The German Question, Part Eighty-Eight

 "The Aftermath of the Great War & The Weimar Republic"/Part Three/C

"Poland Anew"

During the war, the Allies, and most certainly American President Woodrow Wilson, agreed that an independent Polish nation should be re-established when the Great War ended. The problem was, no one knew exactly how the borders of the new nation should be drawn.* Poland had been dismembered by three European powers in the second half of the 1700s, although it temporarily appeared for a few years during Napoleon's time, only to go out of existence again upon Napoleon's defeat. Russia controlled the largest part of Poland, including Warsaw and eastern Poland; Austria (still the leading German state at that time) controlled a portion of southern Poland, and Prussia (the other dominant German state) controlled western Poland, including Poznan (Posen, in German),** which was a majority Polish city, but with a substantial German minority, which included the local government officials. Germany controlled the Russian portion for much of World War One, as the Russian armies retreated from most of the area.

When the armistice went into effect on November 11, 1918, Poles rose up in rebellion to German rule shortly thereafter in late December. Much of the Polish territory taken more than a hundred years before was again put under Polish control. Germany, in the midst of revolution and dispirited by defeat, was limited in its ability to launch a major effort to regain the lost territory, but some of the fighting was very intense, and the Germans did periodically succeed in recapturing, at least temporarily, some lost towns and villages.

This rebellion is important, because during that time, a new Polish government (pretty much separate from this rebellion) was taking shape in Warsaw to administer a reborn Poland. Further, negotiations were also simultaneously underway in Paris to put together a treaty to formally end the war (remember, technically there was only an armistice in place at that time) and make boundary adjustments. By taking so much territory, the brave Polish insurgents laid claim to a substantial parcel of land and gained the attention of the Paris negotiators, who decided to include them in the listing of "Allied" forces. It was not long before the "Warsaw" Poles and the Polish forces engaged against the Germans essentially joined together. The details of the eventual treaty would inflame many Germans, and I will deal with the treaty and I will return to the situation between Germany and Poland in the near future. The main thing to remember is, an independent Poland was a fact and again a neighbor on Germany's eastern frontier.

*While most Americans trace their ancestry to Europe, far fewer Americans, in my opinion, understood (or today, understand) the potential consequences of border adjustments between countries in Europe. Americans have to look at things in the context that many European countries are no more the size (in area) of some American states. Americans might drive a few hundred miles and cross into two, three, or even more states and never think anything about it. Doing the same thing in Europe could put you into a different country or two, complete with a different language or languages, ethnic background, religion and type of government. As nationalism grew among the various peoples of Europe, particularly in the 1800s and 1900s, some "ethnic populations" included in countries not ruled by people of their own background grew restless in the desire to be included in nations controlled by their own ethnic group. The extent of this nationalism varied from group to group, but like it or not like it, it was a fact. Just as an example, for those following this series, you have seen how the various ethnic groups of Austria-Hungary put strains on holding the multi-ethnic empire together for quite some time; a force which finally pulled Austria-Hungary apart.

** The Prussian controlled territories later became part of Germany upon unification in 1871.

WORD HISTORY: 
Deck-Since I did "thatch" in the last installment, I decided to follow with "deck," which is really the same word as "thatch." "Deck" is interesting, because it replaced an already existing English word to which it is closely related (as I noted above, actually the same word, but in altered form). It goes back to Indo European "(s)teg," which meant "cover." The "s" is in parentheses because some Indo European dialects emphasized its sound (modern Lithuanian, for instance, has "stogas" for "roof"), while Old Germanic emphasized the "t" sound (or "d" in some dialects). This gave Old Germanic "thakan," which also meant "cover, covering," which then gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) the verb "theccan," "to cover," and the noun "thaec," "roof" (see "thatch" in previous article for the further history of this word in English). Meanwhile, in Low German and Dutch, close relatives of English, their forms of the same word developed, it seems as "deck" and "dek" (meaning "roof" or "covering") in the noun forms and "decken" and "dekken" in verb forms, and both meaning "to cover." There was heavy trade between England and northwestern Europe, the land of Dutch and Low German. With the related English word, "thaec," that became modern "thatch," already taken, so to speak (and by then having the tie to "straw" for roofing), English borrowed "dekke" from Dutch "dec" in the early to mid 1400s. It COULD be that English developed the sense of "covering for a ship," as early usage of this borrowing related to "canvas material to cover a boat." That meaning progressed to "covering for a ship," and then to "covering/roof of one area that served as a walking surface above." Modern German has "Deck" with the same meaning, but German could have taken that meaning from English, or did it just take the same sense development? I don't know. Dutch didn't develop the same nautical meaning until well after English used it in that manner; however, at about the time of the English borrowing, Low German had "(ver)deck," with a possible tie to "ship's covering." All sources noted that use for "a pack of cards," dating to the late 1500s, undoubtedly came from the notion of the "cards being stacked like the decks of a ship." "Deck the halls," as in the Christmas song, simply means "cover the halls," which was use of the verb form, also a borrowing from Dutch "dekken." This borrowed verb form replaced the closely related English form, "theccan," of the same meaning. German has "Decke"=cover; "Deckel"=lid; "Deck"=ship's deck; (verb) "decken"= to cover. Besides the German and Dutch forms, other Germanic languages have similar words, all tracing back to the same sources as the original Old English words, and having to do with "cover": West Frisian has "dekke" (to cover, wrap up), Swedish has "däck," Norwegian has "dekk," Danish has "daek." (NOTE: The verb "deck" meaning "to hit someone hard enough to knock them down," as in, "If that guy makes another remark to my wife, I'll deck him," can be seen as a separate verb or simply as another meaning of the original verb borrowed from Dutch, as it came from the notion of knocking someone to the deck of a ship in the 20th Century, perhaps patterned after the verb use of "floor" in the similar sense, which developed in the mid 1600s: "If that guy messes with me, I'll floor him.")

The German Question, Part Eighty-Seven

 "The Aftermath of the Great War & The Weimar Republic"/PartThree/B
"Alsace-Lorraine"

As the war ended, Alsace and Lorraine were still part of Germany, but were much desired by France, which had lost them to the newly created German national state in 1871, after taking them, pretty much in bits and pieces, over a period of the previous century or two. Alsace was heavily German, but with very definite French influences, in some areas more than in others. The smaller, but heavily French area of the province had been left as part of France in 1871. Lorraine had been carved out of a much larger province of France in 1871; much, but not all, of the carved out portion being determined by German ethnicity. It too was heavily German, but not so much so as Alsace, and French influence was a bit more common, although not universal. When incorporated into the newly formed German Reich in 1871, the two provinces were united into "Reichsland Elsass-Lothringen;" that is, "Imperial Land Alsace-Lorraine." Unlike the other German states, there was no noble family in charge of the province, and it was directly subordinate to Berlin (through an appointed governor) and to the Kaiser; thus the title "Reichsland."*

During the war, the people of the province (or provinces, if you choose to separate them) were in a terrible situation, as many French people saw them as "the enemy," but many in the German government saw them as not being "German enough," or worse, of being French sympathizers. Some people had relatives living on the opposite side of the border, prompting arrests, interrogations, and even seizure of property or possessions. On the German side of the border, the use of French was restricted by law, and in what had been very "mixed" areas of French and German speakers, where street and traffic signs (and even city/town names) had been in both languages, the signs were put only into German.

In the waning days of the war, just as in other parts of Germany, demonstrations took place in Alsace-Lorraine, aided by returning military personnel. Political representatives declared Alsace-Lorraine to be an independent "republic," but in a matter of days French troops moved in to occupy and "re-annex" the area to France. Now the tables were turned on the "pro-German" elements, as they and family members were arrested and then deported to Germany. Also deported (eventually) were any Germans who had moved into the region after it had become a part of Germany in 1871.

As I noted about Luxembourg in the previous installment, Alsace and Lorraine too have been troubled areas going back in history to the time of the division of Charlemagne's empire into three kingdoms. The western area became very "French" in character, and indeed, it is the basis of much of modern France. The eastern area remained very "Germanic," later specifically "German," which is the basis of this entire series here on "The German Question;" that is, "who is a German?" The third area ran BETWEEN the two developing (over time) powerhouses of Germany and France, with a mixture of both French and German characteristics, but for quite some time tilted more German in many areas. For a variety of reasons, including the weakness of a centralized government of the Old German Empire (known as "the Holy Roman Empire," and later with "of the German Nation" tacked on), France began to expand eastward into this German-leaning area. No question about it, initially the French were not terribly concerned that the population was heavily German, as the waterways and natural resources of the region (coal and especially iron ore) were really what interested them. Over time, and after gaining bits and pieces of the region at the expense of the Old German Empire, French settlers and business interests moved into the area, gradually adding more than a "touch of Frenchness" to the region.** Eventually France got all of the the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, and a brisk trade relationship developed between France and Germany, with Germany providing coal, from western Germany, to France in exchange for iron ore, which was largely from Lorraine. The German defeat of France in 1871 and the annexation of most of Alsace and a big chunk of Lorraine, including the iron ore area (by no coincidence), only made the French seethe with anger and desire revenge. For Germany the situation was economically great, as they then controlled large supplies of both coal and iron ore. We are not yet finished with this hotly contested region, and more about Alsace-Lorraine will come later.

*For example, Hessen (often rendered as "Hesse," in English) was a grand duchy and, therefore, was ruled by a grand duke. In this case, the ruling family was coincidentally, the family of the Tsarina of Russia, Alexandra, as she was born there. In Prussia, the government was a "kingdom," and therefore ruled by a king, who was simultaneously the German Kaiser, by law. So Kaiser Wilhelm was both German Kaiser (Emperor) and King of Prussia.

** To be fair here, the French rulers were no different than other rulers of those times, including Germans; that is, the "ethnicity" of an area was of little or no concern to them. Remember, these were nobles, and they wanted lands to expand their own power and wealth. (Hmm, sounds a lot like some American business people and members of our "productive class," the "investor class," who have no trouble sending plants, equipment, and jobs to other countries, or of devising schemes that brought about the financial and foreclosure crises, or who would sell their own mothers to the highest bidder, all for wealth and power.) Especially during the 1800s, "ethnicity" began to take on more significance, as people of various ethnic groups began to desire rule by people of their own background (for better or for worse), and for those who have been following this series, you have seen that idea grow among "Germans;" although Germans did not always see the other side of the coin, as for example, with the Polish people in the eastern part of German controlled territory.

WORD HISTORY:
Thatch-This word goes back to Indo European "(s)teg," which meant "cover." The "s" is in parentheses because some Indo European dialects emphasized its sound (modern Lithuanian, for instance, has "stogas" for "roof"), while Old Germanic emphasized the "t" sound (or "d" in some dialects). This gave Old Germanic "thakan," which also meant "cover, covering." This then gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) the verb "theccan," "to cover," and the noun "thaec," "roof," which often back then were made of straw; thus giving the word its attachment to "straw used for a roof." At some point in Old English the verb altered to "thacchan," notice the "ch" which has become the "t" in the modern spelling, or "thacchan" could have already existed as a dialect form which then became prevalent. Later still, it became "thacche," before acquiring the modern form. The other Germanic languages have related forms, the noun forms are: standard German has "Dach," Low German has "Dack," Dutch and West Frisian have "dak," Swedish and Norwegian have "tak," Danish has "tag," and Icelandic has "thak."

The German Question, Part Eighty-Six

"The Aftermath of the Great War & The Weimar Republic"/Part Three

"Austria & Luxembourg"

NOTE: In 1919, negotiators met in Paris to lay out the specifics to treaties to actually end the war between the various nations; this was called the "Paris Peace Conference."

With the end of the war, Austria was again....Austria; not Austria-Hungary, not the Austro-Hungarian Empire, nor the Austrian Empire; just plain old Austria, well... not "plain old," rather "The Republic of German Austria" (Republik Deutschösterreich). With the various ethnic and nationality groups gone their own ways, the German population remained in the territory which once dominated German affairs and produced German Kaisers (emperors) for centuries. The new entity took the name "The Republic of German Austria." The boundaries were not exactly the same as today, although the core area was the same. The upcoming treaties would determine the boundaries, leaving some significant sore spots on the Austrian, and overall German, psyche; a subject I will be dealing with shortly. "German Austria" chose to be part of "the German Republic;" that is, the new German government established at the end of the war and known more so in the public mind as "the Weimar Republic," after the German city where the new constitution was drafted. To confirm the decision made by Austria's new representatives, a series of plebiscites, more commonly called referendums in America, were to be held throughout "the Republic of German Austria." Early regional referendums showed overwhelming support for unification with Germany, with 98% to 99% voting for the proposal (much of the early voting was in western Austria). I will come back to this.

Luxembourg had been occupied by Germany for much of the war, and it was a member of the German Zollverein, the German Customs Union, although it had not technically been a part of Germany (actually the German Confederation) since 1867. Talk about an area of divided loyalties! After Napoleon's final defeat in 1815, peacemakers set up the area as a grand duchy; that is, a territory ruled by a grand duke. At that time Luxembourg was much larger, with the western portion, especially, being heavily French-speaking (but not exclusively). Much of that territory was ceded to Belgium in 1839, which borders Luxembourg to the west. Of the remaining territory, the population was majority German speaking,* but still with a French-speaking minority, and an inclination in some parts of the little country to be more French in custom than German (it also bordered on France to the south). Now, to confuse matters even more, the ruling grand duke was also the King of the Netherlands!** Let's see now, how many countries and nationality groups does that make which were involved here? It is important to remember, while the Dutch king was Luxembourg's head of state, it was not a part of the Netherlands, but rather a part of the German Confederation, and since its grand duke was the King of the Netherlands, he had a vote in the German Assembly! Now you know why some historians call it "The German Question;" sorting out who is a German national can drive one to drink. (Hic...hic..hiccup! Ah, 'scuse me!)***

* The German dialect of Luxembourg, called "Lëtzebuergesch" ("Luxembourgish," in Anglicized form), traces back to the Germanic tribe, the Franks. It is closely related to the German dialect of much of the German-speaking part of Lorraine and the nearby area of Germany.

** This set up is called a "personal union," and it has not been uncommon in European history.

*** Much of the confusing situation with Luxembourg, and also with Alsace/Lorraine, goes back more than a thousand years, to the time of the division of Charlemagne's empire. That time period has had much to do with the hostility between Germany and France over the centuries. For those interested, I covered that era in this article:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/03/german-question-part-three.html

 

WORD HISTORY:
Attack/Attach-These words go back to Indo European "steg/stek," which meant "pole, stake, stick." The Old Germanic offshoot was "stakon." After this, the details of the history are very confusing, but here's what I came up with: for "ATTACH," the Germanic word was borrowed into Old French from (Germanic dialect) Frankish "stakka." The French form became "estachier," with the "e" prefix, later changed to "a," meaning "to;" thus the verb form later changed to "atachier" (the "s" sound now gone) and meant "to fasten or fix into position with a stake or stick." The Normans brought the word to England, but it wasn't until the early 1300s that it became more widespread, as "attachen," by which time it had taken on the more figurative meaning "take into legal custody, arrest;" from a previous "seize possessions by legal means;" with the basic idea being "staked/fastened to the rule of law or the court." The word began to get back to the more direct original meaning seemingly under the influence of French "attacher," meaning "to tie, to bind, to affix." Now, you may wonder what "attach" has to do with "attack;" uh...you did wonder that, right? Well, "ATTACK" goes back to the same Old Germanic word as "attach." I mentioned that the details can be confusing, as some sources seem to indicate that there were separate borrowings from Germanic into Old French for "attach," and then into a form of (Old) Italian for the word that became "attack." Other sources indicate that the Italian form was borrowed from Old French, not directly from Germanic. What seems clear is that French picked up the "attack" meaning from (northern) Italian, which had "attaccare," which meant the same as "attach;" that is, "join, affix, etc." The Italian dialect, however, had coupled the word with "battaglia" ("battle") to form the translated expression "to join battle." The expression became so prevalent, that the "battle" part was dropped, with the form of "attaccare" alone coming to mean the same thing. French picked up the term as "attaquer," which then gave French the noun form "attaque" (modern Italian has "attacco"). English did not acquire the word until the early 1600s, having borrowed it from French. While not used as often as in English, German also borrowed the term as "Attacke," probably from French, and likewise, in the 1600s. German also has the verb form "attackieren."

The German Question, Part Eighty-Five

"The Aftermath of the Great War & The Weimar Republic"/Part Two

"The Status Of Liechtenstein "

I have not dealt much with the small principality of Liechtenstein in this series as yet. In America, the name "Liechtenstein," often mispronounced or misspelled as "Lichtenstein," is probably best known for a polka tune that was quite common here since the late 1950s, but written by a German, Will Glahe, who was born in what was then the outskirts of Wuppertal, a city in the German state of "North Rhine Westphalia" (it later became part of the city).*

Liechtenstein, which is less then 62 square miles in size, is located between Austria to the east, and Switzerland to the west. Its population (modern) is about 35,000, much of it located within the confines of its capital, Vaduz. It is German-speaking.** It was part of the Old German Empire (the "Holy Roman Empire"), and was also associated with Austria, the then leading German state ruled by the Habsburg family, whose leaders were long elected as German emperors. In fact, Liechtenstein's prince had palaces in the then German capital of Vienna. When the Old German Empire was dissolved, under pressure from Napoleon, Liechtenstein gained a certain independence, although it was dependent upon Napoleon's sponsored "Confederation of the Rhine." When Napoleon was defeated, Liechtenstein became part of the German Confederation, which was also led by the Habsburgs. When this entity was dissolved in 1866, Liechtenstein gained independence, but continued its strong connection to Austria and its successor state, "Austria-Hungary." World War One brought hardship for the little neutral principality, as its association with Austria-Hungary (one of the "Central Powers) and its German-speaking population made the Allies view Liechtenstein as an enemy nation, regardless of its protests of neutrality. Economic restrictions by the Allies brought a serious shortage of all sorts of products, including food. Even before the war ended, Liechtenstein tried to break its ties to Austria, and move into a closer relationship with Switzerland, which it succeeded in doing. Since that time, Liechtenstein has remained a separate nation, although there has been a small German unity movement there ever since, which became more active during the time of Nazi rule in Germany. So this answers a part of "The German Question," as Liechtenstein is out as a part of Germany, although it remains German in language and custom.

* The "Liechtensteiner Polka" was a catchy tune and though the lyrics were in German, the song was found on many an album containing polkas, was heavily played on radio, and it was commonly played by Lawrence Welk on his long running television show. "Das ist die Liechtensteiner Polka mein Schatz, Polka mein Schatz, Polka mein Schatz..." I didn't end that line with a period, because that would be a......."polka dot." (Hey, no rolling on the floor laughing!)

** As is common in the German-speaking parts of Europe, besides standard German, Liechtensteiners speak a German dialect going back to one of the old Germanic tribes, the Alemanni. It is the same "general" dialect spoken in the German areas of Switzerland, Alsace, extreme western Austria, Swabia, which is the region around Stuttgart, and other areas of Baden-Württemberg, in southwestern Germany. I use "general" dialect, because there are variations (sometimes substantially so) even within the German dialects, often even from town to town. Remember, these are dialects, not standard, and without standard "rules of grammar and pronunciation," each area is on its own. Regional pride and tradition, along with little societal pressure to change, keeps these dialects alive, although in certain areas in the north, but not all, where Low German provides the common denominator in the dialects, standard German has diminished the number of dialect speakers substantially during the last several decades.

WORD HISTORY:
Sack-(This is to complete the compound "haversack," from the previous article.) This word goes back to the Middle East and the Semitic languages and the root "sqq" (not a typo), which gave Hebrew and Egyptian "saq," with the meaning "sackcloth, sack made from cloth." This was borrowed by Greek (an Indo European language related to English further down the family tree) as "sakkos," which was then borrowed by Latin as "saccus." (Latin is also an Indo European language.) Old Germanic borrowed the word from Latin as "sakkiz," which then gave Old English "sacc," for "sack," and "saecc," meaning "sackcloth." "Sacc" later became "sak," and then eventually the modern spelling. The word is widespread in the other Germanic languages: Old High German had "sac," and modern German, like English, has "Sack," as does Low German; Dutch has "zak" (but it means both bag and pocket), Norwegian has "sekk," Swedish has "säck," Danish has "saek." I could not find a related word in Icelandic. The verb form, with meanings "to pillage" and "to dismiss from employment," was borrowed from French "sac," which was derived from Latin "saccare," which meant "to put pillaged items into a sack to be carried off." It then has the same roots as the English noun. The "discharged/dismissed" meaning seems to come from the notion of a discharged employee leaving the premises carrying his belongings and tools in a sack, and perhaps, at least originally, that "sack" was often provided by the employer, as the term developed as "give someone the sack." The verb form was borrowed into English in the 1500s.

The German Question, Part Eighty-Four

"The Aftermath of the Great War & The Weimar Republic"
Part I, "The Staggering Toll"

Technically, the war with Germany did not end on November 11, 1918, as this was only an armistice, although the idea that Germany could go back to war with the Allies was more than a little absurd. The actual treaty ending the war with Germany was not signed until June of 1919 at Versailles, France.* Germany's reputation suffered serious damage during the war over cases of brutality and murder against civilians, some documented, others only sketchily so, especially in Belgium, and for their invasion of Belgium in the first place, as Belgium was a neutral country.

With war on such a scale, it is difficult to determine the actual casualties. Further, civilian, and even military, deaths in some countries continued after the war, but these deaths were certainly attributable to the war. On the German side here is what I have come up with: the German military suffered some 2 million dead and more than 4 million wounded, and I believe these figures to be pretty accurate. German civilian deaths are very difficult to determine, but it seems somewhere between 425,000 and more than 750,000 died from starvation, mainly as a direct result of the highly effective naval blockade of Germany.** Austria-Hungary suffered about a million military deaths, and more than 400,000 civilian deaths, mainly from starvation and disease.***

By comparison, the United States suffered some 117,000 military deaths in the war, with 53,400 being given as combat deaths. France lost between 1,300,000-1,400,000 military dead and 250,000-300,000 civilian dead. The United Kingdom suffered nearly 900,000 military dead. Italy suffered about 650,000 military deaths and about 500,000 civilian deaths, mainly from starvation. Russia, that is, the Russian Empire, seems to have suffered 1,800,000 military deaths and some 1.5 million civilian deaths, again mainly from disease and starvation. These numbers are not given to lessen the deaths and suffering of other nations, but purely to provide some comparisons. (A Word History is below the notes)

* Germany's allies signed separate treaties with the victorious powers. Interestingly, both Austria and Hungary signed separate treaties, since by that time, there was no longer a unified Austria-Hungary (see Note ***, below).

** There was not much fighting on German soil during the war, except during the first few weeks, and that was in the northeastern area of Germany known as East Prussia. So civilian deaths from direct military operations were limited.

*** It was not until near the very end of the war that Austria and Hungary formally separated into individual countries, but the war had actually been fought as "Austria-Hungary," which encompassed many different ethnic and nationality groups. Since this series is about Germans, one later estimate put the German part of Austria-Hungary; that is, Austria, as having suffered about 150,000 military dead and about 25,000 civilian deaths from starvation and disease.

WORD HISTORY:
Haversack-I will only deal with the overall history of the "haver" part of this compound here; "sack" will follow in the next installment of the "German Question" series. The ultimate origin of "haver" is unknown, and some sources noted that it may not be of Indo European derivation. In Old Germanic "habra/habro(n)" seems to have meant "goat." Latin had "caper," which also meant "goat," and indeed, modern Italian has "capra" as its name for this animal, obviously derived from the Latin form. Most sources seem to believe that Germanic "habra/habro(n)" and Latin "caper" come from the same source, which has led some to speculate the original word was "khabro/khabra(n)," with Latin emphasizing the "k" (spelled "c" in Latin) beginning sound, but Germanic emphasizing the "h" sound as a beginning. Latin is an Indo European language akin to English, but somewhat further down the family tree. Anyway, in Germanic the theory is, the "goat" meaning eventually transferred to the food often eaten by goats; that is, "oats," as that became the meaning of the Germanic form. The Old Germanic form then gave Old High German "habero," which later became "haber(e)." Meanwhile, the Low German dialects had "haver," and this pronunciation influenced the High German form, which became "haver(e)," and then modern "Hafer" (modern German nouns are capitalized), although "Haber" is still commonly present in some German dialects. Apparently Anglo-Saxon did not have a form of this word originally, but in some of the northern English dialects, "haver" is still present to this day as a word for "oats." This was a borrowing in the 1300s from Old Norse "hafri," as the Danes had a substantial influence upon northern English terms, where the Danes raided and settled. Old Norse is a Germanic language from the North Germanic branch of the family, which includes modern Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic and Faroese. French borrowed the term "havresac" from German in the latter part of the 1600s. The German form simply meant an "oat sack," and these bags were carried by cavalrymen and then slipped over the heads of their mounts to feed them. English acquired the term from French in the mid 1700s. The term eventually came to mean "a bag that was slipped over the shoulder to carry a soldier's provisions."

The German Question, Part Eighty-Three

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

This will be the last part in this section, and I'm only doing it to sort of tidy up a bit before I move on. Next I'll deal with the very important peace treaties and post-war activities. If you thought the Austrians were now out of the "German" picture, they're not, as they are about to re-enter the "German Question."

Kaiser Wilhelm II fled to the Netherlands and lived in the city of Doorn, where he became something of a country squire. The Kaiser chose to remain in residence there, as Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands would not agree to his extradition, in spite of repeated calls to prosecute Wilhelm for not honoring the treaty with neutral Belgium. It wasn't long before Wilhelm was blaming others, like Jews, for his abdication and the German defeat. In a terrible portent of the Nazi era, he expressed the desire for German Jews to be destroyed and even mentioned a method to do so....gas. Later, however, when the Nazis took power, Wilhelm, still in the Netherlands, retreated from some of his extreme views, perhaps mellowing as his rule grew more distant in time, and perhaps too, because he learned of Nazi thuggery early on. Wilhelm disagreed with the persecution of Germany's Jews during the 1930s (that is, prior to the gas chambers), even admonishing one of his sons for his support of such, and declaring that the persecutions made him "ashamed to be German." Unfortunately, Wilhelm returned to his more extreme views not long before his death, seeing Jewish persecutions as a backlash against Jews for trying to rule the world. No mention of the maniac in power in Germany then. Talk about trying to rule the world!

Early on, Wilhelm seems to have believed Germans would demand a return of the monarchy, but once Hitler came to power, he realized the Nazis and Hitler would never agree to that. He promised never to return to his homeland until the monarchy was restored, and he kept that promise.

In World War Two, with German armies victorious against France and many other European nations (except Wilhelm's nemesis, England), the former Kaiser died just prior to Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Wilhelm was laid to rest in the Netherlands, where his body still remains to this day.

WORD HISTORY:
Note: In the last installment, I mentioned how Frisian, Low German, and Dutch are closer to modern English than standard German is, due to sound shifts. I just want to clarify, English too has had sound shifts, and grammatical changes, but these took place after Anglo-Saxon was established in England. I "suppose" many English speakers would say that the changes in English have "modernized" the language; I would say it "streamlined" English, as conjugations and grammar became far less complex, although English pronunciation versus spelling confuses the hell out of people trying to learn English. The "ough" of "though" is pronounced like a long "o," but the same "ough" of "tough" is pronounced as if "uff." Throw in the "ough" of "through," and you have a word pronounced like "threw." These kinds of things are enough (there's that "uff") to drive a foreign speaker crazy! Anyway, there is no doubt about it, standard German, for instance, is more similar to the English somewhat before Shakespeare's time. If you have followed the "histories" here, you have probably noted how similar modern German and Dutch words are to the English of those times, and most certainly before, as up until about 1100 A.D., they were all really just dialects of one another. English verbs often ended in "en," just as modern German verbs still do. Germans still use the equivalent "thee," "thou," "thine;" words still familiar to us in English, but not used on an every day basis by most English speakers, unless you belong to certain quaint religious groups. These words are now more confined to old hymns, passages from old Bibles (those not yet put into modern English), or, of course, from Shakespeare or other authors from times now gone by. Further, German grammar is VERY complicated compared to English, something for which English speakers should be thankful, thrust me! The German dialects I mention so often are not standard, and in some cases they have followed some of the simplifications of their English relative, although they still tend to use their forms of "thee" and "thou." With, for example, "thine," still used in standard German as "dein" (pronounced pretty much like English "dine), some German dialects have dropped the "n," giving them the word equivalent to English "thy."

Spitz-This word for a breed of dog is related to "spit" (noun for "skewer, pointed stick or metal used to roast food, especially meat"). It goes back to Old Germanic "spituz," which meant "sharp, pointed." This gave Old High German "spizza," and then "spiz," which then became modern German "spitz," all with the meaning of "pointed, sharp." The dog type, bred in the then German area of Pomerania in the 1800s (perhaps 1700s?), was supposedly so named because of its "pointed" snout. This dog type name was then borrowed into English in the 1840s. The Indo European ancestor of this word is too uncertain for me. Some sources say "spei" was the Indo European root, but that is not universally even accepted as a root, so I'll leave it there. The main thing is, we have the word in English, and we have these wonderful dogs. My dog, "Rocky," aka "Rock," was mainly "Spitz." He died at nearly 16 1/2 years old in August 2006. I miss him EVERY DAY! He was "my boy."