The German Question, Part Ninety-Four

"A Divisive Treaty" Part Six/A
"Territorial Changes/Western and Northern Germany"

Germany ceded control of the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine to France. The overall region had somewhere around 1.8 million people. There was no vote of the population on this territorial transfer.* North Schleswig, along with more than 160,000 people, was ceded to Denmark after a plebiscite (referendum) brought in a vote of 75% of the region voting to rejoin Denmark. A fairly small area, called Eupen-Malmedy, with about 35,000 people, was "temporarily" ceded to Belgium, pending a plebiscite. When the vote was held, it was NOT done by secret ballot, but rather opponents of Belgium's annexation had to register their objection by name in their village town hall. So, we'll never know how a secret ballot vote would have gone, but under the circumstances, there were few objectors.

Part B will cover the situation with Austria.

* Just to keep some perspective on this hotly contested territory, there had never been a vote of the population regarding its many divisions and transfers, although under the monarchical systems of those times, the voice of the people was not considered to be important.

WORD HISTORY:
Flesh-The origins of this word are unclear, although it seemingly comes from Indo European, with the Indo European root being in dispute, but it may trace back to the Indo European base "pel/fel," which meant "skin or hide;" that is a "covering," in this case, a "covering of the bones." Or it may go back to Indo European "plehk," which meant "to cut or peel off." It may be related to English "flitch," which means "side of cured pork, bacon" (see related Germanic word meanings below), a term rarely seen in North American English, and to "fleck," "a spot, a mark, a piece or fragment." It traces back to a Germanic form "flaiskan/flaiskon," which meant "meat," but also could be used in reference to "close kin" (we still say "flesh and blood" in this sense to this day). This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "flaesc," with the same meaning. This was the main English word for "meat" until overtaken by the word "meat" between the 1200s and 1300s. The spelling changed during that general era to "flesh." Old High German had "Fleisk," which has become modern German "Fleisch," and it also means "flesh," including for fruits and vegetables, as in English, but it is also the general word for "meat." Low German Saxon has "Fleesch," Dutch has "vlees," West Frisian has "fleis;" all with the meaning "meat, flesh," Danish "flaesk," meaning "bacon," Icelandic and Norwegian "flesk," meaning "bacon," and Swedish "fläsk," meaning "pork, bacon."

The German Question, Part Ninety-Three

"A Divisive Treaty" Part Five
"Reparations"

The Treaty of Versailles required Germany to make reparations for damages to other nations in accordance with Germany's acceptance of responsibility for the war.* A "Reparation Commission" was to be established to determine the exact amount owed by Germany and her allies, with that amount to be reported on or before May 1, 1921. The treaty made special mention that the Commission give "the German Government just opportunity to be heard."

To give some attempt at perspective here, the actual claims submitted to the Commission came to somewhere around 55 billion dollars in the dollar amount of those times. In 2011 dollar value, the sum would be around 725 billion. The Commission reduced the amount of claims to between 31 and 32 billion dollars (around 420 billion in 2011 dollar value). Understand, the calculations in those times were done in "Reichsmarks" (actually "gold" Reichsmarks) not dollars, as they were the basis of the German monetary system. Further, also understand, the Germans could not just write a check for the amount they owed. Much of the payment was to be made in natural resources (mainly coal) and German products. One of the German industrial and coal areas, which came to be called the "Saarland," and bordering on France, was put under British and French control for fifteen years, although it was administered exclusively by France. This is the area including the city of Saarbrücken, and the region had an approximate population back then of 800,000, with a small, but not insignificant, French minority of about 10%.

Besides France, Germany made reparations in vast sums to Belgium, and in a lesser amount to Italy. The overall amount of the reparations and Germany's ability to pay have been much debated since those times, with the actual debate naturally beginning back then.** Famous British economist John Maynard Keynes protested the amount of reparations as being excessive, even writing that the amount could so damage Germany as to bring about political instability.***

Next...the territorial adjustments. It is my "intention" to make the "territorial adjustments" the last part about the Treaty of Versailles and then move on to post-World War One Germany and the rise of Adolf Hitler.

* This is why the assignment of "blame for the war" was so important. In times past, it was more typical for the victor to more or less say, "Look, I won and you owe me." While it could certainly be argued that this was much the same; that is, "We, the Allies, won and now you, Germany, owe us," the Reparation Commission was to review the claims by the various nations and determine which were valid and assign an amount, but at least with some German input. It is important to remember, just as France had been unhappy with the conditions of the treaty ending the war with Germany in 1871, the Germans were not likely to be happy with whatever came out of a treaty ending the Great War.

** It should be noted that the amount of reparations was later adjusted downward. The whole matter is highly complex, but Germany finally made its last payment in World War One reparations in 2010!

*** There is no question that Keynes' views have contributed much to the notion of the Treaty of Versailles bringing about Hitler's rise.

WORD HISTORY:
Pig-The origins of this word are uncertain, although some linguists wonder if it could be linked to "pike," a long pointed weapon of old, because of the pig's pointed snout (besides "pike," both "peak," the pointed top of a mountain, and "pick," a pointed implement or tool, come from the same source). All that seems to be agreed upon is that Old English had "picg/picga," used in compounds, and used in reference to "young swine." Hey! I got it now. That must be why we have that child's saying, "This little picga went to market, and this little picga stayed home." Ahh, ya didn't buy that one, huh? Later the spelling became "pigge," still with the meaning "young swine." Gradually the usage began to drop the idea of "young," and the word took on the general meaning of "swine." While quite common in usage today, it wasn't until the 1500s that the word finally overtook "swine" as the main word for the animal, although, of course "swine" is a word still much in use. The word "piglet" (a young pig), with the diminutive ending "let," seemingly came into use in the mid to latter part of the 1800s. Low German, Dutch and Frisian, all very close relatives of English, have forms of "bigge" and "big," for a "young swine," with the Dutch form apparently being "bicghe" in the 1200s, and later being "bigghe" in Dutch, Low German and Frisian, and "vigge" in Flemish, but again, where these come from originally is unknown. So, there are lots of similarities between these forms and the English forms, and it's not much of a leap to Anglo-Saxon dialect using a "p" in place of "b." English once also had "ferh"/"fearh" for "young pig," which then became "farrow." These English forms are related to German "Ferkel" and Dutch "varken," which mean, "young pig." They all come from a base related to English "furrow," with the obvious notion of the pig's snout being used to "furrow/dig in the soil." (See "Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands" [Etymological Dictionary of the Netherlands"] originally started in the late 1980s by Dr. Willy J.J. Pijnenburg, then taken over by Dr. Marlies L.A.I. Philippa in the early 1990s. The editor from 1995 until 2009 was Frans Debrabandere.)

The German Question, Part Ninety-Two

"A Divisive Treaty" Part Four
"Limits On the German Armed Forces"

The Versailles Treaty put limits on German military forces. There were many different provisions to this part, the details of which are far too extensive for this article. The main conditions were: The German Army; that is, the ground force, was limited to 100,000 men, of which no more than 4000 could be officers. Compulsory military service; that is, a "draft" (or "conscription"), was not allowed. Officers kept on from the "old" Army, had to remain in service until at least the age of 45. Newly commissioned officers had to serve for 25 consecutive years. Any new enlistees, or existing privates or non commissioned officers had to sign on for a 12 consecutive year period. Places like universities were not permitted to give any kind of military instruction, or to be affiliated in any way with the German military leadership. The Army was to be used solely to secure Germany's borders and to maintain order within the country.

The German Navy was to have no submarines and it was limited in the number of other vessels and their size, with no super heavy battleships permitted. Navy personnel was limited to 15,000, of which no more than 1500 could be officers. The terms of service for the Navy officers and enlisted men were the same as for the Army (see above).

Germany was to have no military air force, although she was permitted some seaplanes, but they were expressly prohibited from carrying weapons or bombs of any kind. Dirigibles (airships) were forbidden.

Weapons could not be imported into Germany, nor could Germany export weapons.

WORD HISTORY:
Sow-This is the noun for a "female swine." It, like "swine," goes back to the Indo European root "su." This then gave Old Germanic "sugo," which then gave Old English both "sugu" and "su," for "a female swine." Later, this became "sowe," before the modern version. Other Germanic languages have: German "Sau," pronounced as the English word, except the "s" is pronounced "z," so like "zow." As in English, it means "female swine," but it can also just mean "swine/pig," especially in the southern areas. Further, also like English, it can have the derogatory meaning. Low German has both "Suu" and "Söög, Dutch has "zeug,"  Frisian "such," Swedish and Norwegian "sugga" and Danish "so." As can be seen, the "g" sound (represented by "ch" in Frisian) has been retained in a number of Germanic languages.

The Greed "Gushes" Forth

The greed mongers and egomaniacs are at it again. Oil and gasoline prices have been escalating as they did a few years ago (prices for many things will follow, as virtually EVERYTHING we do is related to oil/gasoline prices). Folks, there is no shortage of oil.* We all know about the unrest in several oil producing countries, and that has become the excuse for the mad rush to make "mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!" (Don't forget the schemes they came up with to get "mo' money" in the mortgage game. Probably many of the same people, and certainly people of the same mindset.) Any drop in output from Libya has already been made good, according to cooler heads. No folks, this isn't even about what the free marketers like to call "supply and demand;" nope, it's purely about GREED and about the attempts by some egomaniacs to soothe their troubled minds (VERY TROUBLED, in my opinion, with no way to EVER soothe them-see the Word History below, specifically the modern German word for "greed").

They have been unleashed by the free marketers, and if the situation continues, America will continue its decline from the top perch to where the bird doo doo falls. Make no mistake about it folks, the possibility of American decline will never stop these egomaniacs, in case you think that might happen. No, that would assume some sort of rational behavior, and this ego maniacal behavior is not rational; it exploits. If the United States were on its last leg and was about to topple because of these bastards, they would not stop. That's part of the reason for the "anti-government" campaign we've had for more than thirty years. Without government at some level willing to put a stop to their nonsense, they can do anything they want, without fear of repercussions; and so they have, and so they continue. Unions are one of the last organized forms of resistance to the overall rightward shift in the country. The assault on unions will further weaken opposition to them.

Meanwhile, I sit and watch the country decline, as the money transfers from our pocketbooks into their bank accounts. If you're young, you're probably going to have a hell of a time in your life. If you're older, your kids and grandkids are likely going to struggle in this country, where the top income people have taken over. We've lost our balance.


* For those at the other extreme, gasoline is unlikely to be 99 cents a gallon, unless we kick the oil habit; thus not only bringing prices down (true "supply and demand"), but also ending our involvement in wars (and the tremendous cost in lives and national treasure in those wars) over oil. Do any of you truly believe Americans would have given a good damn about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait more than twenty years ago, if Kuwait didn't have lots of oil? We essentially had little choice; we're stuck. That involvement then led to heavier involvement in 2003, clear up until the present. We're stuck too, if turmoil hits others countries, even if we don't get much, if any, oil from those countries, since the countries who do use that oil will then turn to our suppliers; thus driving up prices. That is, like it or not, supply and demand.


WORD HISTORY:
Greedy/Greed-This goes back to a form of Indo European "gher" (or perhaps "gher-d"), which meant "to want, to long for, to like." This gave Old Germanic the offshoot "graedigaz," which seems to have had the more specific notion of "liking or wanting/desiring food, to be hungry" (hunger implying "craving/desire for food"). This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "graedig/gredig," with the idea of "big appetite," and also "desirous/covetous," and eventually "greedy." The spelling later changed to "gredi/gredy," before the modern spelling was adopted. It wasn't until the 1500s that English use of "greed" developed from "greedy." The other Germanic languages with forms of "greedy" are: Dutch has "gretig," Danish and Norwegian have "grådige," Swedish has "girig," Icelandic has "gráðugur." German once had "gratag" for "greedy," and obviously related to our word. Modern German has "Habsucht," from "hab"=have + "sucht"="obsession" (so: "an obsession to have, to possess") and also "Habgier" ("insatiable desire to have") and Dutch, besides "gretig," already mentioned above, has the closely related "hebzucht." Note: "German "Sucht" (and Dutch "zucht") is/are related to English "sick," although its more easily seen in it main form "siech(en)," which means "to be very sick, wasting away." Hm, so in German and Dutch these particular words have greed being connected to sickness. I LIKE IT! Nothing like some truth.

The German Question, Part Ninety-One

"A Divisive Treaty" Part Three

"War Crimes"

The Treaty of Versailles sought to address "war crimes," with one section specifically aimed at none other than former Kaiser Wilhelm II, mainly for violation of "sanctity of treaties." The treaty bluntly says it does "publicly arraign" the former Kaiser, and that a special tribunal consisting of five judges would be formed to hear the case, and the tribunal would have the power to then provide for any punishment deemed necessary. The United States, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan would each provide one judge. The treaty also specifically stated that the Allies would ask the Netherlands to surrender Wilhelm to them for the trial.* The treaty clearly stated that Wilhelm was guaranteed his right to defense.

Further, the treaty said that Germany would have to turn over for trial any person of the former German government or German military accused of any "violation of the laws and customs of war." If such a person were accused by only one country, that person would be tried in and by that country. If accusations came from more than one country, then the person would be tried by military tribunals of the countries involved. Again, any accused would be guaranteed the right to defense. The (then) current German government was required to provide any documents or other information about such alleged acts to the Allies.

* Wilhelm had crossed into the Netherlands and had remained there since the end of the war.

WORD HISTORY: 

Swine-This word, related to "sow" (female swine, rhymes with 'how'), traces back to the Indo European base/root "su," which meant "swine." This gave the Old Germanic offshoot "swinan/swinon," which in turn gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "swin," which a few hundred years later tacked on the ending 'e' to show that the 'i' was long. Common throughout the other Germanic languages: German has "Schwein" (like its Old English cousin, it was originally spelled "swin" in Old High German); one form in Low German is "Swien;" Dutch has "zwijn;" Frisian has "swyn;" Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and Icelandic all have "svin."

The German Question, Part Ninety

"A Divisive Treaty" Part Two-"Guilt or Responsibility?"

The Treaty of Versailles had many parts and articles; far too many to cover in this series, but I will attempt to lay out the most important and often the most controversial aspects of the treaty, together with the reasons behind the provisions and the reasons for any controversy, in the next articles.

Let's face it, the main reason for the treaty was to formally end the war which had started in the summer of 1914. The actual Versailles Treaty, while it served as a blueprint for treaties with other countries that were allied to Germany, was a treaty only between the Allied Powers and Germany, although Germany's allies are mentioned in the treaty, but usually simply as "Germany and her allies."

No one knows the number of wars fought since the time mankind set foot on this planet, but often there are "winners and losers," but also, at times, the results are more muddled. In the case of the "Great War," later known as "World War One," or as "The First World War," there was no question about which side won and which side lost, but because of the armistice of November 1918, there was no "knock out" punch delivered against Germany and the other Central Powers; rather, more of a "technical knock out," or "TKO," to use some boxing terminology. This will become important as we move along, as right wing politicians used the fact that there had been no "knock out" delivered, to incite Germans' anger against the treaty and against "liberal" politicians;* that is, those who tried to end a hopelessly lost war, to save their countrymen from starvation, to bring fundamental democracy to the Germany, and to promote respect for German workers.

One of the controversial provisions of the Versailles Treaty had "Germany and her allies" accept responsibility for damages to the Allied nations and to their citizens, brought about by "the aggression of Germany and her allies."** Germans saw this as blaming them and their allies for the entire war, with no acceptance of responsibility by any of the Allies. While some historians have tried to say this was not the case, their arguments are silly to me. That's exactly what the provision meant, and in pretty straight-forward terms. Let's be honest here, too; throughout history victors have imposed conditions on the losers, just as Germany did with France in 1871. Fair, unfair, whatever; that's what happens. I fully understand the intellectual argument that these various countries kept going tit-for-tat, with one country winning, and then the other wanting "to get even." Anyway, by laying blame to "Germany and her allies," this set up the framework for Germany to pay reparations, mainly to Belgium, France, and to a lesser extent, Italy. Let's not forget, Germany invaded Belgium, a NEUTRAL country, and the southern portion (especially) of the little nation was a battlefield for much of the war, suffering terrible devastation.

To be continued.....

* The circumstance whereby Germany and her allies were not truly "knocked out" of the war in a definitive way, certainly influenced the Allies in the later World War Two era to demand "unconditional surrender;" thus making the various Axis nations admit to defeat. This policy too had consequences, as Germany and Japan, especially, fought on, as they saw no way to negotiate peace, causing further casualties and destruction. More about this during the segments on World War Two, but it does show, seldom, if ever, do things work perfectly.

** This was one of the provisions that also went into the separate treaties with Austria and with Hungary.

WORD HISTORY: 

Wedge-The ultimate origin of this word is uncertain. It does trace back to Old Germanic "wagjaz," which meant "wedge," so that the same basic meaning has continued for many centuries. This then gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "wecg," which later became "wegge," with the final "e" being pronounced "eh," and then the modern form with the softened "dg" sound. Dutch has "wig," Danish has "vaeg," Norwegian has "vegg," Swedish has "vägg," and Icelandic has "veggur," the Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and Icelandic forms all mean "wall" (a "wedge" between rooms or spaces). German has "Weck," "Wecke," "Weckle," and "Wecken" (from the Old High German form "weggi"), but they have come to mean "(bread) roll" in certain dialects (Get it? Rolls are "wedge-shaped"). Just to show you the great variations in German dialects (although the actual shapes and sizes of the "rolls" can vary, too), the standard German word for a "(bread) roll" is "Brötchen" (which is literally "a small bread"); the forms related to English "wedge," "Weck" and "Wecke," are used in certain western parts of Germany, like Hessen, where it is common in compound forms, like in Frankfurt, where it is more commonly called a "Wasserweck" or other parts where it is a "Doppelweck" (literally a "double roll," as they are larger, with two rolls baked together); Weckle" is used in the region around Stuttgart, where the dialect is called "Schwäbisch;" and nearby it is "Wegg," then "Wecken," is used more in some parts of southern Germany and Austria, but in the Hamburg area it is called a "Rundstück" (literally a "round piece"), in Berlinerisch (Berlin dialect) it is a "Schrippe," and in most of Bavaria and Austria it is a "Semmel." Trust me, there are even more forms, but this covers most of the terms. "Apparently" neither Low German nor Frisian uses a form of the word "wedge" any longer.

The German Question, Part Eighty-Nine

"A Divisive Treaty" Part One-The General Outline

The "Treaty of Versailles" was the treaty negotiated during the Paris Peace Conference, beginning in early 1919, to put an official end to the state of war between Germany and the Allies, and to determine war reparations and border adjustments in general, as only an armistice had been signed in November 1918.* With such a devastating war, with millions of dead and maimed, not to mention the tremendous property damage and economic dislocations, any treaty was bound to arouse passions on both sides, and even among the Allies themselves. The main negotiators were Britain, France, the United States and, sometimes, Italy.** As you can see, Germany was not included in the negotiations, although German representatives did arrive in Paris later, but only to hear what the Allied negotiators demanded, not to have input in the conference. The treaty was signed June 28, 1919.

This treaty is VERY important, and I'll be dealing with many of the specifics shortly, as some of the territorial adjustments went to the heart of the question, "Who is a German?" The treaty had ramifications, and it certainly had modest to substantial effect in helping to bring Adolf Hitler to power.

* Germany's allies signed separate treaties to officially end their participation in the Great War, and it should be noted, that Russia did not participate, as Russia and Germany had already signed a treaty in March 1918 ending hostilities against one another.

** The Italians were not always happy with the negotiations and they left the conference, but returned later. 

WORD HISTORY: 

Snap/Schnapps-I could not find a connection to an Indo European base for this word, but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one, although, except for recent centuries, the history on this word is sketchy. The noun and verb forms are from the same base word, and that word, then spelled "snappe," in English, came into English in the later 1400s as a borrowing from Low German and Dutch "snappen," which meant "attempt by an animal to make a quick bite, or seize something with its mouth," and we still say things like, "Be careful, the dog may 'snap' at you." This sense has made some linguists wonder if it is derived from a form of Low German/Dutch "snavel," which means "beak;" that is, the mouth part used for seizing (modern standard German has "Schnabel," a borrowing from Low German, with the "v" changed to "b"). The noun then developed a verb form. This certainly makes sense, and if this idea is correct, it would thus be related to English "nib," which in Anglo-Saxon was "neb(b)," and meant "beak, bill" (Old English also had "bile," I believe pronounced "bill-ah,"="bill, beak"). I have put the related parts in BOLD above. The Old Germanic dialects, including Old English, often used base words with various prefixes or suffixes to indicate specific meanings, and of course, there were compounds, so the "s" or "Sch" beginnings of the above German/Low German/Dutch words is not something uncommon. The "el" ending usually indicated a diminutive; that is, it makes the noun item smaller; thus perhaps "small beak." Old English had "heardneb," a compound meaning "hard beak." The notion of an animal using its beak to "quickly and suddenly" seize prey came to mean "quick bite," or "to grab quickly," in English, and we still use the word in a sort of figurative sense that way in, "I'm going to 'snap' up the bread that's on sale before it's gone." The "quickness" notion came to be associated with the word by the 1500s or 1600s, something still around, as in, "I did the job in a snap." The original meaning seems to have also included the idea of the "quick bite" being somewhat noisy; thus the additional association with sound, as in, "The branch 'snapped' from the high winds," which implies both sound and quickness/suddenness. In German, the idea of "quick bite," came to be applied to a hard liquor for "a quick gulp;" thus German "Schnaps" (notice only one "n" and the capital "S" is because all German nouns are capitalized). Standard German got the word from the same Low German word that gave English "snap;" that is, "snappen," which also gave Low German "snaps." German has the verb "schnappen," often used in the sense, "snap up a bit of fresh air," as well as being used similarly to English.

Consider Working America

I hope you will check out the site in the link below. You do NOT have to agree with unions all of the time, but without them, American workers will head in the direction of becoming serfs. If you thought serfdom died long ago, look around. It is no coincidence that income disparity has grown so much as worker organizations have declined. The wealthy and their sidekicks, mainly Republicans, but some Democrats, too, have convinced many Americans to support legislation (like huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans) that is NOT in the interest of those many Americans, but definitely in the interest of the few. Even after more than thirty years of prevailing conservative thought, we still hear how tough life is for those upper income people. Contrary to what we have been told would happen by "unleashing" American investors and business people, the country has gone down hill, as millions struggle to keep from losing ground. The "interests" are firmly in control, and with all of the anti-union talk and action, they intend to take an even firmer grip on the nation.

Again, you do not have to agree with union positions on everything; that's part of our system, give and take, but now the conservative idea is to strip away the "give" part, and just "take." They want investors and the super rich to have "freedom," but they don't want the same thing for average Americans.

http://www.workingamerica.org/

WORD HISTORY:

Work-This goes back to Indo European "werg," and its derivative, "wergom," with the meaning "do, work." This gave Old Germanic the noun form "werkan," which then gave Anglo-Saxon "weorc" (seems there was also a dialect form "worc"), with the same general meaning: "action to accomplish some task," and even "to make things." The spelling changed by Middle English and has remained the same since then. Later, the place where "work" was done (or things "made") became known as a "works;" thus we have had work places like "steel works," "iron works," etc. Myself, I never wanted one of those places, but some people kept insisting to "give him the works." Hmm, I guess that's what they meant by that? The noun form is quite common in the other Germanic languages: German has "Werk," and also "Werke" for "works;" Dutch has "werk;" Frisian has "wurk/wirk;" Norwegian, Swedish and Icelandic have "verk;" Danish has "vaerk." Note: some Low German has "woakj."

The verb form naturally also traces back to the same Indo European "werg" and Old Germanic "werkan," which gave Old Germanic the verb form "wurkijanan," with the meaning "to work, to function, to make things go, to operate, to make." This gave Anglo-Saxon/Old English the verb "wyrcan" (also as "wircan" in some dialects). German has "wirken," some Low German has "wirkje;" Dutch has "werken," Swedish has "yrka."