entered the war, but America's entry was already anticipated.

WORD HISTORY:
Rock-I'm only dealing with the verb form in this article, not the most common noun; that is, the word meaning "stone." The other noun, "rock;" the most commonly used form being the shortened form of "rock-n-roll," is derived from the verb. So "rock," meaning "to sway, to move, to move back and forth/to and fro," is from the Germanic base "rukk," but beyond that, its origins are not known. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "roccian," which then became "rokken," before the modern spelling. It has relatives among some of the other Germanic languages: German has "rücken," meaning "to move, to shift something from one place to another by pushing, often jerkily." On that meaning in German, it specifically means to move something by pushing it, but not by lifting. In order to do so with heavy objects, we often move the item "back and forth, or jerkily." That shows the tie to the English "sway" meaning. Swedish has rycka "to pull quickly, jerk" (again the idea of movement and back and forth). Dutch has "rukken," meaning "to pull, tug," Danish has "rykke," meaning "to move." Apparently forms have died out in the other Germanic languages.

The German Question, Part Seventy-Seven

"Kaiser Wilhelm & World War I" Part Two/G "The Germans At War"
"An Ally Stumbles"

Kaiser Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary died in November 1916, age 86. He was succeeded by his grand nephew, Karl (Charles), who ruled as Karl I. The war had strained his empire's resources and his subjects' patience. Karl and his immediate advisers feared that the multi-ethnic conglomeration of Austria-Hungary might disintegrate if the war continued. By March of 1918, Austria-Hungary entered into secret peace negotiations with France (through Karl's brother-in-law, Prince Sixtus). France's main objective had been regaining Alsace-Lorraine, and Karl and his foreign minister, Ottokar Czernin, agreed in principle, even putting it in a letter to his brother-in-law, who then showed the letter to the French government. Meanwhile, Karl and Czernin also tried to persuade the German leadership to try to work for a negotiated peace settlement. Czernin made the mistake of publicly criticizing France's Premier Georges Clemenceau as an obstacle to peace, and Clemenceau promptly released the gist of the Austro-Hungarian letter to the press. The Germans were furious and there were even fears in Austria-Hungary that Germany might send troops into the aging empire. To stabilize the situation, Karl and his government denied as much as possible, promised new loyalty to their allies, and Czernin resigned.

WORD HISTORY:
Might-(noun)-This word, meaning "power," traces back to the Indo European root "magh/megh," which had the notion of "be able to do, have the power to do." This gave Old Germanic "makhtuz/makhtiz," with the same basic meaning. This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "maeht," then "miht," and finally "might" (remember, the "gh" was pronounced). Dutch, German, Low German and West Frisian all have "macht," although the German word is spelled with a capital "M," Danish and Norwegian have "magd," Swedish has "makt," Icelandic has "máttur." All have the same general meaning of "power." The German word was "maht" before the modern spelling, as compared to Old English "maeht" and "miht." Likely the "h" was highly aspirated in all forms, thus then becoming "gh" and "ch."

The German Question, Part Seventy-Six

"Kaiser Wilhelm & World War I" Part Two/F "The Germans At War"
"A New Enemy & A Peace Treaty"

Both Britain and Germany relied heavily upon foreign trade to maintain their war industries and food supplies. When war broke out, the highly regarded British Royal Navy imposed a naval blockade of Germany, declaring all sorts of items as "contraband," including food products. Vessels of neutral foreign countries were boarded and searched for any items listed as contraband. The Royal Navy mined a large area along the route needed for ships to reach German harbors. There were protests about this policy from various countries, including the United States, as many American companies were dependent upon trade deals with Germany. The Germans protested that Britain was trying to starve the German civilian population into surrender, which was true. There were international agreements spanning decades, and even a couple of centuries, that were certainly being tested by the tight British blockade.*

The Germans, partially in a "tit-for-tat" policy, partially for military strategy, tried to blockade Britain, more so by using submarines ("U-Boats") and "raiders." The British policy was highly successful in restricting goods flowing into Germany. The German policy was never as successful, and in the end, worked against Germany, as the U-Boats sank all sorts of ships, the passenger liner "Lusitania" being the most famous, in 1915, with many Americans aboard, which only served to inflame American public opinion against Germany. President Woodrow Wilson demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships, and the Germans agreed... for awhile. The Germans suspected that America was supplying Britain with war goods by putting such goods on passenger ships. The Germans declared the resumption of attacks on any ships heading for Britain (early 1917).** Further, explosions at American munitions factories were thought to be sabotage by the Germans.*** The German leaders were convinced that America would enter the war against Germany because of the announcement of "unrestricted submarine warfare" by Germany. This prompted the German leaders to try to get Mexico (unsuccessfully) into the war against America by offering the Mexicans American lands previously part of Mexico, like Texas. The communication was intercepted by the British who later gleefully (who can blame them?) passed on the info to the American government.**** The content of the message was given to the newspapers and radio, thus fueling more anti-German sentiment.^ Then more Americans died in the sinking of British passenger ships as a result of the German policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, and President Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany, which came on April 6, 1917. Germany had a new foe.

Meanwhile in Switzerland, Vladimir Lenin and the German embassy made arrangements for Lenin to return to Russia. The Germans believed that Lenin would stir more public feelings against the "Provisional Government" of Alexander Kerensky, and that could only be good for Germany, as it might even take Russia out of the war. Lenin, on the other hand, felt that the revolution that deposed the Tsar was only the first stage of a larger revolution that could possibly bring him and the Bolsheviks to power, and even spread to other European countries. Public unhappiness with the Kerensky government, the continued war, and the control of much of the capital by workers and pro-worker soldiers, brought the Bolsheviks to power in a relatively mild revolution (November 1917).^^ It would take them several years to get true control of the entire country, and in the meantime, civil war broke out. With the Bolshevik government clinging to power and fighting pro-monarchist and other elements of Russian society, the Bolsheviks moved to secure peace with Germany to be able to concentrate their efforts on securing total power. On March 3, 1918, the Central Powers and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (say that three times real fast!) signed a peace treaty. For the first time since early in the war, a German and Central Powers' victory became a possibility. The trains began rolling westward from Russia carrying German troops to the Western Front and carrying Austro-Hungarian troops to the Italian Front. (A Word History is below the notes)

* The attempts by humans to rein in warfare practices are very deep. Let me put it this way; if country "A" is at war with country "B," does that make neutral country "C" fair game if it tries to trade with either, or both, A and B? How about if country "C" is supplying a vital resource, like oil, for example, to an enemy country? Is a policy of trying to starve civilians of enemy countries right? Some argue, if you are a civilian in a country at war, then making you as "uncomfortable" as possible is a part of war, as your discomfort will make you put pressure on your government to make peace. To be honest, countries (in a collective sense), just as individuals, tend to drift back and forth on questions, depending upon the "self interest" of the moment. I know that sounds cynical, but that's just how we humans are.

** The policy was termed "unrestricted submarine warfare."

*** To my knowledge, conclusive evidence was uncovered in some, but not all, cases, although in those cases a good deal of circumstantial evidence was pieced together. Interestingly, one of the "German" saboteurs had been, not in the German army, but in the Austro-Hungarian army. Here we come back to that connection between Germany and Austria. The circumstantial evidence does seem to indicate sabotage, but whether instigated by Germany or Austria-Hungary (or both!), I don't know.

**** Very briefly here, the British had cut German trans-Atlantic cables, so that Germany had to use American cables to contact its diplomatic personnel in North America. British intelligence "tapped" the American cable and intercepted the message. The British, unknown to the Germans, also had broken much of the German code used to transmit messages. This all provided the British with a dilemma; if they told the American government about the intercepted message, they would be admitting that they had tapped American cables, and once the Americans announced that, the Germans would know that their code had been broken. The problems were solved by bribing a Mexican official for the message, and by declaring that they had stolen a decoded text from the Mexicans, which of course, was untrue.

^ On the other hand, some German-Americans and many Irish-Americans were more pro-German, and anti-British in sentiment.

^^ Russians call it the "October Revolution," due to Russia using the old style "Julian" calendar back then.

WORD HISTORY:
Hamburger-Give me the name of any American over about two years old who doesn't know this word! The word apparently was borrowed into American English (in England too?) from German, perhaps in the late 1700s, initially as the term "Hamburg steak," either from German immigrants or from American (English?) sailors who had visited Hamburg, Germany, a major port. It seems to have meant some type of finely chopped meat, but details are sketchy. Hamburg, the city, was founded by "Karl der Grosse" ("Karl" or "Charles the Great"), known in English as "Charlemagne" (the French rendering of his name), who had a fortress built in the area in 808 A.D. The fortress or castle, a "burg" in German, was called "Hammaburg," but no one seems to know just why, although the modern German city of "Hamm" (somewhat southwest of Hamburg) supposedly derives its name from the old Low German word "ham," which meant "corner, bent" and would seem to be related to English "ham," the meat, as the "ham" was from the part of leg behind the knee; that is, the part that "angles, bends." Another possibility for both Hamm and Hamburg is the old relative of modern English "home" and modern German "Heim." I want to emphasize, these are only possibilities, however.

GOP-Keynesians In Disguise

This was first published in July 2010, when Barack Obama had been in office about a year and a half. I published it again in July 2011. I edited this article a little on October 19, 2018 (mainly the Word History was expanded).

The Republican economic philosophy began its dominance of the last three decades with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. That philosophy, sometimes referred to as "Reaganomics," basically consisted of major tax cuts, large expenditures for a military build-up, spending restraint in other areas of the budget, and lots of deregulation of various sectors of the economy.* Reagan, a former "New Deal" Democrat, who frequently quoted Franklin Roosevelt, took over an economy that was sputtering, to say the least. Inflation was high, interest rates were high, and economic activity was, as I said, sputtering, as the country had gone through a recession in the 1979-80 period. President Jimmy Carter, the man Reagan defeated for the presidency, offered an explanation that much of the problem with the American economy had to do with sky high oil and gasoline prices,** which then drove up prices on everything else. While not given much credence at that time, in more recent years, we've seen how high energy prices do indeed effect EVERYTHING else, and thus, our wallets.

During that era, businesses and workers sought to keep pace with inflation, which only caused prices to rise even more. "Cost of living" increases became a common term in many circles (a term still with us today), especially for people on fixed incomes. To put it bluntly, the situation was just plain ugly!

While Carter and "great presidents" are never mentioned in the same breath, he appointed Paul Volcker to be Federal Reserve Chairman. Volcker was one tough cookie, and he steadily raised interest rates to break the inflation spiral, which it did.*** The situation was so out of hand that it was a very painful time for many Americans, and the country slid into a second, more severe, recession in 1981/82, but Volcker's tough medicine worked, and inflation and interest rates both declined over time.

President Reagan and the Republicans (with help from a number of Democrats) pushed through tax cuts early on in his administration. While just about everyone benefited to some extent, the cuts tilted more toward the upper incomes. Military spending marched upward, including on $500 toilet seats.^ The budget deficit soared! Reagan, like his former hero FDR, criticized his predecessor for having run deficits (FDR had criticized Hoover for the same), then turned around and made any deficits run by Carter look like....ah... peanuts! (I couldn't resist that!)^^ It had been the same with FDR, who outspent Hoover many times over, and that was before World War Two caused huge deficits.

Now to the crux of the matter: I'm not necessarily bashing either Reagan or FDR for their overall spending and budget deficits. What is appalling, however, is how supporters of each choose their "facts," preferring to use their quotes, rather than facts and figures from each president. FDR inherited the Great Depression and Reagan took over as interest rates and tight money were being used to squeeze inflation out of the economy, thus bringing on a severe recession (unemployment reached about 11%, and that didn't count those whose hours were slashed, or those who had to go to part time). What is disturbing is, Reagan called himself a "conservative," and successor Republican presidents, and many Republican officeholders, in general, have also touted that terminology since those times. No doubt about it, in about 1983, the economy under Reagan began to roar forward, even more so in his second term, but it was financed by Keynesian economic policy.....deficit spending; that is, huge budget deficits! Reagan's huge military build up played right into having the economy take off, as tanks, guns, planes and ships were produced in great quantity. Americans actually MANUFACTURED things, and what was usually termed "conventional warfare" was still considered the most likely military action back then, so that tanks, planes and such were seen as essential. The money rippled through the economy, helping lower unemployment dramatically by about the midpoint of Reagan's second term. The combination of tax cuts and huge government outlays helped turn the tide of economic decline.^^^ Reagan claimed credit, all the while bashing government and deficit spending. Does this all sound familiar? I'll let you decide for yourself.

Here are the budget deficits for Republican Ronald Reagan (1982-89), Republican George H.W. Bush (1990-93), Democrat Bill Clinton (1994-2001), and Republican George W. Bush (2001-2009). Remember, the Republicans liked/like to toss around the term "conservative." Just a note, each president's calculation starts with their second year in office, as their predecessors actually present the budget for the first year of an incoming president (with some exceptions, which I'll note). Of course, this means that each president's budget extends, by one year, into the next president's term. (I got these numbers from a variety of sources, but mainly from the Congressional Budget Office, or from sources quoting that office. These are in actual dollar amounts, and are NOT adjusted for inflation; so keep in mind, when you see figures from 20 or more years ago, especially, that the amounts would be much higher, if put into today's values.)

Ronald Reagan ran a cumulative budget deficit from 1982 through 1989 of: One trillion, four hundred nine billion +.

George H.W. Bush ran a cumulative budget deficit from 1990 through 1993 of: One trillion, thirty-five billion, six hundred million.

Bill Clinton ran a cumulative budget surplus from 1994 through 2001 of: Sixty-two billion, eight hundred million.

George W. Bush ran a cumulative deficit from 2002 through 2009 of: Three trillion, five hundred forty-four billion +. (Bush's final budget of 2009 had added money from the incoming Obama Administration, so, based on figures I saw attributed to the Bush presidency, and not disputed, to my knowledge, we can subtract about one hundred ten billion from Bush's cumulative number, giving us: Three trillion, four hundred thirty-four billion +.

George Bush (Senior) inherited a hell of a mess from Reagan, something the conservative spin-meisters and Reagan worshipers seldom, if ever, mention. He actually tried to deal with the deficit, including by raising taxes, and he paid a political price during the Republican nominating process, as conservative Pat Buchanan gave Bush a tussle during many of the Republican primaries and caucuses. In the end, though Bush got the nomination for a second term, he was politically bloodied, and vulnerable. He lost to Bill Clinton in the general election (businessman Ross Perot was on the ballot too).


* Reagan made a point to say things like, "Government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS the problem;" and, "Government needs to get out of the way."

** In certain parts of the country, natural gas prices were also extremely high, and some local gas companies made bad deals for high-priced supplies of gas, which then resulted in high prices for customers.

*** While in his early 80s, Volcker is still around as an economic adviser to President Obama, and in my opinion, the President should have taken Volcker's advice on financial reform much more than he did, instead of listening to the Wall Streeters, Summers and Geithner. Volcker advised that traditional banking be separated from investment banking (essentially a return to the Glass-Steagall Act of the 1930s), which would have stopped the big banks from gambling with deposits in risky ventures, and would have scaled back the big banks, taking a big chunk out of "too big to fail." The President chose to listen more to others with much cozier ties to Wall Street bankers. After Obama was elected and was preparing his cabinet picks, I saw some interviews with Wall Streeters who immediately declared Volcker to be "too old." In my opinion, that was just the line they took, as Volcker obviously struck fear into their greedy little hearts, which told me, "This is the guy we want!"

^ Those who lived through those times will remember the outrageous prices being paid for many items, including screws and numerous things, besides the famous toilet seats. The price of the toilet seats prompted someone (I just forget who) to joke, "It gives a whole new meaning to the word 'throne.' " It should be noted that these abuses were not only on Reagan's watch, but had been going on before he took office. For how long? Who the hell knows?

^^ For those unaware, President Carter had been a Georgia peanut farmer, and this fact brought about many a joke.

^^^ When Obama took office facing plunging economic output and surging unemployment, the Democrats in Congress passed a huge "stimulus bill," with only a couple of Republican votes in the Senate (none in the House, if I remember correctly). To have heard Republicans in Congress tell it, the end was near! While I do feel the bill that passed was not fine-tuned enough, for the Republicans to suddenly act as if they were perfect examples of "budgetary responsibility," was total nonsense! (Added 10-19-18: While the stimulus spending may not have been fine tuned, the idea was to get money into the hands of consumers to spend to prevent a deflationary spiral and the descent into a true worldwide depression, with the U.S. leading the way. Ben Bernanke, a Republican, was chairman of the Federal Reserve at that time, and if I remember right, he made statements about 'dropping money out of planes or helicopters' in order to prevent a downward spiral in prices; that is, deflation.)

WORD HISTORY:
Deficit-This word, distantly related to quite a number of words, including to "face" and to "fact," both Latin-derived words borrowed by English, as well as to "do," a word from the Germanic roots of English, is a prefixed word, with the prefix "de" going back to Indo European "de," which meant, "away from, out of, down from." This Indo European form is also the ancestor of "to" in English, and of the forms of "to" in the other Germanic languages, like German, "zu." The Indo European form gave Latin "de," with the same meanings. The main body of the word "deficit" goes back to Indo European "dhe," which had the notion, "to set, to place, to put." This took on an "f" sound in Latin, and it produced "facere," which meant, "to do, to make, to create." The two forms were combined in Latin to make the verb, "deficere," meaning, "to fail, to lack, to be wanting." The third person singular then produced the Latin noun "deficit," meaning, "a lack of, a deficiency, a shortage." This passed into Latin-based French as "déficit," and English borrowed the word from French, in the latter quarter of the 1700s, primarily as a financial and accounting term.