The German Question, Part One Hundred Eighteen

The Word History was edited 11/5/2015


"Hitler Rules Germany" Part Two/A
"Foreign Policy & The German Question" (Part One)

Well, we've seen how Germany's first attempt at democracy was circumvented and then destroyed. Now comes the part where Hitler and the Nazis tried to turn the clock back, not just a bit, or to right, even what some in other countries believed to be, recent wrongs, but to essentially turn the clock back to ancient times; to the time of the old Germanic tribes, and to try to unite these Germanic peoples under one leader. Generally, fascism tends to glorify the past, the distant past, and in Italy, Fascist leader Benito Mussolini also looked to the distant past and to the days of the Roman Empire. To achieve their extreme nationalist goals of returning to ancient times, the two fascist dictators had to deal with more recent history first.

One of the first signs of Hitler's intentions to pursue an aggressive foreign policy took place in the fall of 1933 (during his first year in power), when he took Germany out of the League of Nations (essentially the forerunner to the United Nations). By 1935, Hitler announced that he would no longer abide by the Versailles Treaty's limits on the German military. Conscription (a "draft") was reintroduced and Hitler announced that the German army would be expanded beyond the one hundred thousand man limit of the treaty. He further announced that there would be expansion of the navy and that a military air force (the "Luftwaffe") would also be established. While many countries protested, nothing happened.

Also in 1935, a plebiscite (referendum) was held in the Saarland region, as per the agreements made after World War One. The region had been under French (primarily) and British occupation since after the war. More than 90% voted for a return to German rule. In March of 1936 Hitler sent German troops into the Rhineland. The Rhineland had been demilitarized since the end of the First World War, but it was a part of Germany, simply no military forces had been permitted to be deployed there. Again, lots of protests and denunciations, but no action against Hitler's bold move.

We have to remember, the 1930s were the years of the Great Depression, and many nations were turned inward to deal with their own economic matters. Many Europeans were far more worried about the advance of communism in their own lands, rather than Hitler's or Mussolini's moves. Further, the 1914-1918 war and its aftermath had been so traumatic for many, they didn't exactly long to see a new war break out; thus Hitler was able to push the envelope relatively quickly, and get away with it.

WORD HISTORY:
Lead (Leader)-The origin of "lead" goes back to an Indo European form "leith," with the overall notion of "forward movement." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "lithjan," with the notion of "go," and it had a variant form, "laithjan(an)," which meant "cause to go;" thus the meaning of "lead" (Get it? "Cause to go;" thus "lead"). This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "laedan," meaning "to lead, to guide, bring along with." Later the verb was spelled "leden," before the modern spelling. Very common in the other Germanic languages: German "leiten," Low German Saxon "laiden/leiden," some other Low German has "leide," Dutch "leiden," Frisian "liede," Norwegian and Danish "lede," Swedish "leda," and Icelandic "leitha." Leader-comes from an alteration of the verb, with the common "er" ending, and Old English had "laedere." Also quite common in the other Germanic languages: German "Leiter," Frisian "lieder," some Low German has "Leida," Dutch "leider," Norwegian and Danish "leder," Swedish "ledere," and Icelandic "leithogi." German has both "Leiter" and "Führer," which are synonyms.

The German Question, Part One Hundred Nine

"The Rise of Hitler and The Nazis" Part Two/A
"Hitler The Political Upstart"

The leadership of the German Workers Party liked Hitler and he quickly became one of its leaders. A few months later the name of the party was changed to the "National Socialist German Workers Party" (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) in hopes of attracting more members. The party tended to meet in beer halls in the Munich area, and Hitler began giving speeches at these meetings; something at which he excelled, and he eventually became the major speaker for the party at events. The Treaty of Versailles, highly unpopular in Germany, gave Hitler and the party new material to use against political opponents, and use it they did. Membership increased. By October 1922, Benito Mussolini became premier of Italy. Mussolini's Italian Fascist Party was strikingly similar to the now developing Nazi Party of Germany.* This gave Hitler and the Nazis hope that they too could come to power in Germany. The reparation payments and the subsequent occupation of the German industrial region of the Ruhr** gave more ammunition to right wing extremism in Germany, and the Nazi membership continued to climb, escalating from its few dozen early on, to perhaps somewhere between fifteen and twenty thousand, but still far from one of the major political parties.

Next..."Hitler & The Nazis March Toward Power"

* Nazi is simply an abbreviation of the "Nationalsozialistische" part of the party name, and the common terminology called members either "National Socialists," or "Nazis," as spitting out the whole party name every time could take the better part of an hour.

** For more on the Ruhr occupation, see:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/05/german-question-part-ninety-nine.html

and

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/05/german-question-part-one-hundred.html

 

WORD HISTORY:
Marshal (mare + shalk)-This word's meaning has changed considerably over the years, making it very interesting, and many of you will be surprised. It is a compound, so I'll deal with its two parts separately. The first part, "mar," is actually "mare," which seems to trace back to Indo European "markh(o)," although some sources believe it may have been borrowed into Indo European, or at least some dialects, from Asiatic languages, but its basic meaning was simply "horse," and was not gender specific; however, Old Germanic had "markaz," which meant "female horse." The Germanic dialects that became Old English gave Old English "miere," also "female horse," but interestingly the variant "mearh" meant "male horse." Later the word was altered to mare/mere," before settling on "mare." There are forms in other Germanic languages, and secondary meanings developed, often in derogatory form about "women," at times replacing the original meaning of "female horse." German has "Mähre," which is now archaic for "mare, female horse," having been replaced in modern times by "Stute." The German term came to be used for "old horse," as a secondary meaning, which then came to be applied, "unflatteringly," to older women. Low German Saxon has "Mähr," and it now means "an old horse." West Frisian has "merje," meaning "mare." Danish has "mær," which lost the "female horse" meaning, but not the "female" aspect, as it means "a loose woman, " and also "a woman difficult to get along with." Dutch has "merrie, "= "mare." Swedish has "märr"="mare." Icelandic has "meri"="mare." Norwegian has "merr"="mare," but also used in a vulgar way toward women.
The second part, "shal," in the next article.

The German Question, Part One Hundred One

"Germany's Weimar Republic" Part Four
"The Cost of a Loaf of Bread-Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany"

This is a highly complex subject, so I'm only going to do the very basics. During World War One, Kaiser Wilhelm II and the German government made the decision to fund the war by printing money, not by raising taxes nor by increasing other revenue devices. Remember, those were the times of money being backed by gold and other precious metals, commonly known as "the gold standard." To prevent people from turning in their German currency in exchange for gold, such practice was halted to protect German gold reserves. By printing more money, the value of the currency declined. Why? The value was diluted. Why? Because there was now more printed money backed by essentially the same amount of gold. When the war ended unfavorably for Germany, the value of the currency dropped even more; in this case due more to lack of faith in the defeated nation. High reparations payments in "gold Marks" further diminished the German currency.* The value of the Mark plunged astronomically.

As the value of the currency declined, prices rose for German consumers. Everything was far more costly. The value of the money dropped so quickly, and prices rose so fast by 1923, when German workers were paid, they literally ran to the stores to make purchases to get the best value for their money, since prices not only increased each day, but for a period, several times a day! The inflation became so severe, eventually it took a wheelbarrow full of money just to buy a loaf of bread!!! Confidence in the government and in democracy fell along with the value of the currency. Hatred of the Versailles Treaty soared along with prices. (Note: Remember folks, when a nation is stressed, "truths" and "facts and figures" can mean little to many people; rather, easily understood explanations can be used by those seeking to gain or to retain power can be peddled to many people in an effort to manipulate them.) 

Another consequence of this terrible period was a rise in anti-Jewish sentiment. Bankers and currency speculators, often high profile German Jews and Jews from other countries, received much of the blame for the crisis, along with the Versailles Treaty. This played into right wing propaganda, especially that made by the man with the little mustache... Adolf Hitler.

* German money was based upon the "Mark," just as French money was based upon the "franc," and American money was based upon the "dollar." "Gold Marks" guaranteed the French, and other recipients of reparations, the value of the payments, but these payments also were a drain on German gold reserves. Less gold meant less backing for the standard currency in circulation, which meant that currency dropped even more in value.

WORD HISTORY:
Dapper-This word seems to trace back to an Indo European root "dheb," with the notion of "heavy." This gave Old Germanic "dapraz," with the same basic meaning. I did not find an Old English word of this derivation, but it could have died out, as other Germanic dialects had their own form of the word: Old High German had "tapfar," also meaning "heavy" and Old Norse had "dapr," meaning "sad" (the notion being, if you're feeling "weighed down," you are "sad"). Further, both Dutch and Low German had forms of the word which eventually came to be spelled "dapper" by both, with the eventual meaning "sturdy, bold" (again something heavy is considered "sturdy;" a soldier who is sturdy is "bold"). The German form became "tapfer," and the notion of "heavy" progressed to "steadfast, bold," to "brave," which is the modern meaning of the German form. English borrowed the word, spelled just as it is today, during the 1400s from either Low German or Dutch, as English had much contact with both of these Germanic relatives because of trade (both lying just across the North Sea) They too had taken on the added meaning of "bold" for "dapper." English obviously gave the meaning a twist, with the idea being that "boldness" led to "dressing boldly/dressing well."

The German Question, Part Ninety-Nine

"Germany's Weimar Republic"-Part Two
"Economic Mess"

The German post-war economy was a mess. The Allies continued the blockade of Germany, even after the armistice, severely restricting the type of goods that could be imported into Germany. The loss of Alsace-Lorraine to France and certain parts of the eastern territories to the reborn Poland removed large amounts of  industry, raw materials, and food products. The war's consequences continued economically, as trade relationships had been disrupted or destroyed by the war. The shift back to a peacetime economy was not easy for any country, but it was especially difficult in Germany, where economic conditions were even poor during the last couple years of the war. Factories that had produced war goods could not easily switch to non military goods and make a profit in an economy where many people by then were impoverished. With jobs scare, some demobilized soldiers joined the ranks of "political armies," like the "Freikorps," on the right, or the left wing groups more in concert with communism. Street fights between these various political "armies" were not uncommon, and periodic calls for strikes by both right wing and left wing groups only further disrupted the weakened German economy.

The unpopular Treaty of Versailles gave those on the far right a chance to blame the left of center government for signing the treaty, although these same extremists never made clear a viable alternative to signing the treaty. Would they have proposed restarting the war? That was really the only alternative and I think we all can make a very educated guess as to what the military outcome would have been. The question is, what would the political outcome have been? With economic conditions so poor during the last couple of years of the war, and with so many dispirited Germans, re-initiating hostilities may well have brought a communist government to power.

The Versailles Treaty made Germany responsible for reparations mainly to Belgium and France. When the Germans defaulted on some aspects (mainly timber and coal) of these payments, French and Belgian troops entered Germany in January of 1923 and occupied the Ruhr, the country's main industrial region.*

Coming up in the next couple of articles: "The Occupation of the Ruhr," "The Cost of a Loaf of Bread-Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany," and "The Right Wing Strikes Back-Blaming Socialists and Jews For Germany's Defeat"

*The German government claimed it could not meet all reparations. The Belgians and French argued that the Germans were simply playing games to see if the Allies would enforce the reparations' provisions of the treaty. The British and Americans wanted the amount of reparations to be lowered, which only irritated the French that much more.

WORD HISTORY:
Hem-The history of this word is a bit sketchy. It "likely" goes back to an Old Germanic form like hemjam/hemjan," which then traces back to Indo European "kem/khem," with the notion of "compress, enclose something, fit something inside an area." Old English (Anglo-Saxon) had "hem," with the basic notion of "border," and thus also "block;" as in "block in;" that is, "hem in," (a border "blocks" easy access to other areas, and "border" also ties in with the "enclose something" idea). Later English also spelled it "hemm." The variant forms "hamm" or "ham" (not the meat), often used in English place names, like "Nottingham,* meant "something enclosed, enclosed area;" even enclosed or "bordered" by water, forests, hills, etc, when used of towns or villages. It is closely related to "home;" that is, "an enclosed place to live." The verb form "hem" came from the noun during the 1300s. Of course in more modern times, "hem" is used more for the "stitched border of a garment." German has "hemmen" as a verb, meaning, among other things, "to stop, impede, obstruct," and "Hemmung," a noun meaning "a restraint," and "Hemmnis," another noun meaning "an obstruction, obstacle." From what I can tell, Dutch once also had "hemmen," as in German, but it is no longer used. Low German has "hemmen," meaning "to brake," and "Hamme," "a fenced in field," Swedish has "hämma," which means "impede, hinder." The English expression "hem and haw" shows the "hem in/block in" notion, for an action or idea that can't get moving due to being blocked by procrastination. 

* Obviously this form also came to some place names in the New World too, brought here by English colonists.

The German Question, Part Ninety-Six

"A Divisive Treaty" Part Six/C-1"

Territorial Changes/Eastern Boundaries"

The territorial changes to Germany's eastern boundaries were significant, and some of the changes were highly controversial. Most of the province around the city of Posen ("Poznan" in Polish) was returned to the "new" Poland, although by that time the Poles had already captured much of the area from German control.* It contained a population of more than four million, overwhelmingly Polish, but with a German minority. There was no referendum, but the area would have undoubtedly voted in substantial numbers to be a part of Poland.

A small portion of Upper Silesia also became part of Poland, with some 25,000 citizens, most of them Polish. Again, no referendum, but similar to the above. Another portion of Upper Silesia went to the new state of Czechoslovakia, with nearly 50,000 residents, many of them of Czech ancestry. There was no referendum, but as the area had been under German rule and influence for so long, these "Germanized Czechs" may have opted for Germany, but the call to nationalism can be very powerful, and they likely would have chosen Czechoslovakia, but we will never know. In a larger part of Upper Silesia, a referendum had been held in accordance with the Versailles Treaty, with 60% voting to remain with Germany,** but a large portion of the area, with more than 900,000 people, was given to Poland after Poles took military control of that part of the region, after some serious fighting with nationalist German units. This territorial loss remained something of a German grievance. For Germans who had lived under authoritarian rule for centuries, this was not a good example of "democracy in action." In fact, for a people more accustomed to "might makes right," this whole episode only reinforced that notion, as the Poles seized much of the territory they were then awarded by the Allies, which went against the whole principle of the referendum established by the Treaty of Versailles. This is not a matter of being for Germany and against Poland. The problem was the provision of the Treaty of Versailles. Personally, I favor the idea of the heavily Polish districts joining Poland, rather than observing the overall regional vote, which would have given all to Germany. The more evenly divided districts would have been a problem, as no matter how the vote tilted, the other side would have been less than happy. Then there may also well have been pockets of either Germans or Poles within larger areas where one or the other group was a majority. Moving over the border into one country or the other is about the only solution, but not without great pain, as many of these folks may have lived in these areas for generations.

Next, "The Polish Corridor and Danzig"....

* For more information on Poland and the Polish uprising against German rule, see:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/03/german-question-part-eighty-eight.html

** The overall region had more than 2 million people, and about 1.2 million participated in the referendum. About 717,000 votes were cast for Germany and 483,000 for Poland. Generally speaking, the eastern areas, adjacent to Poland, voted more heavily for Poland and the western areas, adjacent to, and with strong historical ties to, Germany (Prussia), voted heavily for Germany. The areas more around the middle tended to vote for Germany, but by less than overwhelming majorities, and there were definite pockets of pro-Poland votes. It seems that "some" people of Polish background supported Germany, perhaps because of German domination of the area for so long. Just a guess, but I would think many of these people spoke both German and Polish. Silesia was important economically, because part of the area was a major industrial sector, so not only was ethnic identity an issue, but substantial economic impact was a concern for both Poland and Germany.

WORD HISTORY:
Speak-Forms of this word are common in the West Germanic languages (English is West Germanic), but beyond that fact, its ancestry is uncertain. It traces back to Old Germanic "sprekanan," which had the notion of "make sounds." This gave Old English "sprecan," but gradually the "r" sound died out (by 1100s?), which also happened in certain forms in other Germanic dialects back then, but these forms did not overtake the original pronunciation as in English. This left English with "specan," which then became "speken," before acquiring the modern spelling. Standard German has "sprechen," Low German and Dutch have "spreken," West Frisian has "sprekke."

The German Question, Part Ninety-Five

"A Divisive Treaty" Part Six/B
"Territorial Changes/Austria"

It is very important to note, the Versailles Treaty provided that Germany and Austria could not unite; thus throwing out the results of the early referendums in Austria, which had overwhelming support for Austrian unification with Germany. Understand, this was not the Austria of the just ended war, but rather the German part left over after the Austro-Hungarian Empire came apart. The population was approximately six and one half million, with a Hungarian minority of about 25,000 in the eastern part of the country, a Croatian minority of about 44,000 in the southeastern area, and a Slovenian minority in the south.* There were other very small minorities, including Gypsies, but Jews of various nationality backgrounds numbered at least 175,000, with most in Vienna. The German percentage of the population was likely around 95-96%; that is, those who considered themselves to be German.

Next in Part 6/C, the eastern boundaries.....

* Determining the Slovene population of those times is not easy. There was a referendum in some parts of the mixed German and Slovene areas to determine what sections would remain a part of Austria or to join what was to become Yugoslavia. The vote in this disputed area produced a vote of about 60% to 40% to remain part of Austria, with the 40% constituting some 14,000 votes, presumably all Slovenian. If I add in a thousand or so children and some non-voters (turnout was high), I'll call it 15,000 or so. The problem is, this was only in one area, and more Slovenes lived in a neighboring district, although much of the southern part of that district did join Slovenia, which became part of Yugoslavia.

WORD HISTORY:
Meat-This word traces back to Indo European "met/med/mat," which signified "measure." This gave Old Germanic "matiz," which had the notion of "portion of food" (Get it? Portion=measurement). This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "mete," still with the general meaning of "food, portion of food." By the 1300s, the word came to be used more and more to mean "flesh prepared as food." Close English relatives standard German, Low German, and Dutch all also have a form of the word with the "meat" meaning: German has "Mettwurst," a type of sausage, but this was borrowed from Low German "Met(t)," which meant "finely chopped or ground meat." Dutch too has "Metworst." Old High German had "maz," with the general "food" meaning, but the word has since died out, as did forms in West Frisian. So, did English perhaps influence its kindred languages in northwestern Europe, or did they influence the English meaning? Or was this "meat" meaning a secondary meaning anyway among the West Germanic languages (see note) when the Anglo-Saxons left the continent; remaining unrecorded amongst the common folk until gaining traction at a later time? Whatever the case, during the 1300s, the word began to overtake "flesh," which had been the general English word for "meat."

NOTE: The North Germanic languages retained the "food" meaning, as Danish has "mad," Swedish and Norwegian have "mat," and Icelandic has "matur," all meaning "food."

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 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.